If the 2024 vice presidential debate goes down as the last-ever presidential debate in the general election, that won’t be a bad ending. It was a civil, policy debate in which Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator JD Vance went to unusual lengths to emphasize that they agreed with much of what the other said. After the debate, the candidates chatted for a while and introduced their wives. It was almost as if Donald Trump had never descended the escalator into politics.

But he did, and to whatever extent this undercard debate matters – I have a hunch! – it could benefit Trump, the one 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 doing well. Vance, however, was in control for most of the evening, being more agile and polished in the heart of the debate while being able to present his case for a second Trump administration in a way that didn’t scare the kids.

For most of the night.

Walz’s main flaw wasn’t a lost train of thought here or there, or his obvious nerves and nerves at the start of the debate. Those were missed opportunities 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 time and time again when it came to strong issues for the Democrats.

Most Americans believe climate change is a major problem. It’s not their top priority, but Republican politicians’ belief that man-made climate change may not even exist is — to use a Walz coin — considered strange. Vance was asked early in the debate how the Trump administration would reduce the effects of climate change. Vance argued that it was reasonable for people to worry about “crazy weather patterns” but only bring up carbon emissions as a cause of climate change “for the sake of argument.” If this so-called thing happens, he said, the plan should be to move more production from China to the United States with cleaner energy production.

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

Walz’s response to this 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 besides, how does Harris do the opposite of cutting back on domestic production, when that was – if not – the case the– central objective of Biden’s stated economic agenda? Instead, Walz rushed through a litany of statistics and talked about some of the weatherization they’re doing in Minnesota.

As another example, the Trump administration reached its legislative low point when it attempted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. It was a wildly unpopular effort that Republicans were fortunate to have with then-Senator. John McCain downshifts and shoots. Although Vance was fluent in some of his healthcare policy answers, he made the unbelievable 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 worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure Americans had access to affordable care.” Interesting! I was at the Capitol almost every day during Trump and congressional Republicans’ arduous seven-month effort to repeal Obamacare, and I somehow completely missed his bipartisan effort to turn the country around. to save.

Walz did make some of these points, albeit without any useful 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 mandate is a good idea?” Walz, unsure of how to answer, said, “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 during Vance’s answers, Walz spent most of the time reciting the statistics and pre-cooked rules he had for each topic, without listen to Vance and counter punches. Vance, who has been tested a lot in front of the press more in recent months than Walz has heard everything. When Walz referred twice early on to the need to listen to the “experts” in various fields, Vance did not miss his rebuttal. He went on a rant about how many “experts” have been wrong over the years, especially in the area of ​​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 one interesting To say that Trump governed by doing what felt right to him at a given moment is the right rhetorical approach for a presidential campaign that will be decided in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Vance gave a thesis presentation on the costs of childcare in which he explained his thoughts on the matter. Walz noted, as he often did, that he felt he and Vance were not “that far apart,” and then gave his own thesis presentation. Instead, Walz could have noted that Donald Trump hasn’t given child care policy a second thought in his life, except to note that Ivanka Trump is interested in it.

Walz’s worst moment of the debate – where he was actually pushed into a mess, rather than just missing an opportunity – came when he was asked about his repeated misstatements over the years he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, when he was actually in Nebraska at the time. Walz gave a long-winded answer that sidestepped the question. He then admitted in his follow-up investigation that he had “misspoken” on the issue, before repeating “that he was in Hong Kong and China during the anti-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 situations rather than giving them the opportunity to excercise in them.

But at the very end of the debate, 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.

In this case, Walz paid attention when Vance, asked about Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 election, displayed his usual coolness and pretended it was all one big misunderstanding. Walz effectively caved in. Noting that the two may have “agreement” on some other issues, Walz said, “This is one where we are miles apart. This was a threat to our democracy in a way we had never seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump’s inability to say — he’s still saying — that 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 Expressing Their Opinions in the Wake of the 2020 COVID Situation?”

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

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

Need advice on surviving this historic and nail-biting presidential election? Slate wants to help. Ask your questions to Wedge Issues here. It’s anonymous! No question is too stupid – or too existential.