Trump and Harris get lessons in debate from running mates: Remarkably substantive and civil TV duel

washington - American running mates provide debate lessons to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in a remarkably substantive and civil TV duel.

American running mates provided debate lessons to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in a remarkably substantive and civil TV duel. JD Vance and Tim Walz engaged in a verbal duel at news channel CBS, with the 40-year-old Vance outshining his 60-year-old opponent with sharp answers. The friendly tone of the debate was notable amid the highly polarized nation, avoiding insults and character assassination. Vance, portrayed as Trump's attack dog, even agreed with Walz on multiple occasions. Walz described the conversation as 'a healthy discussion' at one point.

Both candidates emphasized the importance of a peaceful transfer of power, despite being in a close race. The debate took place against the backdrop of conflicts in the Middle East, a deadly hurricane, and port strikes. While discussing Israel's retaliation against Iran's missile attack, differences in economic plans, and migration crisis, the running mates focused on attacking the opposing party's presidential candidates rather than each other.

The debate showcased a more moderate approach, maintaining a professional demeanor and introducing themselves to millions of viewers. Vance and Walz highlighted their working-class backgrounds in the Midwest. They addressed key issues such as inflation, migration crisis, and past discrepancies in Walz's credentials. CNN criticized Walz for a pattern of inaccuracies in his statements, which the Democratic governor Jay Pritzker dismissed as minor mistakes.

Despite the civil tone of the debate, it remains uncertain whether it will significantly impact the ongoing campaign. Vice-presidential debates historically have limited influence on American presidential elections, although they attract a large viewership. Trump's campaign team continued its aggressive rhetoric through press releases during the debate, maintaining the divisive narrative.