Who won the VP debate? Vance dominated. But Walz might have won something better.

If the 2024 vice presidential debate goes down in history as the last presidential debate ever in a general election, that won’t be a bad ending. It was a civil, policy-heavy debate in which Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance went to unusual lengths to emphasize that they agreed with many of each other’s statements. After the debate, the candidates talked again 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 what extent this undercard debate will matter in the end – I have a hot guess! – it could benefit Trump, the single politician who has done the most to destroy the idea of ​​political debate as a moderate exchange of ideas.

It’s not that Walz was terrible. He was fine. However, Vance was in control for most of the evening, being more nimble and skilled in the debates while also being able to present his case for a second Trump administration in a way that didn’t scare the kids.

For the most of the night.

Walz’s crucial failure was not that he lost a train of thought here or there, or that he was clearly nervous and nervous at the start of the debate. They were missed opportunities allowed Vance comes through with his portrayal of the Trump campaign — and its desires for the country — as common sense for your family.

Vance repeatedly managed to put Walz on the defensive on issues important to Democrats.

Most Americans believe climate change is a major problem. It’s not their top priority, but the belief among Republican politicians that human-caused climate change may not exist is seen, to use a rolling coin, as strange. Vance was asked at the start of the debate how the Trump administration would reduce the impacts of climate change. Vance argued that it was reasonable for people to be concerned about “crazy weather patterns” but only cited carbon emissions as a cause of climate change “for the sake of argument.” If something like that happens, he said, the plan should be to move more production from China to the U.S. and produce cleaner energy there.

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

Walz’s response to that could have been, “What the hell 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 does Harris reverse the relocation of domestic production if that was a problem – if it wasn’t? The– central goal of the adopted Biden economic agenda? Instead, Walz went through a litany of statistics and talked about some of the weather mitigation measures they are implementing in Minnesota.

Another example: The Trump administration reached its legislative nadir when it attempted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. It was a hugely unpopular effort that Republicans were lucky enough to have then-Sen. John McCain goes back and shoots. While Vance delivered some of his health policy answers fluently, he made the incredible claim that Trump “saved” the ACA.

“You don’t have to agree with everything President Trump has ever said or done,” Vance said, “but when Obamacare collapsed under the weight of its own regulatory burden and health care costs, Donald Trump could have destroyed the program.” Instead, he took a bipartisan approach ensured Americans had access to affordable health care.” Interesting! I was at the Capitol almost every day during the arduous seven-month effort by Trump and congressional Republicans to repeal Obamacare and somehow completely missed the fact that he was working on a bipartisan basis to save it.

Walz certainly expressed some of these points, but without any meaningful outrage. And as the back-and-forth over Obamacare continued, Vance was able to turn the tables on Walz and ask him, “Do you think the individual requirement is a good idea?” Walz seemed unsure how to answer, saying, “I do.” “I think the idea of ​​making sure the risk pool is wide enough to cover everyone is the only way insurance works.”

In episodes like this, it seemed like Walz spent most of his time during Vance’s answers getting the stats and canned lines he had for each topic without Hear to Vance and Counter-Strike. Vance, who was tested a lot in front of the press more than Walz in the last few months, heard everything. When Walz mentioned twice at the outset the need to listen to the “experts” in various fields, Vance did not miss his point in rebuttal. He went on a tirade about how many “experts” have made mistakes over the years, particularly in manufacturing policy as globalization occurs.

“And for the first time in a generation,” said Vance, “Donald Trump had the wisdom and courage to say to this bipartisan consensus: We’re not doing this anymore.” interesting To say that Trump governed by doing whatever seemed good to him at any given time is the right rhetorical approach for a presidential race that will be decided in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

On the cost of child care, Vance gave a thesis presentation in which he shared his thoughts on the topic. Walz noted, as he often did, 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 has never thought about child care policy for a second in his life, except that Ivanka Trump was interested in it.

Walz’s worst moment in the debate – when he really got into a mess and not just missed an opportunity – came when he was asked about his repeated misstatements over the years during the Tiananmen Square massacre 1989 in Hong Kong was when he was actually in Nebraska. Walz gave a long-winded answer that avoided the question. He then admitted in his follow-up that he had “misspoken” on the matter, before repeating: “He was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protests.” It was one of those moments that highlighted the weakness of the strategy of the Harris’ campaign has increased the practice of regularly hiding its directors from critical situations rather than giving them the opportunity to do so practice in them.

At the very end of the debate, however, Walz seemed to get it — and managed to bring out Vance’s worst moment of the night and provide a crucial insight for the Harris campaign.

In this case, Walz was paying attention when, when asked about Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election, Vance displayed his usual cool and calmly portrayed it as a major misunderstanding. Walz pounced, and effectively. While Walz noted that the two may “agree” on some other issues, he said, “This is where we are miles apart.” This was a threat to our democracy in a way we had never seen before. And it manifested itself in Donald Trump not being able to say, as he still says, that he didn’t lose the election. I would just ask: Did he lose the 2020 election?”

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

“That’s a damn non-answer,” Walz retorted.

Because no matter how many people watched this debate, Vance may have improved his image. He may have been able to calm nerves about a second Trump administration. Walz may have been on the wrong foot all night. But in the end, Walz got this Clip.

Need advice on how to get through this historic and nerve-wracking presidential election? Slate wants to help. Submit your questions to Wedge Issues here. It’s anonymous! No question is too stupid – or too existential.