BBCFor Americans, Tuesday night’s debate between vice-presidential contenders Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was a fresh opportunity to compare the two tickets.
But it was an especially important night for voters from the Midwest. Vice-President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump both chose running mates from the region, hoping to court votes in key states.
The BBC spoke to five Midwestern residents from across the political spectrum who saw Tuesday night’s 90-minute debate as a welcome dose of civility, even if it didn’t change their vote.
Jim, a life-long Republican, voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, but he says Vance could be a strong candidate in the future.
Without hesitation, I 100% think that JD Vance won this debate. He did what he needed to do. He got the style points, but he also got the substantive points.
Tim Walz on the other hand seemed flustered, he seemed taken aback at times.
Vice-presidential debates don’t usually add up to be that much of a big deal, but this one may be an exception.
This was the most substantive, policy-driven, most normal debate that we’ve seen in a long time in this country.
Shana’s perspective on the election did not change, but she is more hopeful about the future of American politics.
I did like the comradery that they seemed to show, they at least played nice.
It looked like bipartisan politics is supposed to look.
Yes, there were times where it felt like they got a little heated and they may have talked over each other a little bit, but at the same time it didn’t really dissolve into bickering.
There were times where they were able to admit they agreed with each other on issues.
It actually meant something at the end to see them shaking hands and chatting. It was striking to me.
Christina is leaning towards supporting the Harris-Walz ticket, but has voted for Trump in the past.
I enjoyed hearing from them both and the fact that they actually had a discussion and didn’t just fight or call each other names.
I was happy they agreed when it came to gun violence and they both agreed to have a conversation about the issue.
When I was listening to these two, I was thinking we might actually be able to make progress.
This long-time Republican was impressed by Vance and the senator’s performance reinforced his support for the Trump-Vance ticket.
I thought the two of them were civil in how they treated each other, which was a good thing to see.
JD Vance was accurate, factual and was very respectful and really unflappable.
This is a brilliant guy who has come from an extraordinarily modest upbringing.
Meanwhile, Walz was caught in multiple lies by the moderators.
The style of the two men was completely different and I thought Vance’s far more favourable.
Kristin generally supports Democrats and plans to vote for Harris-Walz because she trusts them on abortion, a top issue for her.
Walz won to me for actually answering most of the questions.
Vance kept saying the names of the female moderators – Margaret, Norah – and it’s something I find men do in a condescending way. I found him smug, a bit condescending, and evasive.
Walz did fine enough, it doesn’t really affect my support of him and Kamala Harris.
It was respectable that they agreed on some issues as problems and didn’t lean heavily into personal attacks. They did talk more about policy than I expected.
North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher makes sense of the race for the White House in his weekly US Election Unspun newsletter.
Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.