Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate on CBS News (Lean Left) between Tim Walz and J.D. Vance was met immediately with questions about bias on the part of the moderators – as many debates do. And as with any claims of bias, they’re rooted in subjective interpretation. The key is to read about these interpretations from different sides.

RELATED: Vance's Mic Cut Off and Other Biased Moments from Debate

Members of the AllSides team on the left, right, and center went through each of the questions posed to the candidates. In general, the AllSides team noted appreciation for the frequent attempts at agreement and common ground the candidates made during the debate. Here are other reactions from our team, edited slightly for brevity.

Jump to questions on…

•  Middle East
•  Climate Change
•  Immigration
•  Economy
•  Past Inaccuracies
•  Abortion
•  Guns
•  Inflation
•  Healthcare
•  Child Care
•  Democracy

Middle East

“Iran launched its largest attack yet on Israel, but that attack failed thanks to joint U.S. and Israeli defense. President Biden has deployed more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel and assets to that region over the past year to try to prevent a regional war. Iran is weakened, but the U.S. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks time. Governor Walz, if you were in the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?” → Walz

• “Senator Vance, the U.S. did have a diplomatic deal with Iran to temporarily pause parts of its nuclear program and President Trump did exit that deal. He recently said, just 5 days ago, the U.S. must now make a diplomatic deal with Iran because the consequences are impossible. Did he make a mistake?” → Vance 

Evan Wagner, Lean Left: The first question was about a major conflict escalation under the Biden administration’s watch, which happened earlier in the day, and it was directed to Walz. To me, that was a signal from the CBS moderators that they saw their role as scrutinizing both candidates on behalf of voters. Trump and his political allies make a much less credible case than the Harris camp, but lopsided scrutiny makes many viewers turn their ears off.

Clare Ashcraft, Center: I think this was a fair line of questioning. Given current events, they asked the same question to both. They did ask a follow-up to Vance that I think some could perceive as unfair because the framing implies that Trump may have made a mistake, but I do think in the context of Trump’s comments it is fair. 

Olivia Geno, Lean Right: These questions were fair overall, addressing each party’s concerns about the situation in the Middle East. However, Vance faced a more pointed follow-up, seemingly aimed at prompting criticism of Trump, while Walz wasn’t questioned about his running mate. 

Climate Change

“Let's turn now to hurricane Helene. The storm could become one of the deadliest on record. More than 160 people are dead and hundreds more are missing. Scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the historic rainfall. Senator Vance, according to CBS polling, 7 in 10 Americans and more than 60% of Republicans under the age of 45 favors the US taking steps to reduce climate change. Senator, what responsibility would the Trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change?” → Vance 

Julie Mastrine, Lean Right: This question is biased not only because it attributes a specific weather event to climate change — which is not directly evident and something the left is always willing to do — it also commits bias by omission, because it does not address the true issue Americans have been discussing all week: Why are we sending billions of tax dollars to Ukraine and Israel while Americans suffer at home? 

Clare: Outlets on the left tend to link severe weather to climate change more often. While there is scientific evidence that climate change makes weather worse, there isn’t evidence to directly link climate change to making hurricane Helene worse, so grouping the two as one topic and implying correlation is Lean Left biased.

Evan: Smoking while pregnant is not guaranteed to impact the development of a specific child, but it significantly increases that risk. A recent hurricane is a very sensible hook for a climate change question, for the same reason that any responsible doctor will tell an expectant mother not to smoke.

Immigration

“The crisis at the US/Mexican border consistently ranks as one of the top issues for American voters. Senator Vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out one of the largest mass deportation plans in U.S. history and to use the U.S. military to do so. Could you be more specific about how exactly this will work? For example, would you deport parents who entered the US illegally and separate them from any of their children who were born on U.S. soil?” → Vance 

• “Governor, do you care to respond to any of those specific allegations, including ‘that the vice president is letting in fentanyl and using kids as drug mules among other things?’” → Walz

• “Senator, the question was will you separate parents from their children, even if their kids are US citizens.”→ Vance 

• “The Governor has made the point, and I think as a sitting lawmaker you know that congress controls the purse strings and any funding. So you have said repeatedly that Donald Trump, through executive action, would solve this, do you disagree that congress controls the purse strings it would need to support many of the changes you would actually want to implement?” → Vance

• “Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status.” → Vance 

Henry A. Brechter, Center:  This line of questioning felt skewed against Vance. Walz didn’t face any direct questions about Harris’s role on immigration or the state of the border under her administration.

