Substance vs. Style: Students Weigh in on the Vice Presidential Debate

It’s been just over one week since the Vice Presidential debate between Sen. J.D. Vance and Gov. Tim Walz marked the final showdown before election day. With the spotlight on both parties, this was their last chance to define who they are – and now, the future is in voters’ hands. 

Artwork by Haley Scull/The Barnard Bulletin

By Lillie Laing

October 9, 2024

The debate, held in New York City on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, featured Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz and was moderated by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan. By Wednesday morning, campus buzzed with lively discussions among students about which candidate would best address the topics they care about most. 

For countless young voters, pivotal issues will determine which ticket they will ultimately support, including the economy, the cost of living, abortion rights, immigration, foreign policy, climate change, and gun control. From Donald Trump’s TikTok with social media star Logan Paul to Kamala Harris’s “brat” summer memes, it seems that the candidates are increasingly trying to appeal to younger voters to lock in their vote for November, turning the election into a contest for media attention. 

The election is now a public showdown about which candidates can capture the most media attention. With all eyes on these four politicians for the next month, the real question is: who do the American people feel can most likely get the job done? And what do Columbia and Barnard students make of it all? 

“The vice presidential debate resulted in a contest between presentation versus substance,” said John Brunner (CC ‘25).  

Many students, most of whom have grown up in the age of political debates stewing to personal attacks, found themselves in complete shock from the very start of the debate—both candidates shook hands willingly and appeared to focus more on substance rather than attacking each other. Stella Chuck (BC ‘25) said it was “crazy because [she has] only seen debates in the past eight years where candidates make no sense or debate subjects that are unrelated to debate topics.” For Maia Brooks (BC ‘26), it was “very refreshing and focused, especially after the last two presidential debates.” 

Students seemed more shocked by the cordiality of the debate than by the content itself. “It reminded me of the Mitt Romney and Barack Obama debate,” said Sophie Conrad (BC ‘25). 

Throughout the event, both candidates addressed each other respectfully as “Senator” and “Governor,” maintaining a tone of mutual respect. Gov. Walz even remarked, “I don’t think Sen. Vance and I are that far apart. I’m not opposed to what he’s talking about on options.” Sen. Vance similarly agreed with Gov. Walz’s immigration policy, “I actually think I agree with you.” 

For student voters, the goal isn’t to find candidates who are in agreement; rather, they are looking for specific policies that differentiate each candidate and their platforms. 

“Debates never address specific policies in the U.S.,” said Brooks. “It’s ironic how they kept agreeing on the economy and immigration when their policies couldn’t be more different.” 

The irony of Sen. Vance’s concurrence with Gov. Walz on immigration raises questions, considering the differences between their party platforms. Vice President Harris has criticized many of the Trump administration’s immigration policies. She has endorsed President Biden’s initiatives to restore some measures that former President Trump had shot down during his presidency. She supports a bipartisan proposal for tighter border control and strongly advocates for “an earned pathway to citizenship.” 

In contrast, former President Trump’s plan includes detaining undocumented immigrants until deportation and revoking legal status for those granted entry. He has also proposed reinstating a travel ban affecting majority-Muslim countries. Given these varying positions, Sen. Vance’s agreement with Gov. Walz’s immigration policies seems questionable, given both tickets have conflicting perspectives. 

This tension became evident during the debate when both candidates began interjecting conflicting remarks during their exchange on immigration. Moderator Brennan had to step in, stating, “The audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut.” Brennan briefly added that the migrants were legal, after CBS had claimed that it would be up to the politicians, not the moderators, to check the facts of their opponents. 

In the Harris-Trump debate, fact-checking was crucial for clarity. Without it, many Americans struggled to discern what was real. While CBS provided an online resource, quick headlines on screen are more accessible, reflecting the reality that many Americans prefer readily available information. 

“Vance’s claims were filled with loose accusations and he preyed on people who are not politically well versed,” said Brooks.

Sen. Vance stated on Sept. 15 that he and former President Trump were willing “to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention.” 

After former President Trump’s claims about Haitian migrants eating cats and dogs in the last presidential debate, the media erupted with all forms of coverage dedicated to the assertion. Some found it troubling that such claims require debunking, as evidenced by the rumor of Sen. Vance having sex with a couch. 

While the media’s role is to safeguard democracy and debunk falsehoods, it has focused heavily on the controversies surrounding candidates, turning elections into a competition for public favor. 

Jules Kramer (BC ‘27) said that Sen. Vance “spoke strongly, regardless of if what he was saying was factual,” coming across as “confident, which played into his strength.” Nori Leybengrub (BC ‘25) noted how Sen. Vance appealed to his audience and expressed himself “in a way that Americans could relate to him.” It seems that relatability is exactly what Americans are yearning for. 

For Brunner, “Vance appeared to be the more polished, smooth-talking candidate,” but “the substance of his performance contained little actual policy and was rampant with falsehoods.” In contrast, he described Gov. Walz as “while lacking in presentation points, was more substantially meaningful as he made the case for his ticket - and more broadly for American democracy.” Gov. Walz was also described by Brooks as “clearly nervous but very prepared.” 

However, it seems that policy wasn’t the biggest takeaway from this debate for most students. 

“What truly struck me was Vance’s inability to acknowledge and affirm Trump’s loss in the 2020 election,” Brooks said. Kramer added that Sen. Vance showed “no backbone and is just Trump’s running mate for his own gain.” Gov. Tim Walz succinctly captured the sentiment during the debate when Sen. Vance dismissed his question about whether he believed former President Trump had lost the 2020 election, stating, “That is a damning non-answer.” 

Students who characterized Gov. Walz as well-prepared highlighted this moment in the debate. His strategy primarily focused on discrediting former President Trump while emphasizing his policies and illustrating how former President Trump’s initiatives failed to benefit the American people. 

“He had four years to do this, and he promised you, America, how easy it would be. ‘I’ll build you a big, beautiful wall, and Mexico will pay for it.’ Less than 2% of that wall got built, and Mexico didn’t pay a dime,” said Gov. Walz. 

For some students, the debate’s intention to increase voter turnout is unclear. 

“I’m not sure it made a big impact on voters,” stated Cadence Gronsky (BC ‘25). Yet, “I do think the debate was a positive step toward healthier democratic discourse rather than a negative one.” 

The biggest takeaway for students at Barnard and Columbia appears to be the friendliness and apparent similarity of opinions expressed during the debate between the candidates. Yet, the question remains: presentation or substance—what matters most? For many students, the substance seems to take precedence. But what about the broader American electorate? Will policy truly be the deciding factor in the election, and will it influence voters to lean one way or another?  

In Brunner’s words: “Ultimately, American voters will decide which is more important to them.”