The vice presidential debate held last night between Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz was a surprising display of civility and substance, marking a notable departure from the acrimonious exchanges that have typified recent political debates. Both candidates refrained from personal attacks and instead engaged in a detailed discussion of policy issues that matter most to voters.

In the run-up to the debate, both Vance and Walz had established reputations that led voters to expect a combative exchange. However, those expectations were upended as the candidates found common ground on several issues, even expressing mutual respect at times. This unexpected civility was a throwback to a possibly more dignified era of political discourse.

One of the most discussed moments was when Vance avoided answering a direct question about whether former President Donald Trump had lost the 2020 election. Walz pressed Vance on this point, but Vance chose to pivot, stating, Tim, I'm focused on the future, and instead criticized Vice President Kamala Harris on censorship and other issues. This non-answer drew significant attention post-debate and highlighted the ongoing contention surrounding the 2020 election results.

The issue of immigration was a contentious topic during the debate. Vance was challenged on his prior comments about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, which had proven to be false. Moderator Margaret Brennan fact-checked Vance live, stating that Springfield does indeed have a large number of Haitian migrants with legal status. Vance took issue with this real-time correction, leading to a tense exchange where Brennan had to cut the candidates' mics to restore order.

Both moderators, Margaret Brennan and Norah O'Donnell, received praise for their skillful handling of the debate. They navigated the complex landscape of fact-checking while maintaining the debate's flow. Their ability to manage the candidates and keep the discussion on track was a notable aspect of the event.

A significant discussion point was the candidates' differing policies on the economy. Vance emphasized the need to protect American jobs and criticized electric vehicle mandates, arguing that they benefit China more than the U.S. He reiterated his stance that traditional gas-powered vehicles should remain central to America's automotive industry. These comments were a clear appeal to blue-collar workers and those concerned about the impact of new technologies on traditional industries.

Walz, on the other hand, focused on healthcare and gun violence, two issues where he spent considerable time outlining his perspectives. He shared personal anecdotes and emphasized his commitment to improving healthcare access and enhancing public safety. His passionate remarks on these topics resonated with viewers who see these issues as critical.

The debate also touched on the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Walz accused the Trump campaign of using the attack for political leverage, urging Vance to acknowledge the significance of the event and Trump's role in it. Vance's reluctance to directly answer these accusations further fueled the debate's intensity.

Both candidates had moments of vulnerability. Walz was questioned about discrepancies in his travel history to Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Although he admitted he misspoke, this moment was leveraged by Vance to cast doubt on Walz's credibility.

The vice presidential debate also held potential implications for the future of the Republican Party. Vance's performance could solidify his standing as a future leader of the MAGA movement, particularly if Trump does not secure a second term. Conversely, a strong showing by Walz bolstered his standing within the Democratic Party as an effective advocate of its policies and values.

Post-debate analyses, such as those from CBS News, indicate that the debate had a mixed impact on voters. While Vance was seen to have a slight edge in some areas, such as the economy and immigration, Walz was favored on issues like healthcare and gun violence. This balanced performance might influence undecided voters, potentially altering the dynamics of the upcoming election.

What remains clear is that this debate, with its rare civility and focus on substantive issues, has set a different tone for political discourse. Whether this approach will influence future debates and political interactions remains to be seen, but for now, it has provided a refreshing contrast to the often vitriolic exchanges that have characterized the Trump era. As the election approaches, how these candidates build on their debate performances will be critical in swaying voter sentiments.