'It was respectable': Midwest voters praise tone of VP debate
- Published
For 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 seven 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.
Latim was elated to see civility return to the debate stage last night, though he is still throwing his support behind Harris-Walz.
There were some grownups in the room last night. There was a little bit of respect for each other even though they were throwing punches.
That's different from what we witnessed in the presidential ones in June or last month.
I didn't think Tim Walz did as good as I was expecting him to, but JD Vance was a great debater.
The moment that really stuck out for me was when Walz talked about his son witnessing gun violence and how JD Vance responded I think that was quite impressive.
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 the Harris-Walz ticket because she trusts them on abortion, which is a top issue for her.
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.
Sainaga is voting in his second presidential election this cycle and thought last night's debate was close.
Vance is a smooth talker, but I knew that with his Yale background.
Overall, from a politeness perspective and a decent debate perspective, I give high marks.
Walz was struggling in the beginning. He has said before he is not a good debater, that is not his strength.
But by the end of it, I thought Walz had found his footing. He definitely took Vance to task when it came to January 6.
I would say overall Walz won, but only by a whisker.
In the lead-up to election day, BBC Voter Voices is hearing from Americans around the country about what matters to them.
Are you an American voter? Want to join in? Apply to be featured in future BBC stories here.
More on the US election
SIMPLE GUIDE: Everything you need to know about the vote
EXPLAINER: Seven swing states that could decide election
FACT CHECK: Was US economy stronger under Biden or Trump?
POLICIES: What Harris or Trump would do in power