(upbeat music) - So Stephen, I am gonna start with you to talk about this debate that is being billed as sort of respective in tone and focused on policy.

Is Midwestern nice making a comeback?

(Stephen laughs) - Maybe, maybe that's what you needed is two Midwesterners to kind of take over and show 'em how we're supposed to have dialogue.

You know, I thought that of the debates I have seen in the last, you know, eight or 10 years, this had the closest tone to the things that you wanna see out of it.

I mean, they actually talked about issues.

They got to a lot of specifics about those issues.

They were very good at highlighting the real differences between the parties and the candidates in terms of how they would deal with those issues.

And they did it in a way that was, you know, adversarial, which is what a debate is supposed to be, but it wasn't nasty, and, you know, nobody called anybody a name, and they even empathized with each other about a couple of different things.

I mean, it was what you think of when you think of debates.

I've been saying today that I think, you know, the closest I can remember to this is probably Romney-Obama in 2012.

That's a long time ago.

We've seen, you know, a lot of really awful exchanges since then.

So it was nice to see something that actually gave people a chance to evaluate these candidates according to substance.

- Nolan, are you positive about the positivity?

- Well, I liked the debate.

It was civil, and it was conducted with a dignity befitting the office.

They were seeking no cheap shots, no gotcha moments, no snarky, smug smiles while the other person was talking.

When they agreed with each other, they acknowledged it.

I mean, they defined themselves, and there clearly was a difference in their positions, and they explained that.

But I thought it, again, I'll agree with Steve, this is what politics should look like, and we've gotten so used to turning on these debates and expecting this snarling, nasty, you know, exchanges between two candidates.

And you, you know, the two big debates we've seen so far in this campaign, I mean, they were cringeworthy.

You just felt yourself getting anxious while you were watching this.

This was the way it should look.

- But Stephen, one of the issues with this is most likely, especially compared with those two debates from earlier this season, fewer voters likely watched this debate Tuesday night.

How do we get more folks engaged with this process when at the table it is a civil conversation and focused on policy.

- Yeah, right, people wanna see the fireworks.

They wanna see 'em get after each other.

You know, I think part of the problem here is that this was a vice presidential debate.

It never rates as much attention as the presidential debates do.

It's also kinda late in the cycle, and people I think are reaching that point where they kind of have had enough.

They've seen enough of the nastiness, you know, the flood of commercials right now, and text messages on my phone all calling me by the wrong name, by the way.

- What are they calling you, Steve?

- Everything from Crystal to Sherry.

I mean, I don't know where they get the names that they say- - Because I'm Michael in every correspondence I get.

(Stephen laughs) - I've had my phone since 2007, so I don't know why they think anybody else has ever had it, but they have all the wrong names.

You know, I mean, people are starting to tune out, and starting to say, you know, I'll just wait till November and make a decision.

You know, the people who are undecided still, I think are largely people who are not taking in like every little twist and turn of this campaign and, you know, sifting through really complex stuff.

They're kind of hit and miss and waiting for something that comes across their radar that helps 'em make a decision.

I'm not sure that anything in this debate would've quite risen to that level.

And that's good because that meant that they had this kind of substantive discussion.

But I'm not sure that either campaign can count on something that happened during this debate to help them seal the deal with those people who have just not made a decision yet.

- But nothing seems to be moving the needle.

You'll get a, one candidate or the other will get a one point bump or a little more than that, and then the next week it's right back down.

I mean, I've never really seen anything like this, a race that stays this close for so long.

And you know, in Michigan, obviously they feel we're the key state, or one of two or three key states, because they are going to be living here for the next week or so.

Trump's in for the economic club next Thursday.

Vance has been in.

Harris has coming to Flint.

There's no end to their presence in Michigan.

And so, you know, we must hold the key to this, and I assume we do.

- Stephen, we got about 30 seconds left.

If we talk a little bit about all of the visits, the descending that is happening among these candidates, what does where the candidates are coming tell you right now about campaign strategy?

- Well, I mean, they're campaigning in places where they're trying to get out their voters, right?

I think this is still somewhat in some ways a base campaign for both parties here.

And Democrats know that if they can get the Democratic base, especially in Detroit and other urban cities to show up, Michigan's really kind of off the board, because when they vote, the state goes blue.

But Trump is still trying to get as many, you know, republicans and independents as he can as well.

- Okay, thanks you two.

Much more to come- - Thank you.

- Next week as the visits continue.

(Stephen laughs)