The vice presidential debate was substantive regarding policies between the two opposing tickets, unlike the presidential debate, which was full of personal attacks and mudslinging. This was one debate where both parties gave voters a better idea of what they offered in terms of tangible, actionable policies, thus marking a momentous period for shaping mass opinion.

JD Vance’s performance touched on strong talking points of the Republicans: national security, immigration and economics. Most specially on border enforcement, Vance was critical of the present administration’s policies, referring to them as weak and heavy on rhetoric. However, according to PolitiFact, some of Vance’s statistics were exaggerated, such as his claim that more than 320,000 migrant children were “lost” by Homeland Security. In any case, his focus on border security resonated with voters concerned about law and order. His approach to this debate felt heedful and confident, and many Republican voters likely appreciated his unapologetic stance on securing the border and lessening government intervention in business.

While Walz played up the traditional Democratic pillars of expanding healthcare access and safeguarding social safety nets, he also made sure to reassure voters of his party’s commitment to reproductive choice, universal healthcare and social programs geared at elevating some of the most vulnerable in society. In the same breath, however, some of Walz’s arguments risked coming off to the electorate as alarmist, like his description of Project 2025. While Project 2025 may be daunting to contemplate as a whole, Forbes reports that although the proposal does contain a section on abortion that calls for tighter reporting, Walz’s attempt to convince the public that it would create a “federal registry of pregnancies” was a large exaggeration. His smooth manner during the debate contrasted Vance’s more direct style, but likewise, his messaging was sometimes undercut by reliance on fear-driven rhetoric.

On economic issues, Vance scored well by the simple virtue of focusing on inflation and job growth, two issues dominating the concerns of most voters. His promise to reduce regulations and corporate taxes, while criticized by Democrats as being overly favorable to big business, could appeal to voters who see these measures as necessary to stimulate economic growth. This reflects the broader Republican strategy of positioning themselves as the party of economic pragmatism. According to The New York Times, many voters might appreciate Vance’s emphasis on fiscal conservatism and prioritizing small businesses in his policy proposals.

On the whole, the debate underscored each party’s key priorities: Democrats centered on social protections and rights, and Republicans focused on law and order, economic reform and reducing government overreach. The substantive discussions in this debate offered voters a clearer picture of what they can expect from each party—much more so than the personal attacks that characterized the presidential debate. Vance’s strong showing on immigration and economic policy gave the GOP a boost, while Walz’s advocacy for healthcare and social rights affirmed the Democratic platform. Both candidates, in their own ways, provided voters with the kind of policy-based discussions that are critical for making informed decisions in the election.