Politics is messy. Watching a Vice Presidential debate usually feels like a polite exercise in staying on message until someone brings up a statistic that sounds just a little too perfect. We’ve seen it time and again. Candidates stand behind their lecterns, look into the camera, and drop numbers about the economy or immigration that make you tilt your head. Honestly, if you felt like you were being spun during the last round, you probably were.
Fact checking VP debate performances isn't just about catching lies. It’s about the "half-truth"—that annoying gray area where a number is technically real but the context has been stripped away until it means something else entirely.
The Economy and the Numbers Game
Let's talk about the manufacturing "boom." You've heard it. One side claims they created hundreds of thousands of jobs, while the other says the industry is in a recession. Who's right? Well, both. Sorta.
When candidates discuss job growth, they love to pick a specific start date that makes their record look like a rocket ship. For instance, claiming "800,000 new manufacturing jobs" often ignores the fact that many of those were simply positions returning after the pandemic lockdowns ended. It wasn't necessarily "new" growth; it was a recovery. On the flip side, when the opposition points to a "manufacturing slump," they might be looking at a single quarter of data while ignoring a two-year upward trend. It's a game of goalposts.
Inflation is another favorite. You'll hear that "wages are up," which is true. But if prices for eggs and car insurance rose faster than those wages, the average person feels poorer. A candidate who only mentions the wage hike without the cost-of-living context is technically being factual but functionally misleading. Economists from groups like the Tax Foundation or Brookings Institution often have to step in after these debates to remind everyone that "up" doesn't always mean "better."
The Border and Immigration Myths
Immigration is arguably the most heated topic in any fact checking VP debate session. The rhetoric usually involves "open borders" or "mass deportations."
🔗 Read more: The Horror in Bell: What Really Happened When Don Spirit Killed His Family
Let’s be real: the border isn't "open" in the sense that there are no guards or fences. However, the sheer volume of encounters at the southern border has hit record highs in recent years, reaching over 2 million in some fiscal years. When a candidate says the border is secure, they are ignoring the strain on federal resources. When the other candidate says there is no enforcement, they are ignoring the thousands of deportations and Title 42 or subsequent removals that happen every month.
Then there's the Fentanyl issue.
Most Fentanyl is seized at legal ports of entry, often smuggled by U.S. citizens.
If a candidate implies that the drug is mostly coming over the fence in the backpacks of asylum seekers, they are misrepresenting how the cartels actually operate. Data from the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) consistently shows that the majority of seizures happen in vehicles at checkpoints.
Energy, Fracking, and the Flip-Flops
Did they or didn't they?
Candidates love to haunt each other with past quotes.
"I never said I’d ban fracking."
Actually, if there’s a video of you saying it in 2019, you can’t really claim you never said it. But you can say your position has evolved. The nuance here is that executive power over fracking is limited mostly to federal lands. Most fracking happens on private land, where the VP or President has very little say.
✨ Don't miss: Why Pictures of the Three Branches of Government Still Matter in a Digital Age
The "Energy Independence" claim is another weird one. The U.S. has actually been a net exporter of petroleum since 2020. Yet, we still import oil because our refineries are often tuned for "heavy" crude from abroad rather than the "light" sweet crude we produce at home. So, when a candidate says "we are energy independent" or "we are a failing energy nation," they are both playing with definitions to suit their base.
Healthcare and the "Protection" Promise
Protecting pre-existing conditions is the "motherhood and apple pie" of political stances. Everybody says they’ll do it. But how?
If a candidate says their opponent wants to "strip away healthcare from 20 million people," they are usually referring to a specific piece of legislation that would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the goal of the repeal might be to "replace" it, if there isn't a drafted, scored bill ready to go, the claim that people would lose coverage carries weight. On the other hand, if a candidate claims the ACA has "lowered premiums for everyone," they’re ignoring the millions of middle-class families who don't qualify for subsidies and have seen their deductibles skyrocket.
Why the "Zinger" Usually Fails the Fact Check
We all love a good burn.
But the best zingers are usually prepared in a room by six consultants and rely on a very shaky premise.
When a VP candidate says, "My opponent voted against funding for the police," it might mean the opponent voted against a massive 2,000-page omnibus bill that happened to include a tiny sliver of police funding, even if they disagreed with the other 99% of the bill. It's a classic "gotcha" that collapses under five seconds of scrutiny.
How to Do Your Own Fact Checking
You don't need to be a policy wonk to see through the smoke.
First, look for the "omitted variable."
If someone gives you a percentage, ask: "A percentage of what?"
If someone says "crime is up," check if they mean violent crime or property crime, and compared to which year?
The FBI changed their data collection system recently (NIBRS), which meant many cities didn't report their data for a while. This created a "data gap" that politicians on both sides have used to claim whatever they want about crime trends.
Actionable Steps for the Next Debate:
- Wait for the "Non-Partisan" Score: Don't trust the instant reactions on social media. Wait 24 hours for organizations like PolitiFact, the Washington Post Fact Checker, or FactCheck.org to move past the surface-level quotes.
- Check the Source Material: If a candidate cites a "new study," Google it. Often, those studies are funded by advocacy groups with a specific agenda rather than independent academic institutions.
- Look for "Loaded" Language: Phrases like "virtually all," "unprecedented," or "failed policy" are emotional triggers, not factual descriptors.
- Watch the Primary Sources: Go to BLS.gov for jobs data or Treasury.gov for debt and deficit numbers. The raw data is often much less dramatic than the debate stage version.
Navigating the aftermath of a VP debate requires a healthy dose of skepticism and a willingness to look past the punchlines. Most of what is said is a version of the truth, but rarely is it the whole story.