US Senator JD Vance, Republican Donald Trump’s pick as his vice presidential running mate, faced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who Democrat Kamala Harris tapped to be her running mate, in a nationally televised debate.
The debate is likely the final one of the 2024 presidential campaign, potentially giving it some additional weight ahead of the 5 November election.
Here are some takeaways from the event in New York:
Dodging the question
The first question of the debate related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, asking both men if they would support a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran to disrupt the development of the latter’s nuclear program.
Neither candidate was eager to answer.
A visibly nervous Mr Walz dodged the question, pivoting to a critique of Mr Trump’s record during his four years in office.
“What’s fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter,” Mr Walz said.
“It’s clear, and the world saw it on that debate stage a few weeks ago, a nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes is not what we need in this moment,” he added.
Mr Vance appeared to rib Mr Walz for not addressing the question head on, but then segued into a description of his biography.
“My mother required food assistance for periods of her life,” said Mr Vance, who grew up in a working class Ohio household.
Mr Vance did eventually circle back to the question, saying a second Trump administration would support Israel’s decision on the matter.
But not before he offered an extended defence of Mr Trump’s foreign policy, characterising his time in office as extraordinarily peaceful.
In the opening exchange, at least, the candidates were less eager to dive into policy details than they were in litigating Mr Trump’s legacy and introducing themselves to Americans.
MAGA torchbearer
The Mr Vance that appeared on stage was the one Mr Trump’s campaign had in mind when the former president selected him as his running mate in July.
The idea then was that the 40-year-old first-term senator and best-selling author could serve as an articulate and rational voice for Mr Trump’s Make American Great Again movement as well as perhaps one day become a generational torchbearer.
But instead, Mr Vance had a rocky roll-out on the campaign trail, sometimes becoming the target of online scorn and mockery while most often serving as Mr Trump’s attack dog.
The headlines were mostly negative and his approval ratings suffered.
During the debate, Mr Vance was affable, cordial and composed, even occasionally complimentary toward Mr Walz – if not Ms Harris.
He spoke about making the American dream “attainable once again”.
He deftly answered a question on climate change by making an argument for increased US energy production.
He detailed the basis for Mr Trump’s aggressive protectionist trade policies, saying the experts were “wrong” that increased foreign trade would boost the US middle class.
In doing so, Mr Vance seemed to be succeeding at a vice presidential running mate’s primary task: Making the candidate at the top of the ticket more palatable to the viewers at home – no easy job when it comes to Mr Trump.
It was clear as the evening progressed, that was the goal of the Trump campaign in this debate, not trying to smear Mr Walz.
As one strategist said before the debate, people do not vote for the vice presidential nominee.
The Harris administration
Mr Biden has been president of the US for almost four years, but you would never have known that listening to Mr Vance.
And that was by design.
Early in the debate, Mr Vance continually implied that Ms Harris, as vice president, has been a primary decision maker in the White House on issues such as immigration and the war in Gaza.
At one point, Mr Vance referred to the “administration of Kamala Harris” and later he referred to when Ms Harris “came into office”.
It is a strategy the Trump campaign has long employed on the campaign trail – an attempt to make Ms Harris inherit Mr Biden’s political liabilities.
In his debate with Ms Harris, Mr Trump largely failed to make that connection for viewers at home.
But at rallies since then, he has repeatedly suggested that Ms Harris has had more than three years to fix the nation’s problems.
Mr Vance said something similar in a debate answer on the economy.
“If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle class problems, then she ought to do them now,” he said.
It is a tactic that has not completely borne fruit, however.
Opinion polls have shown that voters largely do not blame Ms Harris for Mr Biden’s economic and immigration policies, allowing her to cut into Mr Trump’s advantages on those issues.
Abortion
Mr Vance attempted to deliver a “compassionate conservative” message on abortion to beat back perceptions that the Republican ticket’s hardline stance on reproductive rights could cost the mvotes.
He sidestepped some of his past remarks on the issue, including previously saying he did not support exceptions to abortion bans for rape and incest.
He made the issue personal, saying he knew “young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options” and that “one of them is actually very dear to me, and I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you”.
He denied Republicans would create a federal registry to track pregnancies, despite the conservative Project 2025 policy proposals calling for the government to track abortions and miscarriages.
Mr Trump has said Project 2025 does not represent his views.
Mr Vance managed to articulate Mr Trump’s policies in a much more sympathetic and articulate way than his running mate.
“I want us as a Republican Party to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word,” Mr Vance said.
Mr Walz also effectively argued for the Democrats’ position on the issue, describing individual cases of women who were endangered or even died due to restrictive abortion legislation.
But given his campaign’s polling advantage on the issue, he would have liked a clear win from the exchange.
Rough patches
Both Mr Walz and Mr Vance tried to explain away past statements that undercut their credibility.
For Mr Walz, it was media reports this week that he was not in Hong Kong in June 1989 during the uprising at Tiananmen Square in China, despite having said several times he was there on a teaching trip.
In fact, Mr Walz was in Nebraska at the time and did not travel to Hong Kong until August of that year.
Asked about the misleading claim, Mr Walz delivered a meandering answer about growing up in a small town and being elected to Congress.
“I’ve not been perfect and I’m a knucklehead at times,” Mr Walz said.
Mr Walz, a former high school football coach, may have been trying to run down the clock.
Finally, when pressed by the CBS News moderator, he said: “I got there that summer and misspoke on this.”
Mr Vance was again asked to reconcile his past criticism of Mr Trump, including comparing him to Adolf Hitler, with his current position as number two on the Republican ticket.
“I was wrong about Donald Trump,” Mr Vance said, adding Mr Trump “delivered for the American people” on a lot of things “that I didn’t think he’d be able to deliver on”.
The brawl that wasn’t
The debate was expected to be an ugly one.
Mr Vance’s advisers said the senator was going to tear into Mr Walz for misrepresenting his military record and letting Minneapolis burn during riots in 2020.
Mr Walz was going to paint Mr Vance as a spineless sycophant who changed his core beliefs to please Mr Trump.
Instead, the candidates engaged in a mostly cordial exchange, a jarring juxtaposition from the contentious showdown between Ms Harris and Mr Trump just three weeks ago.
The vice presidential candidates frequently conceded that the other made good points. They thanked each other repeatedly.
“Whether you vote for me or vote for Tim Walz, I just want to say I’m so proud to be doing this,” Mr Vance said.
After the debate ended, the two men embraced, shaking hands and slapping each other on the back.
In some ways, it was a window into American politics before Mr Trump entered the scene in 2016 and embraced the ad hominem and sometimes racist attacks that have become commonplace.
The lack of any truly heated moment means the debate will likely be quickly forgotten, however, as are many vice presidential debates.