Something weird happened in last night’s high stakes vice presidential debate. The country expected another unpleasant rhetorical rumble, but instead saw two political candidates engage in a civil discourse focused, for the most part, on policy. 

In the weeks leading up to the VP debate, media stories anticipated the kind of personal attacks that characterized the earlier debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. It would likely be, the pundits thought, one gotcha moment after another, a rehash of every statement that could possibly be used to damage their opponent and make the electorate more unfavorable toward them. In other words, it would be one more “it’s not about me; it’s about thee” debate that voters have come to expect from political candidates today.

While there were certainly serious policy disagreements between JD Vance and Tim Walz, there were also moments of agreement, which both candidates verbally acknowledged. In the end, the debate seems to have resulted in an extremely unusual outcome. Both candidates walked off the stage last night having upped their popularity with the electorate. 

A CBS survey of 1,630 likely voters who watched the debate showed both candidates’ favorable-unfavorable ratings improved significantly. For political and media pundits, that was a totally unexpected outcome, but a good one for the electorate. 

(Full disclosure: I have worked as an election analyst for CBS News’ Election Decision Desk for the last 20 years, and had no involvement in the debate.)

You have to have some sympathy for the candidates, who were in the difficult position of being responsible not only for their own policies and past statements, but those of their running mates as well, both of whom have been directly responsible for setting national policy. 

Overall, Vance and Walz did a good job defending their positions and contrasting them with their opponent’s — and doing it with limited hyperbole. The recent events surrounding the hurricane in the U.S., specifically the devastation in western North Carolina, and the dangerous escalation in the Middle East gave voters the chance to see how each candidate might address significant domestic and international challenges. 

The opening questions on foreign affairs proved to be a bridge too far for Walz, who seemed unsure and unprepared, as well as nervous. Had he done more press interviews prior to the debate, it would have given him some practice in formulating responses in a national environment. 

As the evening wore on, Walz got better, but at moments, particularly when quizzed about the economy, his arguments weren’t based in fact. One good example, on the question of whether the economy had been stronger under Trump or Biden, Walz claimed that it was “Trump’s failure on COVID that led to the collapse of our economy.” He described “10 million people out of work, largest percentage since the Great Depression” on “day one” of the Biden administration. 

In reality, Trump handed Biden an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. That was down significantly from the 14.8 percent in April 2020 after the economy shut down due to the pandemic. Trump delivered a drop of 8.4 percentage points over the next nine months and inflation at 1.4 percent. 

So, contrary to Walz’s claims, the trend handed to the Biden administration was positive. It was not, in fact, the largest percentage since the Great Depression as he said. Just going back to President Barack Obama’s administration, for example, the unemployment rate was greater than 6.4 percent in 62 out of his 96 months in office. 

Walz’s most difficult moment came in response to the question about whether he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989 as he has claimed. His initial response was to offer up a long ramble at best that never answered the question. When the moderator pressed Walz, he finally admitted that he had misspoken on this. 

Despite a number of gaffes and misstatements, Walz managed to do a fairly good job presenting his and Harris’ policy positions, whether you agree with them or not. I give him credit for keeping his exchanges with Vance direct but not personal. 

Vance did the same, but he had a more difficult challenge than Walz. Democrats and the media have consistently portrayed him as the Trump campaign’s “attack dog,” and most expected he would go after Walz and Harris on a personal level. The idea that Vance might focus on policy rather than personal attacks was not even on the table for discussion. 

Again, like Walz, whether you agreed with him or not, Vance did a good job presenting his policy positions. His recent experience doing interviews with the press was clearly a help. His statements were precise, making the points he wanted to make with clarity and, surprising to many, with warmth and compassion. Vance’s friendly interaction with Walz made the debate more about content rather than personality, which Walz equally contributed to. 

Vance smartly focused on economic issues and effectively generated a persuasive contrast between Trump’s record and Harris’ responsibility as a key player in the Biden administration’s economic policies. When it comes to who won the debate, I would give the edge to Vance on points. 

But he, too, had a difficult moment. When asked about the congressional certification of the 2020 election, he wandered around as he found himself, like other Republican candidates, trying to find a way out of the question. It created the one truly negative storyline out of the debate for him.

In the end, perhaps the best way to judge the outcome of the debate is how it impacts independents. In the most recent Winning the Issues survey looking at the presidential ballot, 1 percent of Democrats were undecided, 2 percent of Republicans, and not surprisingly, 19 percent of independents. 

While neither candidate really covered in detail his approach to growing the economy, increasing wages and getting prices down — independents’ top concerns — Vance had the advantage of the Trump economic record and an ability to communicate an economic agenda for the future with a common sense, easy to understand delivery.

Despite a reasonable showing by Walz, Vance’s performance was significantly better.

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.