Who won the vice presidential debate? Experts reveal if J.D. Vance or Tim Walz came out on top

Sen. J.D. Vance and Gov. Tim Walz came face-to-face for the first time Tuesday night in an eventful debate hosted by CBS News. 

The two vice presidential hopefuls sparred over abortion, immigration and the economy. 

They also went after each other for differing approaches to foreign policy - as the Middle East is at the brink of all-out war after Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel.

One standout moment occurred when CBS debate moderator Margaret Brennan live fact-checked J.D. Vance, 40, over his comments on Haitian immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio. 

That prompted an angry response from Trump's running mate, who fired back and then had his mic cut, sparking outrage by viewers accusing CBS of 'bias.'

Walz, 60, also disclosed that his own 17-year-old son witnessed a shooting at a school community center, in a harrowing tale about nationwide gun violence. 

It sparked a rare moment of consensus on behalf of both candidates, who agreed schools must be safe havens for American children. 

And social media users swooned over Vance's 'gorgeous blue' eyes as he tackled the questions posed by the moderators.  

DailyMail.com spoke to several political experts to get their takeaways about who emerged victorious:  

Jonathan Bronitsky: Walz didn't do... anything

Vance destroyed Walz, according to Bronitsky, former chief speechwriter for Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr and co-founder and CEO of ATHOS.

The 'nervous and disjointed' Minnesota Democrat 'collided headfirst with a buzz saw' into Vance. 

'He didn’t commit any glaring errors, but he didn’t really do… anything.'

Meanwhile, Bronitsky said Vance 'showed the country' why Trump picked him. 

'If you’re a progressive, you’re likely sweating, confronted with the undeniable reality that Vance is a formidable force.'

In particular, he said Vance - who he called a 'breath of fresh air' - thrived while correcting the CBS moderators' 'misinformation' particularly on the immigration question. 

'He also skillfully navigated their gotcha question, acknowledging that his earlier criticism of Trump stemmed from falling for mainstream media distortions and fabrications.'

David Litt: Vance beat expectations

Former President Obama's senior speechwriter David Litt told DailyMail.com that Donald Trump's poor debate performance against Kamala Harris a few weeks ago gave Vance a leg up.

'Donald Trump did his running mate a huge favor - by losing so badly in his debate with Kamala Harris, he made it easy for J.D. Vance to beat expectations.'

He said the 'low standard' helped the Republican succeed and lean into the role of a 'slick, polished politician' as opposed to a 'creepy podcast bro.'

Litt said that Walz's performance was 'less polished' and let Vance off the hook with some of his more outlandish claims. 

'But when it mattered most Walz sounded like a regular person and came out on top. Debates are about big moments, and the biggest, by far, was Vance smugly refusing to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. I’d love it if every undecided voter could watch this debate just to see that exchange.' 

He went on to say Trump is the 'big loser' of the night for continuing to duck more debates with Harris.

Kevin Madden: The winner won't matter

Madden, a GOP strategist and former Romney presidential campaign aide, admitted the debate was not as 'we expected.'

He said the 'contentious' campaign rhetoric was largely thrown out the window and replaced with 'Midwestern niceness.'

Although Vance better executed his plan of attack, the strategist told DailyMail.com that the debate won't 'shift the trajectory of the campaign for either side.'

'I doubt whether 48 hours from now it will even register with many voters.'

Joel Payne: It was a surprisingly traditional event

The Democratic strategist told DailyMail.com that the debate, which turned out to be 'more traditional' was 'probably jarring' to some Americans.

'I think both candidates had some moments that they will be able to use beyond this debate,' he went on. 

Payne questioned how Vance came across to swing voters after he struggled with the CBS fact checking and 'lies he was called out on.'

'I don’t think that will matter obviously to his base but you have to wonder how that plays with swing voters.'

'It’s pretty clear Vance was the more comfortable debater which is what the Walz team said would happen. But both candidates were fairly true to form.'

Jessica Anderson: Vance is a leader Americans can count on

Jessica Anderson, president of the conservative Sentinel Action Fund, said that the debate showed how 'radical' the Harris-Walz ticket is.

She told DailyMail.com that Walz's answers revealed that he will 'expand his extremism beyond Minnesota as the unapologetic wingman for Kamala Harris.'

She went on to say that Americans want 'forward-thinking' leaders, and Vance showed that he is that candidate.

The debate is especially timely with the growing tension in the Middle East, she noted - an issue raised at the very start of the debate.

'Voters are looking for leaders they can count on to defend Israel and protect the United States and our interests overseas.'

'Republicans are ready to deliver and lead, but we must continue to mobilize voters with a strong ground game to win back the White House and the Senate.'

Alfredo Ortiz: Kamala's bad judgment in picking Walz on display

Ortiz, who leads the conservative advocacy group the Job Creators Network said that the debate showed Harris' 'bad judgment' by selecting Walz as her running mate.

Particularly, he said that Walz hid behind his 'folksy demeanor' in order to mask his more 'extreme' policies.

Those include his hike taxes for 'ideological reasons' and also strict covid lockdown policies that shuttered small businesses.

James Gilmore: Vance smoothed attacks on Trump

Gilmore, former governor of Virginia, told DailyMail.com that Vance came across as 'very reasonable.'

'Coming into the debate, they had put a lot of attacks on Vance. I think that stuff goes away now. I thought Vance looked very capable and very good.'

He went on to say that the CBS moderators were 'biased' and 'pretty awful.' Especially when they cut Vance's mic in response to the migrant question.

Gilmore went on to say Walz appeared as though he was 'running for reelect as governor of Minnesota.'

He added that his response on China was not great, saying" 'For some reason, Walz decided he had to explain why he was pro Chinese.'

In a puzzling moment, Walz tried to explain why he lied about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in June 1989 by trying to dismiss his comment as the product of being a 'knucklehead.'