The debate between the US vice-presidential candidates on Tuesday night was a notable shift from the tone of previous political exchanges this election season. Both candidates, Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz, delivered a policy-focused, civil debate that offered voters a clear glimpse into the ideologies of their respective parties. In contrast to the fiery presidential debates earlier this year, this encounter was more about substance than spectacle.

The question now is whether such a polite exchange will have any significant impact on the outcome of the election. Senator Vance, representing a polished and composed version of conservative populism, came across as confident and steady. Throughout the debate, he adhered to a clear narrative: under Mr Donald Trump’s administration, inflation was lower, wages were higher, and the economy functioned in favour of the American middle class. By maintaining this message, Mr Vance managed to paint the Democratic leadership, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris, as ineffective in addressing the challenges facing everyday Americans.

His calm demeanour, especially in a setting that often encourages more aggressive exchanges, helped him present a friendly face to the ideology he champions. Governor Tim Walz, on the other hand, struggled initially with foreign policy ~ a realm he has not had to navigate. However, as the debate turned to domestic issues like abortion rights, immigration, and the Capitol riot, Mr Walz found his rhythm. His poignant remarks on abortion, grounded in the simple but powerful message of pro-women, pro-freedom, aligned well with the Democratic Party’s core base. Mr Walz also made compelling points about the harm caused by denying the events of January 6 and how it continues to divide the country. Yet, despite his strong arguments, Mr Walz held back in areas where a more assertive stance could have made a difference.

On gun control, for example, he missed an opportunity to push back harder against Mr Vance’s defence of pro-gun policies, opting instead to speak about background checks. Given the urgency many voters feel around gun control issues, this may have left some Democrats wanting more. Ultimately, the debate’s even-tempered tone seemed to play more into Mr Vance’s hands. His performance likely reassured conservative voters and may have bolstered his appeal as a young leader who can articulate the ideological priorities of his party without veering into divisive rhetoric. On the Democratic side, Mr Walz did no harm to his ticket, but his cautious approach may not have energised the base in the way it could have. While vice-presidential debates traditionally don’t have a decisive impact on elections, Mr Vance’s showing may have long-term implications for his political career. His ability to present himself as a thoughtful and steady conservative on a national stage could very well position him as a future leader within the Republican Party, regardless of the outcome in November.