Evan: These questions definitely implied more skepticism of Trump’s immigration stances than Harris’. It seems like the moderators replaced a pre-written question for Walz by asking him to respond to a Vance accusation, and I’m curious what that question was — they should have asked it to balance this exchange. That said, immigration is a much better issue for the Republican side this year, and they led with polling that said so.

Julie: The family separation issue is frequently used as a weapon to make Republicans look heartless. CBS gave a clear example of why Americans don’t trust the media when they fact checked Vance on Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH — cutting him off and muting his mic. Silencing Vance and adding the condescending remark, “We have a lot to get to” made transparent how many journalists are loyal to enforcing Democratic narratives and silencing dissent. It was good, however, that CBS said one of their polls indicated most Americans support mass deportations. A more biased outlet would not have highlighted this.

Clare: I agree that this question was biased against Vance. Among the entire topic of immigration and its associated issues, they chose to ask whether he would separate families. However, the moderators did bring up polling support for mass deportations, which was a good attempt at balance.

Economy

“Each of your campaigns has released an economic plan, so let's talk about the specifics. Governor Walz, VP Harris unveiled a plan that includes billions in tax credits for manufacturing, housing, and a renewed child tax credit. The Wharton School says your proposals will increase the nation's deficit by 1.2 trillion dollars. How would you pay for that without ballooning the deficit?” → Walz

• “The Wharton School has done an analysis of the Trump plan and says it would increase the nation's deficit by 5.8 trillion. My question is the same for you, how do you pay for all that without ballooning the deficit?” → Vance 

• “Governor Walz, can you address that? Voters say they trust Trump on the economy more.” → Walz 

Evan: Actually, there are several other “economic citations” that explicitly side with Harris’ policies, including a Financial Times (Center bias) survey of economists and a Moody’s economic analysis. Perhaps the moderators should have mentioned either all or none of these studies to be balanced. But I like that the candidates were given a broad category to discuss and plenty of time to respond to each other. A good moderator keeps conversations in bounds, makes sure a diverse range of topics is covered, and doesn’t try to micromanage the debate.

Clare: It was biased for the moderators to base their question off of only the Wharton analysis, which is one of the only economic citations that makes Harris look better on the economy. Polling shows voters trust Trump more on the economy and economists saying her “ban on price gouging” would be ineffective, yet of these, they only mention the polling on the economy after Vance brings it up, not when giving the context for the original question.

Olivia: The first two questions were subtly biased against Vance, but it was a clever strategy by the moderators. By citing a Wharton School analysis, where Trump graduated, Vance was more likely to engage with the question rather than challenge the data. While he expressed distrust of economists, it was a smart tactic. The final question to Walz helped balance things, though the moderators should have cited data to back their claim about voters trusting Trump more on the economy. 

Past Inaccuracies 

“I want to talk about personal qualifications. The Vice President is often the last voice the President hears before making consequential decisions. We want to ask you about your leadership qualities. Gov Walz you said you were in Hong Kong during the deadly Tiananmen Square protests of in the spring of 1989. But Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets are reporting you actually didn’t travel to Asia until August of that year. Can you explain that discrepancy?” → Walz

• “Governor, just to follow up on that, the question was: Can you explain the discrepancy?” → Walz
• “Senator Vance, in 2016 you called your running mate Donald Trump unfit for the nation's highest office, and you said he could be America’s Hitler. I know you’ve said, and you’ve been asked many times, that you regret those comments, and explained you voted for Donald Trump in 2020. But the Washington Post reported new messages last week in which you also disparaged Trump’s economic record while he was president, writing to someone in 2020 ‘Trump thoroughly failed to deliver his economic populism.’ You’re now his running mate, and you’ve shifted many of your policy stances to align with his. If you become Vice President, why should Americans trust that you will give Donald Trump the advice he needs to hear and not just the advice he wants to hear?” → Vance 

Julie: This added balance.

