Who won the Vance-Walz vice-presidential debate?

Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz was a civil, relatively restrained conversation about the issues facing American voters during the 2024 election campaign.

In that, it was unlike the two presidential debates earlier this year.

There were moments when Vance bristled at what he though was unfair fact-checking from the two CBS moderators, and at one point microphones of both candidates were temporarily muted. But for the most part the exchanges between the two candidates – and the candidates and the moderators – were civil.

There were even times when the two candidates agreed – and said so.

“There’s a lot of commonality here,” Walz said toward the end of the evening.

When the topic turned to affordable housing policy, co-moderator Nora O’Donnell noted that both candidates seemed to care strongly about the issue. And when Walz spoke of his 17-year-old witnessing a shooting at a community center, Vance seemed genuinely concerned.

“I’m sorry about that and I hope he’s doing OK,” Vance said. “Christ have mercy, it is awful.”

But the two arrived with different images and skills, which was evident from the start of the debate.

Vance typically has a smoother delivery and appears more experienced on television, while Walz has a more down-to-earth, everyman feel.

Early on, Vance’s answers Tuesday night flowed clearly and he seemed more confident, while Walz stumbled, seeming uncomfortable, stilted and unfamiliar with certain topics.

A tempered debate, with few political body blows, also probably served Vance best in the end, as it gave him space to defend running mate Donald Trump, and smooth over some of the former president’s rougher edges.

If Vance was picked because he puts ideological meat on the bones of Trump’s conservative populism, on Tuesday night Vance put a polite, humble face on them, as well.

“Something these guys do is they make a lot of claims about if Donald Trump becomes president, all of these terrible consequences are going to ensue,” he said. “But in reality, Donald Trump was president. Inflation was low. Take home pay was higher.”

The most vigorous disagreements came toward the end of the debate, on the topic of Trump’s repeated contentions that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Vance, when asked if Trump lost the last presidential election, dodged the question and criticised what he said was Kamala Harris’s censorship.

Walz quickly noted that it was a “damning non-answer”.

“To deny what happened on January 6, the first time an American president or anyone tried to overturn an election, this has got to stop. “It’s tearing our country apart.”

Walz went on to say that the only reason Mike Pence, Trump’s previous vice-president, was not on stage was because he certified President Joe Biden’s victory.

Vance had no answer to that, highlighting that beyond his friendly demeanour and agreeability, he would not break from Trump’s unsubstantiated claims.

Vance and Walz entered this debate with different skill sets. Vance has sparred with journalists on television in heated exchanges. Walz is at home on the campaign stump, using his folksy style in contrast to more polished politicians.

In the early part of this debate, with both candidates standing behind podiums in a New York City television studio, Vance seemed much more comfortable. His answers were smooth, and relentlessly on-message, constantly reminding the audience that for all of Vice-President Kamala Harris’s promises, Democrats have held the White House for the past three and a half years.

“If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle class problems, then she ought to do them now,” he said.

Walz, for his part, seemed halting and unsure on the opening topic, dealing with Tuesday’s Iranian missile attack on Israel. The Minnesota governor rarely talks about foreign policy, and his discomfort on the subject was apparent.

The Democrat settled in as the debate moved along, and during his exchanges with Vance on the topic of immigration – an area of strength for the Republicans – both delivered well-honed messages.

Vance deflected accusations that he amplified false claims about Haitian immigrants stealing and eating pets in Ohio.

“The people I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio are the American citizens who have had their lives ruined by Kamala Harris’s border policies,” he said.

Vance said undocumented migration burdens city resources, drives up prices and pushes down wages.

Walz pointed to Trump’s opposition to proposed bipartisan immigration legislation earlier this year.

“I believe Senator Vance wants to solve this, but by standing with Donald Trump and not working together to find a solution, it becomes a talking point, and when it becomes a talking point like this, we dehumanize and villainize other human beings.”

When the topic turned to abortion – an area of strength for Democrats, according to polls – it was Vance who played defence, acknowledging that Republicans have to work to earn the trust of American voters.

“I want us as a Republican Party to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word,” he said. “I want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies. There’s so much we can do on the public policy front just to give women more options.”

Walz countered by saying that the Democratic view on abortion is simple: “We are pro-women. We are pro-freedom to make your own choice.”

If Walz was more pointed on abortion, he declined to push his attacks when the subject turned to gun control.

After Vance said that it was important to increase security in schools, making doors and windows “stronger”, Walz talked up background checks rather than endorsing Democratic calls for bans on assault weapons and other limitations firearms.

As a congressman, Walz regularly voted in favour of gun rights and against many gun control measures, winning the praise of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. During the debate he said his views on gun control changed after the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, but some Democrats may be disappointed he did not press Vance more Tuesday night.

American political history suggests that vice-presidential debates don’t really matter.

In 1988, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen dismantled Republican Dan Quayle. A few months later, Quayle was sworn in as vice-president after his ticket won in a landslide.

It may turn out that this debate is similarly irrelevant to November’s results. Unless there is a last minute debate announced, however, it will be the last word both parties have on a debate stage before Election Day.

Walz did no harm to the Democratic ticket and showed some of the midwestern charm that made him Harris’s choice.

But Vance’s strong performance is likely to buoy Republicans in the days ahead.

And the debate’s lasting impact may be to convince members of his party that the Ohio senator – who is only 40 – has a future in national conservative politics, given his ability to clearly advance their ideological priorities on the brightest of stages.