‘Slick talker’ v ‘sincere and truthful’: swing-state voters respond to VP debate

Walz was rushing and appeared to want to discuss complex issues with depth but didn't have enough time to delve into some of the points. He had more substance and came across as more sincere than Vance, who was slick, polished and said little of consequence.

I would have liked to hear more about how, exactly, Trump and Vance want to build on federal land. For example, if they plan to use land in Montana or Michigan for housing, and I have family in North Carolina and Alabama, how would that be useful to me? I would also like to have heard Vance [being] questioned about how tax breaks for the rich are going to help people on a fixed income like me, or middle-class families like those of my grown children.

My favorite moment was when Walz directly addressed the audience in his closing remarks. It came across as passionate, sincere and truthful. I voted for Biden last time and this time I will vote for the Harris-Walz ticket with enthusiasm.- Catherine, 76, part-time consultant in international aid and development, North Carolina

I voted for Biden-Harris in the last election and will vote for Harris-Walz this year. Vance presented himself to be a slick talker - which I was very apprehensive about because it allowed him to chameleon his way throughout the debate and he did on many instances, making Trumpism seem palatable and humane.

Walz was more grounded and refused to display any outrage at what Vance said and this I think was his strong point. Instead, Walz was more polite and sometimes to a fault because he could have pounced on Vance during those instances. Walz talked more about his plans and accomplishments as Minnesota governor to solve the country's domestic problems, something I wish voters paid attention to - especially healthcare.

The final question regarding whether Trump-Vance would accept the results of the upcoming election, I believe, was the moment that had the most tension. It presented the starkest difference between the two. Vance still refuses to accept Trump's defeat in 2020 and did not express his thoughts if the upcoming election does not go their way. - Wilfredo Lukban, 59, retired physician, Doylestown, Pennsylvania

It was a very civil policy-driven debate. I voted for Trump in the last election, would have voted for RFK before he dropped out but now am planning on voting for Trump. Vance and Walz both presented themselves better than the presidential candidates did in the last debate. Vance, especially, impressed with his speaking ability. It was the first time I'd heard him speak for so long. Came away feeling like Vance had a slight edge over Walz. Possibly his youth biased me towards him as well.

Wish the discussion on energy had gone on longer. Vance briefly mentioned nuclear power but Walz didn't engage with it. Vance addressing abortion was what I wish Republicans in government and Trump had been saying all along. Just because we care about the unborn doesn't mean we're unsympathetic to women in difficult situations. There's room for compromise. - IT worker in his mid-20s, Arizona

How can anyone say that Vance won the debate when he out and out lied numerous times? A smooth but completely gaslit answer is just appalling. Not to mention the times he just flat out didn't answer the questions, just came up with gobbledy-gook.

And how in the name of all that's holy can you win a vice-presidential debate if you can't admit that Trump lost the 2020 election? Why are you even allowed to run for office if you're so completely out of touch with reality? - David, 70, photographer, North Carolina

Vance did a great job of showing the public his gentle side, was polished and sharp on the subject matter. Walz was too folksy, didn't admit to not being in China when he said he was. Too fumbly and forever taking notes.

[I would have liked] specifics on how both parties will grow the economy. Especially considering the almost four years of restricting inflation. I really liked the civility throughout the debate.

I almost kicked over the TV when the moderators started factchecking Vance. I thought that wasn't allowed in this debate. Three against one, just like in the presidential debate. I voted for Donald Trump in the last two elections. Will vote for him in this one, simply because four more years of Democratic policy will do even more harm. - Rod, 70s, Wisconsin

No doubt Vance was a slick debater, showing his previous debate skills. Neither candidate had much substance or specific answers as to how to fix some of the problems. I wanted to see more about social security and how to keep the country from going bankrupt. Generations after mine will find it difficult to live on social security, let alone have benefits. I don't want to see social security go bankrupt in my lifetime and possibly see benefits decrease. Everyone knows there is an issue, but neither party has a plan they are willing to discuss.

