In battle of the vice presidents, Vance beat Waltz who forgot to pack his debate punches

In the vice presidential debate, Mirror's US editor Christopher Bucktin says somehow, loose cannon JD Vance managed to outperform nice guy Tim Walz in a battle that was as much about style as it was substance.

It's as traditional as pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving to dismiss the vice presidential debate.

Historically, it hasn't moved the needle in US elections. But this year, everything was up in the air. With polls barely budging and each vote a tug-of-war, Tuesday night's debate could have made a difference.

But what could have been a defining moment for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, sending their wingmen into battle, left America with more questions than answers.

Neither Republican JD Vance nor Democrat Tim Walz landed a killer blow. If you tuned in for blood, you left hungry.

What emerged was that Walz is simply a nice guy, but nice guys need to bring out the knives. Sadly for Walz, he brought a spoon.

On the other hand, Vance did what his boss is incapable of doing - he stuck to policy. Let's be honest: Vance is a loose cannon. In Tuesday's debate, he dodged, ducked, and at times outright fabricated responses.

He wouldn't even admit Trump lost the 2020 election, swerved his support for a national abortion ban, and flat-out denied spreading a false, bizarre story about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio.

Yet, somehow, Vance managed to outperform Walz in a debate that was as much about style as it was substance.

Both candidates have solid policy skills, but it was their personalities on show here. Walz is your quintessential Midwestern dad - a guy you'd trust to babysit your kids while fixing your leaky sink. He shines at pizza shop meet-andgreets, shaking hands and cracking jokes.

Vance, on the other hand, presents himself as a Rust Belt guy next door, but let's not kid ourselves - he's a Yale-educated venture capitalist who spent his formative years learning from some of the most cutthroat right-wing minds.

His "American Psycho" vibe doesn't usually play well in person, but under the debate lights, it somehow worked.

The Harris campaign likely banked on Walz's affable demeanour to contrast sharply with Vance's cold, calculated ambition.

But the problem with being Mr Nice Guy is that when your opponent lies through his teeth, you need to call him out. Walz didn't. And that's where things went sideways. Take Vance's comments about childcare policy. He waxed poetic about how hard it is for his wife to juggle work and family, conveniently glossing over that he's a working dad to the same kids.

Walz could have called him out on this blatant sexism or brought up Vance's past remarks about childless "cat ladies" or his disdain for women pursuing careers over motherhood. Yet, Walz kept trying to find common ground, agreeing with Vance on several issues.

No one expected a WWE-style brawl, but viewers did want to see some sparks. Instead, Vance's biggest weaknesses - his defensiveness, thin skin, and questionable politics - went unexploited.

As a result, the Republican came across as a polished, camera ready politician, not the petulant, volatile figure we've seen in other settings.

Walz, meanwhile, spent most of the night looking like a small-state governor who forgot to pack his debate punches.

Both men are smart and serious about their visions for America. But that's where the similarities end.