I watched the entire debate and kept wondering what happened to the Vance of wild claims about immigrants eating pets and the Walz with sharp down to earth responses? While it is true that the debate is unlikely to change the trajectory of the presidential race, the two participants were almost totally inconsistent in demeanor and presentation then they have presented on the public campaign. Vance, the Yale educated lawyer, worked to present himself as a reasonable, genial person while avoiding any of the outlandish claims he has made while campaigning. He appeared to be  determined to soften his edges and offer himself as a reasonable guy, looking for common ground. Vance’s  fabrications and exaggerations were obvious, but his delivery was slick and polished. Walz appeared anxious, uncomfortable and having been counseled to deliver pre scripted political messages instead of being the down to earth person he is, but improved as the evening went on. There was no clear winner as there was when Trump and Biden debated, but Vance was the more polished of the two. I think Walz was prepared for this exchange in the wrong way for who he really is. Instead of letting him just be himself, warts and all, he was overly coached  on political messages and looking for an opportunity to deliver them.

Walz asked Vance point blank if Trump had lost the 2020 election and Vance refused to answer. Walz called his response “a damning non-answer.” It was the most significant question of the debate. Walz struck a stinging blow when he asked Vance about Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and Vance defended his running mate’s role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by falsely claiming  Trump peacefully transferred power. On the other hand Walz appeared anxious and stumbled when trying to explain misstatements he has made about his own background. However, toward the end of the debate when  the subject was  abortion and health policy Walz was commanding, while  Vance tried to revise history by falsely claiming Trump was a savior of the Affordable Care Act when the truth is he repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to repeal it. In general, Vance often revised Trump political history while Walz appeared to battle nerves and often failed to directly attack Vance’s misrepresentations.

The civility throughout the debate was curious. Vance acknowledged a difference of opinion with Tim Walz but repeatedly asserted that they agreed on finding solutions. He was at pains to say that some of Walz’s views, on housing, for instance, might be sensible. He expressed surprise and sympathy when he learned that Walz’s son had been present at a shooting. There were no personal attacks on each other. The debate began with a handshake. It ended when the candidates shook hands and chatted away from the microphones, and lingered as their wives joined them.

What was impressive were the two moderators for the debatem, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan. David Muir and past moderators should learn from the two women how to control a debate and enforce the debate ruled with candidates who aren’t cooperating. They did an excellent job.