Clare: Walz did not do well on this question and the moderators did not help him out of it either. I think the questions from the moderators on this one were fair.

Sara Oppenheimer, Lean Left: This question is a strong example of the job of the moderators– asking the candidates hard questions on their beliefs and previous statements. Walz faltered here without a doubt, but Vance’s shifting of blame to media bias was hard to believe, due to his position as a senator.

Evan: The Tiananmen Square thing is pretty silly in my opinion and not even close to the opportunism displayed by Vance. I bet viewers mostly shrugged it off, even though Walz flubbed his answer. The moderators should have asked Walz about his stark ideological shift from being a moderate blue dog in Congress to probably the most effective progressive governor in office today. Was that for political convenience, or is he serious about progressive values?

Abortion

“Now to the issue of reproductive rights. Gov Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made MN one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote ‘in the 9th month, is absolutely fine.’ Yes or no?” → Walz

• “Senator, let me ask you about that. He mentioned, referring to a national ban, in the past you have supported a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In fact, you said if someone can’t support legislation like that, ‘you are making the United States the most barbaric, pro-abortion regime in the entire world.’ My question is, why have you changed your position?” → Vance 

Clare: “Reproductive rights” is a Lean Left word choice when talking about abortion. Walz made a comment about Project 2025 making it harder to access contraception and fertility treatment. CBS fact check added context to the claim, clarifying what Project 2025 says, but they did not reiterate that Trump has repeatedly said he has nothing to do with Project 2025. His agenda is Agenda 47.

Julie: Walz called Project 2025 “their Project 2025,” incorrectly claiming it is a project of the Trump/Vance campaign when it is actually a project of the Heritage Foundation; Trump has explicitly denounced it. While one could argue Trump’s ties to people who contributed to the project are indicative of what he may do, that’s totally in the realm of speculation and beyond the bounds of objective journalism. If moderators were willing to fact check Vance on temporary protected status, they ought to have fact checked Walz on this (though to be clear, debate moderators should do absolutely no fact checking, since they clearly can’t do it fairly and it often shows bias).

Evan: Agree that the framing is pretty left-skewed on this question. Trump and Vance have both staked out a moderate position on abortion (and would like everyone to forget who Trump appointed to the Supreme Court), but Vance did a very good job holding that position. 

Henry: This was a good opportunity for CBS moderators to step in and clarify vagueness from Walz about Minnesota’s abortion law, as they did for Vance earlier in the night. They did not. It’s possible they weren’t privy to the language of the law; if that’s the case, it stands as evidence that moderators should refrain from any live “fact checking” if they’re unable to do it for any and all claims made.

Guns

“We want to turn now to America’s gun violence epidemic. The leading cause of death for children and teens in America is by firearms. Senator Vance, you oppose most gun violence legislation democrats claim would curb gun violence. You oppose red flag gun laws and legislation to ban certain semiautomatic rifles. Let me ask you, earlier this year, for the first time, the parents of a school shooter were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison. Do you think holding parents responsible could curb mass shootings?” → Vance

• “Governor, you previously opposed and assault weapons ban but only later in your political career, did you change your position, why?” → Walz 

Clare: Their original question is regarding curbing mass shootings and assault weapons bans, but the statistic they use about guns being the leading cause of death includes both suicides and teenagers age 18 and 19 in the statistic. Some outlets on the right consider the statistic misleading because it includes those who are technically adults.

Evan: This was a softball for Vance — public opinion is not polarized around parental accountability, allowing him to just give the smartest answer he could think of — and a curveball for Walz, framing a response to changing voter opinion as a flip-flop. This is my pet peeve. To some extent, lawmakers should do what their constituents want them to do, and that means changing your position sometimes!

Olivia: Like Clare, my main critique is that the moderators cited misleading data. Vance got a more general question and Walz a more pointed one, which helped Walz clarify his position. I respect politicians who are willing to change their stances based on new information and feedback from constituents. Walz’s question highlighted this flexibility, while Vance had the opportunity to discuss his trust in the legal system, which was equally important.

