Vance Won the Debate. Walz Got Something That Might Be Better.

If the 2024 vice presidential debate goes down as the last general-election presidential debate ever, it’s not a bad ending. It was a civil, policy-heavy debate in which Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance spent an unusual amount of effort to emphasize that they agreed with a lot of what the other was saying. The candidates spent time chatting with each other after the debate, and introduced their wives to each other. It was almost as if Donald Trump had never descended the escalator into politics.

But he did, and to whatever extent this undercard debate ends up mattering—I have a hot guess!—it could be to benefit Trump, the single politician who’s done the most to destroy the idea of political debate as a temperate exchange of ideas.

It’s not that Walz was terrible. He was fine. Vance, though, was in control for most of the night, more nimble and polished in the nuts and bolts of debate, while able to present his case for a second Trump administration in a way that didn’t scare the children.

For most of the night.

The key failing of Walz was not a lost train of thought here or there, or his obvious jitters and nerves at the debate’s outset. It was missed opportunities that allowed Vance to get away with his presentation of the Trump campaign—and its desires for the country—as common sense for your family.

Vance had a way of putting Walz on the defensive on strong issues for Democrats, over and over.

Most Americans believe climate change is a big problem. It’s not their top priority, but Republican politicians’ belief that human-caused climate change may not even exist is viewed—to use a Walz coinage—as weird. Vance, early in the debate, was asked how the Trump administration would reduce the impacts of climate change. Vance argued it was reasonable that people were concerned about “crazy weather patterns” but only offered up carbon emissions as a cause of climate change “for the sake of argument.” If this so-called thing is happening, he said, the plan should be to re-shore more manufacturing from China to the United States with its cleaner energy production.

“And unfortunately,” he said, “Kamala Harris has done exactly the opposite.”

Walz’s response to this could’ve been: What on Earth are you talking about? Do you believe climate change is happening as you said “for the sake of argument,” or not? And by the way, how is Harris doing the opposite of re-shoring domestic production when that was a—if not the—central aim of the enacted Biden economic agenda? Instead, Walz raced through a litany of stats and talked about some of the weather-proofing they’re doing in Minnesota.

Another example: The Trump administration reached its legislative nadir when it tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. It was a wildly unpopular effort that Republicans were fortunate to have then-Sen. John McCain take out back and shoot. Vance, while fluent in some of his health care policy answers, made the incredible claim that Trump “salvaged” the ACA.

“You don’t have to agree with everything that President Trump has ever said or ever done,” Vance said, “but when Obamacare was crushing under the weight of its own regulatory burden and healthcare costs, Donald Trump could have destroyed the program. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.” Interesting! I was in the Capitol most every day during the tedious seven-month effort by Trump and congressional Republican to repeal Obamacare, and I somehow missed entirely that he was working to save it on a bipartisan basis.

Walz did get some of these points across, though without what would have been some useful indignation. And as the back-and-forth about Obamacare went on, Vance was able to turn the tables on Walz, asking him, “you think the individual mandate’s a good idea?” Walz, looking unsure how to answer, said, “I think the idea of making sure the risk pool is broad enough to cover everyone, that’s the only way insurance works.”

In episodes like this, it seemed like Walz spent most of the time during Vance’s answers summoning what stats and pre-cooked lines he had for each subject without listening to Vance and counterpunching. Vance, who’s been tested in front of the press much more these past couple of months than Walz has, heard everything. When Walz twice, early on, referenced the need to listen to the “experts” in various fields, Vance didn’t miss in his rebuttal. He went on a tirade about how much “experts” have gotten wrong over the years, particularly with manufacturing policy during globalization.

“And for the first time in a generation,” Vance said, “Donald Trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to that bipartisan consensus, we’re not doing it anymore.” While that’s an interesting way to say that Trump governed by doing whatever felt good to him at any given point, it’s the right rhetorical approach for a presidential campaign that will be decided in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

On the costs of child care, Vance gave a thesis presentation on his thoughts on the matter. Walz, as he often did, noted that he didn’t think he and Vance were “that far apart,” and then gave his own thesis presentation. Instead, Walz could have noted that Donald Trump hasn’t thought about child care policy for a second of his life, other than to note that it’s something that Ivanka Trump is interested in.

Walz’s worst moment of the debate—where he was genuinely cornered into a sputtering mess, rather than merely missing an opportunity—came when asked about his repeated misstatements over the years that he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, when he was actually in Nebraska at the time. Walz gave a longwinded answer that avoided the question. Then, in his follow-up, he admitted that he “misspoke” on the matter, before repeating “he was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest.” It was one of those moments that reinforced the weakness of the Harris campaign’s strategy of regularly hiding their principals from critical settings rather than giving them the opportunity to practice in them.

At the very end of the debate, though, Walz seemed to get it—and was able to produce Vance’s worst moment of the night, and a defining takeaway for the Harris campaign to use.

In this case, Walz was paying attention when Vance, asked about Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election, did his usual cool and collected dissembling of it as all a big misunderstanding. Walz pounced, and effectively. While noting that the two might have “agreement” on some other issues, Walz said, “this is one that we are miles apart on. This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump’s inability to say, he is still saying, he didn’t lose the election. I would just ask that: Did he lose the 2020 election?”

“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance said. “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?”

“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz shot back.

For however many were watching this debate, Vance may have improved his image. He may have been able to settle some nerves about a second Trump administration. Walz may have been on his back foot the whole night. But in the end, Walz got the clip.

Need advice on living through this historic and nerve-racking presidential election? Slate wants to help. Submit your questions to Wedge Issues here. It’s anonymous! No question is too dumb—or too existential.