'It was respectable' Midwestern voters praise fresh tone of VP debate

For Americans, Tuesday night's debate between Ohio vice presidential candidates Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was a new opportunity to compare the two tickets.

But it was a particularly important night for Midwest voters. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump both chose their candidates to run from the region, hoping to win votes in key states.

The BBC spoke to five Midwesterners from across the political spectrum who found Tuesday night's 90-minute debate a welcome dose of civility, even if it didn't change their vote.

Jim, a lifelong Republican, voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 but says Vance could be a strong candidate in the future.

Without hesitation, I am 100% convinced that JD Vance won this debate. He did what he had to do. He got style points, but also points for content.

Tim Walz, on the other hand, seemed nervous and sometimes seemed surprised.

Vice-presidential debates aren't usually that big of a deal, but this one might be an exception.

This was the most substantive, political and normal debate we have seen in this country for a long time.

Shana's view of the election hasn't changed, but she's more confident about the future of American politics.

I liked the camaraderie they seemed to show, at least they played well.

It looked like what bipartisan politics should look like.

Yes, there were moments where it felt like they got a little heated and they maybe talked over each other a little bit, but at the same time it didn't really break down into arguments.

There were times when they could admit that they agreed on certain issues.

In the end it was actually something to see them shaking hands and chatting. It was striking to me.

Christina leans toward supporting the Harris-Walz ticket but has voted for Trump in the past.

I enjoyed hearing from both of them and the fact that they were actually having a discussion and not just arguing or calling each other names.

I was glad that they were on the same page when it came to gun violence and both agreed to have a conversation about the topic.

Listening to these two, I thought we could actually make progress.

This longtime Republican was impressed by Vance, and the senator's performance strengthened his support for the Trump-Vance ticket.

I thought the two were polite to each other, which was good to see.

JD Vance was accurate, matter-of-fact, very respectful and truly unflappable.

This is a brilliant guy who comes from an exceptionally humble upbringing.

In the meantime, Walz was caught lying by the moderators several times.

The two men's styles were completely different and I found Vance's far more likable.

Kristin generally supports Democrats and plans to vote for Harris-Walz because she trusts them on abortion, which is a top issue for her.

For me, Walz won because he actually answered most of the questions.

Vance kept mentioning the names of the presenters – Margaret, Norah – and I think men do that in a condescending way. I found him smug, somewhat condescending and evasive.

Walz did quite well, so that doesn't have much of an impact on my support for him and Kamala Harris.

It was respectable that they agreed on some issues as issues and didn't get too involved in personal attacks. They talked more about politics than I expected.

North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher breaks down the race for the White House in his weekly newsletter, US Election Unspun.

Readers in Britain can register here. Those outside the UK can register here.