The only vice presidential debate of the 2024 election was held last tonight. It featured Republican nominee J.D. Vance and Democratic nominee Tim Walz. This debate was a more civilized affair with references and mentions of technology by both candidates. The styles of the two candidates were very different which made for a more stilted debate. Vance came across as a polished debater, and Walz showed that he doesn't come from a profession that emphasizes debating and arguments. This doesn't mean that Walz had a weak debate performance; it was a difference in style.
The main source of references and/or discussion on technology was climate change. It was interesting that Vance was willing to plausible that carbon dioxide emissions cause climate change. As far as I know this is the closest a modern Republican vice-presidential candidate has come to admitting climate change exists. Vance then argues that the best plan would be to re-shore jobs to the US, which has the cleanest economy. Since Vance's running mate has been openly in denial of climate change this is quite a change. Unfortunately, Vance does a pivot towards the fact that jobs were off-shored, in particular to China. It is hard to fathom that a Presidential campaign doesn't have a policy for dealing with something that an overwhelming amount of scientists believe is occurring.
Tim Walz responded to Vance's plan by pointing out that the Biden-Harris administration has already on 200,000 jobs from passing the Inflation Reduction Act. He then continued by discussing the Harris plan of continuing oil and gas exploration while transitioning to a green future of solar panels and wind turbines. He mentioned that in Minnesota has the largest solar manufacturer in the US. Electric vehicle batteries are being manufactured in Jeffersonville, Ohio. Walz scored a victory by clearly separating the reality of U.S. manufacturing coming back to America versus the supposed Vance-Trump plan. I was excited as this debate topic was early in the evening, and I had hopes we would hear more about policies in regards to different technologies further in the debate. This would be the last substantial discussion regarding technology in the debate.
Towards the end of the debate as the candidates were discussing January 6th 2021 and whether the candidates would respect the outcome of the election the issue of social media censorship was brought up by Vance. Vance was using this topic, which should have been debated, rather disingenuously to create a he said she said opportunity to lay blame equally on Democrats and thus avoid the blame that Republicans right fully deserve for actions that are no less than despicable. Vance laid out the claim that Hillary Clinton was complaining about Russian interference for Republicans in 2016 preceded, and tried to claim that it was exactly the same as the actions taken by Trump on January 6th to incite a mob to violently attack the Capitol building. He tried to lay the equivalency by using sharp rhetorical language, and with the debate moderators not attempting to fact check the candidates he could land the false equivalency. The issue of foreign interference using social media platforms deserves the voters knowing what the policy solutions each side is proposing. It doesn't deserve to be used as a shield for an a very important topic that one candidate desperately is looking to avoid being exposed for their inability to answer the question.
