Republican vice presidential candidate Senator JD Vance and Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz participate in a debate at the CBS Broadcast Center on October 1, 2024 in New York City.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Hide caption

Toggle label

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Partisans on both sides will have arguments for why their man did well at certain times and not so well at others in Tuesday night’s first and only vice presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz.

This debate is unlikely to make any difference in this presidential campaign because – first and foremost – no one is voting for the vice president. After all, the most important rule as a vice presidential candidate is: “First, do no harm.”

Unless they make a big mistake, vice presidents are unlikely to make a fundamental difference in the race. And there was nothing like that on Tuesday evening.

But there were five takeaways from an interesting evening:

1. Will the real JD Vance please stand up?

Style-wise, Vance was clearly more polished than Walz, and he probably achieved what he set out to do: seem more rational and likeable than Trump and, frankly, himself. But there’s a real question about who the real Vance is . He was once a Trump critic and became one of Trump’s biggest cheerleaders. Since this transformation, he has earned a reputation as a die-hard MAGA supporter, willing to take on anyone who will take on anyone, and known for making controversial statements, whether about “Childless cat ladies“I don’t care what happens to Ukraine”in a certain way” or spread false claims about immigrants eating pets.

But with his popularity lower than that of any vice presidential candidate in modern history, another Vance emerged Tuesday night — one who largely respected his opponent. Vance even thanked the “people at CBS,” in contrast to the boos he gets at his rallies during the campaign when a reporter asks a question.

Vance has also distorted a lot of Trump’s positions, particularly on health care, child care and January 6th. Since Republicans have an inherent advantage on the cost of living in this election, his strongest moments were when he asked why Harris hasn’t already cut prices as part of the administration and implemented some of the things she promises when she is elected president.

Some will view Vance’s performance Tuesday night as a more focused version of Trump. Others will see him as a kind of chameleon.

2. Walz initially seemed less polished and more nervous on the national stage

Walz got off to a rocky start. At the beginning he was asked about foreign policy, which is obviously not his strong point. He made some awkward pauses and mispronounced (e.g. he said he was “friends with school shooters” while apparently meaning the families of school shooting victims).

However, Walz appeared to gain traction on domestic issues, such as dealing with hurricanes, climate change, abortion rights and, somewhat surprisingly, in an exchange on immigration, which is generally one of the weaker areas for Democrats. Walz effectively portrayed Trump as uninterested in solving the immigration problem because he blocked a bipartisan border security bill. Walz also wanted to isolate Trump as a problem – he even said that he believed Vance wanted to find a solution to the problem. Vance’s comeback was to say that Harris was inauthentic and a newcomer to a harder line on immigration policy. Both campaigns will be happy with these lines of attack.

Aside from foreign policy, Walz’s response was weakest to questions about his time in China. Walz said he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in the spring of 1989. Minnesota Public Radio and others have reported that he did not travel there until later in the summer.

Instead of directly saying that he misspelled, Walz gave a convoluted response in which he said, “I’m going to talk a lot,” which could mean that you can’t believe everything he says.

Walz’s best moments of the evening came when he discussed January 6 and the 2020 presidential election. At one point, Walz asked Vance if Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance deflected and instead claimed that the real threat to democracy was “censorship.”

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

3. Vance made it clear that he believes people shouldn’t trust experts

It was a startling admission: Vance rejected the idea that experts should be trusted.

This attitude reflects how the right has generally moved away from credulous pundits over the last decade of American politics. Democrats have had their own problems with being perceived as elitist and denigrating working-class voters. Republicans like Trump have taken advantage of this.

Instead of relying on traditional sources of knowledge, Trump exploits cultural grievances by telling people that there are simple solutions to complex problems—for example, by suggesting that child care can be paid for through tariffs, which is not the case. Vance supports that line of thinking, saying voters should trust Trump more than others. Citing the example of conventional wisdom about the global economy, Vance said: “For the first time in a generation, Donald Trump had the wisdom and courage to tell that bipartisan consensus, ‘We’re not doing this anymore.’ “

This reveals one of the biggest problems in America: People don’t agree on common facts. People have their own ideologies and find others who confirm their beliefs – be it Trump or social media posts – rather than being changed by evidence to the contrary.

Sowing distrust in experts gives a conspiracy more credibility and makes it harder to bridge divides.

4. There were many potentially explosive topics that were not discussed

Moderators can only weigh so much into a debate, but there were some things that got attention in this campaign that weren’t brought up – some of them directly affecting the vice presidential candidates.

Vance, for example, wasn’t asked about it his comments from 2021 on the topic of “childless cat ladies” which have caused so much controversy.

Walz did not have to answer for his military records or for his false statements about carrying military weapons. Vance was not asked his accusations of “stolen valor.” also about Walz’s service.

Neither candidate was asked about Ukraine, where these two campaigns have fundamentally different views, and Vance in particular. was a vocal critic of US aid to Ukraine.

Notably, there was no substantive discussion of Trump’s handling of the COVID pandemic in either this debate or the two presidential debates.

5. Is Trump considering another debate?

Given the praise from the right for Vance’s performance, one wonders whether Trump might reconsider another debate with Harris.

Does Trump want to let Vance have the final say? Does he want people to ask whether Vance is actually a better debater and a more focused candidate?

How the debate goes in conservative circles – and how much praise Vance receives – could ultimately be the deciding factor for Trump.