Inflation

“Let's turn now to the top contributor to inflation, the high cost of housing and rent. There’s a shortage of over 4 million homes in the United States, and that contributes to the high housing prices. Govenor Walz, the Harris campaign, promises a $20k down payment assistance for first time homebuyers and a $10k tax credit. They also promise to build 3 million new homes. Where are you building these homes and won’t handing out that kind of money just drive up prices?” → Walz

• “Senator Vance, as far as your campaign’s position, the promise is to seize federal lands to build homes, remove regulation, provide tax breaks and to cut back on immigration, which you say pushes up prices. Where are you going to build all the new homes you’re promising, and what part of any of this plan will provide immediate relief?” → Vance
• “Senator, where are you going to seize the federal lands? Can you clarify?” → Vance

• “Governor, I do want to let you respond to the allegation the vice president is letting in migrants and that it's affecting home prices.” → Walz

• “Senator, I would like you to clarify, there are many contributing factors to high housing costs, what evidence do you have that migrants are part of this problem?” → Vance 

Sara: Both questions from the moderators raised important concerns regarding each side’s solution for the housing crisis. While I do believe the cross examination of the candidates on this issue should have been more balanced, it is entirely within the moderator’s duty to call out Vance’s comment on immigration being the main factor in housing inflation. 

Clare: The first several questions are fair to both candidates. Then they ask Vance, “What evidence do you have that migrants are part of this problem?” While the CBS News live fact checks earlier in the night said in part, “research indicates that a growth in immigration under the Biden administration is one factor fueling housing demand.”So CBS News already had evidence that migrants are a part of the problem, in fact, they linked to it.

Olivia: The moderators handled this section of the debate well. They asked both candidates targeted questions about their policies related to housing and inflation and gave Vance the opportunity to clarify when he initially did not answer the question, which, I thought, worked in his favor. Walz was provided an opportunity to clarify his position in a different section of the debate, so I think this is balanced.

Evan: Glad this question was skeptical in both directions. I believe a lack of supply is the sole driver of the housing crisis — obviously there are other things influence home values and rents, but we wouldn’t have a crisis if not for the supply problem — and it’s frustrating that neither side will embrace that view wholeheartedly, though I was glad to see Harris give it some lip service at the DNC.

Henry: This is a good, practical question about a pretty pressing issue.

Healthcare

“One of the top problems facing Americans is the high cost of healthcare. Senator Vance, at the last presidential debate, former president Donald Trump was asked about replacing the Affordable Care Act. In response, he said, ‘I have concepts of a plan.’ Since then, Senator, you’ve talked about changing the way that chronically ill people get health insurance. Can you explain how that would work? And can you guarantee that Americans with preexisting conditions won’t pay more?” → Vance

• “Senator, you have not yet explained how you would protect people with preexisting conditions or laid out that plan.”→ Vance 
• “Governor, did enrollment under the Affordable Care Act go up under the Trump administration?” → Walz 

Clare: Good questions.

Sara: Both questions were strong, focusing on Former President Trump’s handling of national healthcare, though the moderators did give Walz an easier question which gave him a clear path to lead in Harris’s policies. Vance dodged the question entirely.

Evan: The question to Walz was pointless and easy for him to talk away from. It should have got at the heart of the matter more directly, which is that Trump probably wouldn’t try to repeal the ACA, so why should voters see a healthcare-related reason to vote Democrat? But Walz wisely brought up the Biden administration’s strong reduction in prescription drug prices as a model for the Harris administration’s approach of “protecting and enhancing” the ACA.

Olivia: This section showed some bias. On one hand, it gave Vance the opportunity to defend Trump’s record on healthcare. On the other hand, the framing was especially critical of Trump's healthcare policy, while Walz was asked a more general and less biased question. 

