Two accomplished politicians reminded America what a debate should sound like

Overall, Mike Pence emerged the happier from the presidential undercard debate. That is, if you ignore his misfortune in having a large fly camp on his head, and a distracting case of red eye.

The US vice-president went into this encounter on the defensive, surrounded by low expectations.

As the chairman of the White House coronavirus task force, and with the White House itself in chaos, he faced a forensic grilling from Kamala Harris, the brilliant prosecutor turned senator. Some Democrats predicted Mr Pence would be a lamb to the slaughter.

But the vice-president is a deliberate, steely, and calm debater. Above all, he seemed at ease. Before becoming a politician he was a conservative radio talk show host, and it’s apparent. He doesn’t get fazed under fire. If there is one word to describe Mr Pence it is “unflappable”.

Ms Harris’s strategy might be summed up as “Covid, Covid, and more Covid”. She landed blows over his handling of the pandemic. But the vice-president proved an elusive target.

This debate had taken on historic importance due to Donald Trump and Joe Biden being the two oldest presidential candidates in history.

A poor performance by either Mr Pence or Ms Harris could have had catastrophic consequences for their campaigns. But, in the end, there were no losers. Both avoided major gaffes and, equally, neither hit a home run.

For Ms Harris it was a major opportunity to introduce herself to many Americans who had not yet heard her speak at length, and she acquitted herself well.

Mr Pence may face criticism for repeatedly interrupting, to which Ms Harris responded firmly but politely: “Mr Vice-president, I’m speaking.”

But, mostly, this was a stark contrast to the first presidential debate. Two accomplished politicians, the facts at their fingertips, rationally discussing the finer points of policy. America hasn’t seen the like for a while.

Ms Harris expertly laid out the evidence against Mr Pence and Mr Trump on the coronavirus as if she were in a courtroom. Her case was that they had failed the American people.

Perhaps Mr Pence’s most effective moment came when he turned away from his opponent and looked straight into the camera, reassuring Americans who had lost loved ones that they were in his prayers. And then he emphasised that it was China’s fault, not his.

Ms Harris tried other points of attack, notably on the administration’s attempt to overturn Obamacare. “If you have a pre-existing condition, heart disease, diabetes, they’re coming for you,” she told Americans.

But Mr Pence was able to steer the debate to the economy, and an appeal to people’s pockets. The one message he wanted to leave the audience with was that a Biden-harris administration would raise taxes “on day one”.

Vice-presidential debates are usually of little consequence. All the combatants have to do is attack, and defend those on the top of their tickets, while showing they are competent to take over in an emergency.

Perhaps the only truly memorable moment in such a debate, since they began in 1976, came in 1988 when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle: “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

But this time it was different. Mr Pence or Ms Harris could be called on to assume the presidency before the next election in 2024. If not, they may well be in poll position to be their party’s nominee in that election.

In that context what Mr Pence did was significant. He tied himself to Mr Trump with no equivocations, no daylight between them, and no attempt to appeal to party moderates.

That means, should Mr Trump lose on Nov 3, Mr Pence will emerge not as a Republican consensus candidate, but as the carrier of the Trump flame.