THAT WAS A civilised affair. It is testimony to sad realities about American political discourse that it feels odd to type those words. 

Ohio Senator JD Vance, Donald Trump’s number two, met his Democratic rival for the vice presidency, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, on a debate stage in Manhattan.

The two men weren’t shy about expressing their quite divergent stances on the issues and visions for the United States, but were unwaveringly polite before, during and after, when their wives joined them and all four engaged in a brief, cordial chat.

It was almost like the good old days when office seekers could disagree in a hatred-free zone. More of that, please.

So, who won? To this engrossed onlooker, at any rate, JD Vance was clearly the victor. He came across as an articulate, reasonable, engaging advocate for Trumpism, which is no mean feat.

Walz started off quite poorly. He grew more confident as the proceedings wore on and ultimately put in a decent outing, though. In terms of grades, I’d give Vance a B+ and Walz a B-.

Because debating isn’t the latter’s forte, something his team wisely flagged in advance of this hotly anticipated encounter, he and the sitting vice president, Kamala Harris, have to be happy with how he acquitted himself. He got through it just fine.

Strategists for Trump/Vance, on the other hand, will be gratified that their man was cool, calm and collected, in contrast to his boss, and actually appeared empathetic and likeable at different points.

Vance was smart, right at the beginning, to introduce himself and provide the audience a one minute summary of the background he recounted to widespread praise in the bestselling Hillbilly Elegy. His doing so was a tacit admission that he has not yet found favour with many, who are, bluntly, pissed off at things he has said and done in the past. It was compelling and effective.

Asked a question about the ongoing violence in the Middle East, Walz conversely was manifestly nervous. Foreign policy is not a topic he is terribly comfortable discussing.

He refused to respond directly and instead attacked Donald Trump as lacking the appropriate temperament to be commander-in-chief, a line of criticism he returned to on multiple occasions.

Walz subsequently found his stride, especially on health care and then abortion. He assailed Trump’s attempt to disembowel the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” with no idea of what he would replace it with or if vital coverage would continue to extend to Americans who have pre-existing conditions.

This is popular with working-class and poor people who have gravitated to Trump on the basis of his sloganeering and cultural conservatism.

On abortion, he told the personal stories of women in the throes of crisis pregnancies who could not access terminations near home, leading to long journeys and dreadful consequences. Democrats have benefitted every time abortion has been on the ballot since the reversal of Roe v Wade. Waltz, as a folksy, older, white male, is a perhaps improbable, yet uniquely persuasive, messenger on this front.

Vance didn’t have a great answer on health care; his general opposition to excessive government involvement will nonetheless be music to the ears of those who fear “socialised medicine.”

On abortion, though, his argument is that, owing to the cultural, ideological and religious diversity of the US, it is appropriate for state lawmakers, elected by the people, not unelected judges, to decide what their local law on the fraught topic of abortion should be.

It won’t convince everyone, but to a lot of “gettable” voters, that will make sense. And he spelled it out vastly better than Trump ever has.

Vance was strongest on the crucial subjects of inflation and immigration. Focusing on the sky-high cost of goods and services, which has climbed rapidly during the tenure of the Biden/Harris administration, will resonate, despite his not proffering much by way of policy proposals to fix it.

Incumbents get the blame, notwithstanding the initiatives cited by Walz that the Democrats have unveiled to reduce inflation.

Vance played perfectly to the doubts and fears Americans have about current levels of immigration and he outlined the impact newcomers are having on communities and the institutions they depend on.

The majority in the US are with the Republicans on this one and, while Walz correctly faulted Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill for killing border security legislation, it is still advantage GOP.

Walz’s low ebb was when he described himself as a “knucklehead” to explain the falsehoods he has told about his military service and the dates of his trips to China. He apparently has a loose relationship with the truth, which might irk some.

On the flip side, it was shocking to hear Vance dodge queries about whether Trump prevailed in 2020 and about the integrity of elections more broadly. Shame on him.

And the worst, most depressing segment of the debate was on guns. Vance would evidently prefer that schools morph into quasi-prisons rather than endorse any restrictions on the ownership of de facto weapons of war.

Walz supports gun control measures, but was at pains to note that he and Kamala Harris have guns – they are real Americans, if you will. Pathetic stuff. 

In the end, I don’t believe that last night will move the needle. Both Vance and Walz can justifiably claim from their perspectives: mission accomplished.

There is, however, an unresolved and closely related matter. Will Trump get back into the ring with Harris? He maintains that he absolutely will not.

I think he’s crazy – that he was poor in the first tussle, that it left a bad taste in the mouths of the pivotal cohort of undecideds and that a less unhinged performance could help erase a deficit polls suggest he faces in the final days of a race that’s on a knife edge.

It’s a gamble worth taking in my estimation.

But I can’t pretend to have any deep insights as to how Donald Trump’s mind works.

Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a Law Lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.ie.