Child Care

“There is a childcare crisis in this country, and the United States is one of the very few developed countries in the world without a national paid leave program for new parents. Governor Walz, you’ve said that if the Democrats win both the White House and congress, this is a day one priority for you. How long should employers be required to pay workers while they are home taking care of their newborns?” → Walz

• “Senator, do you support a national paid leave program? And if so, for how long should employers be mandated to pay their employees while they are taking care of their newborn?” → Vance
• “You have also said, Senator Vance, many things about the American family. The Federal Reserve says parents will spend nearly as much on childcare as they will on housing each month. So I want to get your thoughts on this. President Trump recently said, ‘as much as childcare is talked about as being expensive, it’s relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kinds of numbers we’ll be taking in.’ Is President Trump committed to the $5K per child tax credit that you have described?” → Vance

• “Can you clarify how that will solve the childcare shortage?” → Vance 

• “Governor Walz, your ticket also has some childcare tax credit proposals. Do you think congress will agree to the $6K credit for newborns and $3K tax credit for children over the age of 6 as your campaign has promised?” → Walz 

Evan: Probably the best questions of the night, but only allowed to be such because childcare is not polarized. I wish moderators in general wouldn’t have to tiptoe around rhetorical landmines set up by partisans who want to avoid constructive debate. The ABC moderators were active contributors to this problem, but the CBS moderators did a great job with the poor hand they were dealt by the state of our politics.

Olivia: These questions were balanced on their own, but in context, Vance was repeatedly asked to respond to or defend Trump’s statements, while Walz was mainly asked about his campaign’s broader stance. I believe this shows a bias.

Clare: Solid questions here as well, important for voters.

Sara: Solid questions for both sides, addressing important talking points brought up by opposition towards each side on the matters of childcare. Vance emphasized choice, but failed to elaborate on the model which would put choice in the hands of individuals. On this topic, at least, Walz came up on top.

Democracy

“Let’s talk about the state of democracy. The top issue for Americans after the economy and inflation. After the 2020 election, President Trump’s campaign and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting the results. Judges, including those appointed by president Trump and other republican presidents, looked at the evidence and said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. The governors of every state in the nation, Republicans and Democrats, certified the 2020 election results and sent a legal slate of electors to congress for January 6th. Senator Vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illegal. Would you again seek to challenge this year's election results even if every governor certifies the results?” → Vance 

Julie:  Extremely biased for the moderators to ask Vance about Jan. 6 and not ask Walz about Minneapolis riots in 2020, especially since a) Walz was the governor and b) the summer of rioting set a precedent as a precursor to Jan. 6 unrest — a common source of omission among journalists, who never mention this. Police were literally fleeing their precincts; how is rule by violent force, and the governor’s slowness to institute the National Guard, not a threat to democracy?

Clare: Note, the moderators never ask Walz a tough question of his own at the end here. As we mentioned following the last debate, many on the right see the riots during the summer of 2020 as equal if not worse than the Jan 6 riot. Since Walz was governor of a state that saw the most rioting during 2020 and there has been debate over when he chose to send in the national guard and whether he let Minneapolis burn, it would have been a good balance to press him on that.

Sara: This was a tough-on-Vance question, without much pressure on Walz, though the moderators were right to ask it. It is essential that those in office respect the law, and with that the Constitution. The 2020 riots, while important to discuss, are not of equal caliber to Jan. 6. 

Henry:  It’s unclear which data the moderator was citing when she said the “state of democracy” is a top issue for Americans. Recent studies from Pew, CNN, Statistia, YouGov, and others don’t list it.

Evan: Democratic governors across the country, including Walz, denounced the violent parts of the George Floyd protests AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. Trump still says he won the election. That’s why we still need to talk about this. Totally fair and important question, and omitting it would have been a travesty. A more equivalent tough question for Walz would have been the Biden administration’s pressuring of social media companies during COVID, but Vance smartly brought that up himself. 

Olivia: I believe the framing of the question is biased, but the common conservative comparison of January 6th to the BLM protests is flawed. The Eastman memo and other evidence clearly demonstrate Trump’s role in illegally attempting to throw out the results of the election and failing to stop the insurrection. While I condemn violent protests from both sides, a sitting president attempting to overturn an election poses a greater threat to democracy. The right to vote is fundamental, and Trump’s actions undermined the Constitution. This is different from a protest organized by citizens that escalates into violence.