In 2020 I was a staunch Republican worried about what Biden would do and believed the hype from Trump, which is why I voted for him. Little did we know how badly Trump would mangle the Covid epidemic and give tax cuts to the wealthy. He has yet to admit how bad his Covid was. I'm tired of all the lies Trump and Vance spread that cause the discourse in this country. Neither party has all the answers, but we need the Republican party to allow bipartisan solutions. I blame the rightwing facet of the party for much of the division in our country, and I never thought I would say that. I will vote for Harris this year. - Annette, retired, Arizona

I was impressed at how well both candidates held their composure. They both appear like they could truly work in a bipartisan atmosphere. I do wish that Walz would have answered the few questions he danced around but all in all I think the debate was on point and informative. Both candidates proposed their plans yet did so with very little detail. With a budget deficit of $35tn I would like to know how they propose to fund these programs.

I was sharing this experience with my father-in-law, a retired master carpenter who worked many hard and long hours to live the American dream. We both have a great love for our country and the constitution. In short, watching this debate were two blue-collar, working-class men concerned about the future of our country.

I voted for Trump in the past. I felt we needed someone who wasn't a career politician. Electing the same old political leaders has given us root rot. The effects one day may be devastating. I will vote for Trump again this year. Under his presidency our economy was in recovery and there were unprecedented steps taken towards peace in other hostile countries. - Britton Ramsey, 54, welder, Wisconsin

The debate overall was incredibly boring. I wanted to see Walz be more aggressive towards Vance. It was obvious from the beginning that the Harris campaign had leashed Walz because the only times he came alive were when he got to speak about progressive initiatives in Minnesota.

I think that's a sign the Harris campaign should move more to the left. I've begrudgingly voted for the Democratic candidate for president in every presidential election since I could start voting in 2012. They frequently disappoint me by capitulating to the right too often but there are no other viable options yet.- Devon, 31, web developer, Lansing, Michigan

I thought Vance killed it. On issues besides 6 January, he effectively dismantled Walz's arguments - while not being a huge jerk about it. I think that he clarified the Trump campaign's plans on everything much better than Trump ever can. Walz did the same. He really clarified the ticket's ideas in a respectful manner. If only these two guys were running for president!

I think both candidates addressed the big issue of this country: division. The people who watched that debate saw Vance and Walz shake hands and talk to each other after the debate. They didn't scream at each other.

We all have the same problems - just different ways of solving them. Your Republican neighbor does not want the rights of women and democracy as a principle to burn, and your Democrat cousin does not want communism installed, and doesn't want to kill all the babies in utero. This debate proved that.

There were some bad parts to the debate, like Vance dodging January 6, and Walz saying the Trump campaign was going to go with Project 2025; but for the most part, it was very constructive.

I wish there [had been] a longer segment on abortion rights. Both sides need to explain their stance more clearly. As a Catholic, I am pro-life; I'm trending towards Vance's position and understand Walz's objections.

I'm currently undecided on who to vote for. I am a registered Republican, but I don't exactly like Trump. We were relatively prosperous [under him], but I think he causes scandal. A clarification of what the Harris campaign plans to do on abortion may make me consider Harris if her position is close to the Trump ticket, or even more pro-life. However, given that she seems to be much more radical than she says she is, I would not vote for her. - William, 19, student, Pennsylvania

I voted for Joe Biden in the last election and will be voting for Harris this year.

I think it was great to have the debate to get to know the candidates better, and I appreciated how respectful they both were to each other. I think it highlights how unmanageable Donald Trump actually is, and it makes me wonder why Republican party leadership has allowed him to continue to be the face of the party.

Walz was calm, clear and definitely was able to talk about his experience leading a government. JD Vance came off as all rhetoric, and he looked foolish for having been so against Trump in the past and now [being] his running mate.

They actually covered the issues I wanted to hear about: energy, healthcare and foreign policy. I wish they had spent less time on immigration.

My favorite moment was when JD Vance got fact-checked about the Haitian immigrant comments and the moderators said they are here legally, and JD Vance claimed that the rules were that they weren't going to be fact-checked. I think it highlights how reliant the Trump campaign is on misinformation, and when you take that away, what are they left with? - Emma, 26, Wisconsin