Vance or Walz: who won the VP debate? Our panel responds

The candidates slung arrows of blame at each other before settling on essentially the same answer. And that was basically the leitmotif of this rather odd debate: we, two diametrically opposed candidates standing before you, actually agree on a lot, including how completely different we are.

Significant differences nevertheless did emerge, the most important of which was about reproductive health. While Walz spoke powerfully about the need to protect the right to abortion, Vance found ways to quietly blame immigrants for gun violence, border insecurity and the housing shortage.

But the debate will be forgotten by next week, if only because the world is currently a powder keg, and no one seems ready to challenge these two candidates about finding a real path to peace, justice and security for all.

Vice-presidential debates rarely affect the election or move voters. Even by those standards, this one was a non-event. Vance and Walz seemed to be competing with each other regarding how friendly and agreeable they could be, and each avoided taking shots where they could have obviously landed. Vance was nimble, if smarmy, showing his background as a debater and a lawyer. Walz was nervous at the start but settled in once the questions got to areas he focuses on as governor, like housing and agriculture.

In the end, Walz and Vance delivered little material for late-night talk shows or SNL to spoof. Their debate was more about policies than personas. The race is a dead heat with about 35 days to go.

Of course, there was also a lot of bipartisanship not to like in the debate: war-mongering towards Iran, sycophantic support for Israel, the unwillingness of candidates to say that America is a nation of immigrants who create far more value for our nation than they take away.

Tying himself to a potential administration bound to offer nothing but deregulation, mismanagement, and handouts for the rich makes Vance that kind of populist, too.