Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) met face-to-face in New York City on Tuesday in the first and likely only vice presidential debate of the election cycle, a high-stakes moment that comes a little more than a month before Election Day.

The two candidates clashed on a range of issues, from abortion to immigration to foreign policy. But the forum was notably more civil and policy-focused than the debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump that took place last month.

It’s unclear how much the event will move the needle, but it could be the last time voters will see a debate involving the top of the ticket before November. Harris has pressed her rival for another showdown, but so far Trump has insisted he won’t do another. 

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s vice presidential debate.  

Vance shows his debate skills 

Vance went into the debate with arguably higher stakes than Walz. The Ohio senator has stoked controversy and ridicule for promoting unfounded conspiracies about Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, and for past remarks about “childless cat ladies.”

But Tuesday night, Vance put to rest — at least temporarily — any doubts as to why Trump picked him to be his running mate.

A Yale-trained lawyer, Vance was clearly in his element Tuesday night, easily batting away potentially tricky questions and at one point challenging the moderators over their fact-checking of his Springfield remarks.

His polished delivery drew a stark contrast with Walz’s sometimes rocky performance, while his emphasis on his humble upbringing in Ohio was a clear effort to appeal to the sort of voters who might have been turned off by the controversy surrounding him.

It was just the sort of shot in the arm Vance needed, having entered the debate with lower favorability numbers than his Democratic counterpart.  

Walz stumbles with answer on China story  

The Minnesota governor had a more uneven night Tuesday, something that was underscored by his awkward answer regarding claims that he had been in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.

News outlets including APM Reports and Minnesota Public Radio recently reported that evidence suggested Walz was actually in China later that year, in August, contradicting his claims.

Asked to address the discrepancy between his remarks and recent reporting, Walz struggled to offer a succinct answer, noting that he could sometimes be a “knucklehead.”

“Look, my community knows who I am,” Walz said. “They saw where I was at. They — look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I’ve tried to do the best I can, but I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times, but it’s always been about that.”

Pressed again, Walz said, “All I said on this was, is I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just — that’s what I’ve said.” 

“So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest, went in, and from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance,” he added. 

Republicans have ramped up scrutiny on details of Walz’s life since he joined the Democratic ticket, including his military service and his family’s fertility journey.

Walz also failed to land any knockout blows on Vance, whose performance many commentators praised after the debate.

Vance makes appeal to center on abortion 

The Ohio Republican sought to appeal to the political middle on abortion as Democrats have ramped up their attacks on Trump over the issue.  

Vance mentioned that a woman he knew who had had an abortion was watching his debate against Walz, noting “she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship.” 

“And I think that what I take from that — as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party — we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us,” Vance said.  

Vance said that he wanted the Republican Party to be “pro-family in the fullest sense of the word,” saying he wanted the party to support things such as making it more affordable for women to have babies and to support fertility treatments. 

At the same time, Vance had to navigate some of his past statements on the issue, including previously supporting a 15-week national abortion limit. 

Asked if Vance still supported such a ban, the senator said, “first of all, I never supported a national ban. I did during, when I was running for Senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard.” 

Trump made a surprise post on his Truth Social platform during the debate, saying he would veto a federal abortion ban.

CBS draws fire over fact-checking, mics 

CBS drew some criticism from both audience members and the candidates on stage over its handling of the debate rules, underscoring the challenges news organizations face in conducting debates in the current political climate.

In one of the most charged moments of a generally low-key debate, Vance challenged the CBS News moderators after the network’s Margaret Brennan attempted to clarify his comments about immigration, prompting a back-and-forth that led to both candidates’ mics being cut.

The candidates sparred over Springfield — the town at the center of false claims, previously amplified by Trump and Vance, that Haitian migrants were eating pets in the area. Vance did not raise that same claim during the debate but said “millions of illegal immigrants” were overwhelming areas such as Springfield. 

Brennan clarified that Springfield “does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status, Temporary Protected Status.” 

“The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check,” Vance said as the moderators attempted to shift the conversation to a new question on the economy. “And since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on.” 

Brennan stressed “we have so much to get through,” but Vance continued to elaborate, and Walz also briefly interjected. The candidates’ audio abruptly lowered.  

Trump, who was posting throughout the debate on his Truth Social page, called out the mic-cutting and criticized the network for being “unfair” to Vance with fact-checking attempts.  

CBS News periodically featured a QR code redirecting viewers to an online fact-checking blog during the debate — but the network notably said it would be up to the candidates to fact-check each other in real time.  

Last month, ABC News, which hosted the Trump-Harris presidential debate, took heat from Trump and his allies for live moderator fact-checking. Back in June, CNN also took criticism for holding back on checks during the Trump-Biden debate.  

Debate is civil 

Tuesday’s debate marked one of the most civil national-level debates in recent memory. Unlike many presidential debates over the past eight years, there was no name-calling or personal attacks on the debate stage. Instead, Vance and Walz stuck strictly to discussing policy and articulating where their two campaigns differ.  

The two men also repeatedly agreed with each other at certain points, and shook hands and engaged in friendly conversation when the event was over.

In fact, the two candidates frequently noted that they believed the other wanted to fix issues facing the country, including immigration, but vehemently voiced their disagreements on how to fix those problems.  

“I enjoyed tonight’s debate. I think there’s a lot of commonality here,” Walz said toward the end of the forum.  

At another point, Vance acknowledged one of Walz’s personal anecdotes in which the governor recounted that his son witnessed a shooting.

“Tim, first of all, I didn’t know that your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting. And I’m sorry about that. Christ have mercy,” Vance said.  

Tuesday’s debate will likely be seen as refreshing change of pace in an election cycle defined by personal attacks and the growing threat of political violence.