Duel between US vice presidential candidates: Immigration, the Middle East and the economy at the centre of the debate

Above all, the two exchanged courtesies. Vance told Walz's son to overcome any trauma after his father said he had witnessed a shooting at a community centre. Walza said at times he agreed with Vance, when it came to, for example, conbuting the offshoring of businesses. In defending Trump goes and his economic policies Vance used almost humble words. Critics 'say that if Trump becomes president again all these horrible things will happen. But actually when he was president inflation was low and wages were higher'.

This does not mean that there was a lack of tense and contentious moments. Vance put the issue of immigration and migrants at the centre of the debate every time he could. He called this the cause of downward wage pressures on Americans, increases in housing costs and crime. On the housing-immigration link Vance also cited Federal Resrve studies, which a New York Times analysis found to be inconclusive. Walz countered by accusing Republican leaders of demonising immigrants and blocking a serious bipartisan proposal in Congress on immigration reform and border security.

Asked how a mass deportation plan promised by Trump would work, Vance said it would start with the expulsion of "a million migrants who have committed crimes in addition to the crime of entering the country illegally". Vance also accused Harris, Walz and the Dems of an "open borders" policy that has let in "millions of people."

On the economy and inflation, Vance pressed on, accusing Joe Biden's administration, of which Harris is vice-president, of presiding over 25% increases in food prices and spiralling inflation. He pleaded that continued investment in traditional energy would cut costs. And promised a 'common sense' economic policy that would build on the successes of the previous Trump administration. In one of the most trenchant critiques, he attacked Harris, saying that if he had any proposals to support the middle and working classes, he had already had almost four years as Biden's vice-president to implement them. Walz retaliated by attacking Republicans for wanting to cut taxes for the wealthy and big business, not the middle class, while they should 'pay their fair share'.

Clash also on new trade tariffs: Vance defended new generalised tariffs. Walz called them a 'consumption tax', although among Democrats themselves targeted duties and made-in-the-USA policies are popular today. On the promotion of US-made products, Vance boasted that Trump makes it a priority. Walz defended the support for manufacturing offered by the Biden-Harris bills on energy transition, infrastructure and chips.

When it comes to initiatives particularly in favour of the working class, on the housing crisis Walz relaunched proposals for aid and incentives for building and buying a first home. Rather, Vance proposed deregulation and the use of federal land to build new houses, as well as the deportation of immigrants.

On abortion, Walz defended women's right to decide and denounced the numerous cases of failure to provide health care for difficult pregnancies that sometimes even led to deaths. He accused Republicans, in their anti-abortion zeal, of obstructing contraception and limiting fertility treatments. Vance responded by saying that the best solution is to leave the laws in the hands of individual states and their voters. He said the Republicans want to create a federal pregnancy monitoring agency.

On climate, Vance avoided answering moderators who asked him to explain Trump's position that it is a 'scam'. And he questioned whether carbon dioxide emissions drive the greenhouse effect. Walz espoused energy transition policies, while indicating that all sources should be pursued.

On the issue of too many easy weapons and violence, Walz defended the idea of more controls, Vance linked the dramas to a 'mental health' crisis in the country, called for more security in schools, and once again blamed democratic border policy as being responsible for the influx of illegal weapons.

As with the debate between presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, there was no audience in the room in New York. Besides answering questions from the moderators, they had two minutes for closing statements. Walz and Vance clashed in the CBS studios, where two of the TV network's journalists, Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan, were also present. There were few moments of disagreement: they only shushed the microphones after a clarification by them about Haitian immigrants being legal, and instead accused of illegality by Vance. It was since 1960 since New York hosted a debate with the White House at stake, then it was between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Before the debate, opinion surveys saw the 60-year-old Walz more popular than the 40-year-old Vance, with a positive approval rate of 5 percentage points against his rival's negative 10 points. New polls will show whether the performance was enough to change the battleground perception of Vance.

It was, to be sure, a duel hunting first and foremost for votes in uncertain and crucial states, those of the Midwest and the heartland, to be added to the domination of the country's coasts for the Democrats and the south for the Republicans. Between Walz, governor of Minnesota, for the Democratic ticket, with his progressive but popular tones, championing women's rights as well as the middle classes and author of one of the campaign's most effective slogans, portraying the Republican couple as 'weird', strange and disturbing. And Vance, a Republican senator from Ohio who has become the standard-bearer of staunch 'Trumpism' in recent years. Among his most controversial recent attacks are false accusations against legal immigrants from Haiti who live and work in the small town of Springfield, Ohio, and have actually regenerated it from years of decadence. Accusations of catching and eating dogs, cats and pets have generated threats of attacks against the community by extremists. Vance continued to repeat attacks on Haitians even in the face of repeated demonstrations that they were completely unfounded.

Another certainty is that the importance of the TV duel cannot be underestimated: if traditionally the VPs do not make and break polls and elections, in this case, with a very divided and polarised electorate, even minimal shifts may prove influential. Moreover, it could be the last face-to-face between the two camps, as no other debate is currently scheduled between either VP or presidential candidates. Trump had lost, according to the polls, the first TV clash with Harris in Philadelphia.