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

change caption

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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

This debate is unlikely to have any impact on this presidential campaign at all, because – first of all – no one votes for the vice presidential choice. After all, the most important rule as a running mate is: ‘First, do no harm.’

Barring a major mistake, VPs are unlikely to make a fundamental difference in the race. And it wasn’t there 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 accomplished what he set out to do: seem more rational and agreeable than Trump and, frankly, himself. But there is a real question about who the real Vance is. He was once a Trump critic who became one of Trump’s biggest cheerleaders. Since that transformation, he has built a reputation as a hard-line MAGA partisan willing to take on anyone, known for his controversial statements, whether it be “childless cat ladies‘It doesn’t matter what happens to Ukraine’somehow‘or propagate false claims about immigrants eating pets.

But with his popularity lower than any vice presidential running mate in modern history, a different Vance emerged Tuesday night — one who was largely respectful of his opponent. Vance even thanked the “folks of CBS,” which is a far cry from the booing that occurs during his campaign’s rallies when a reporter asks a question.

Vance has also laundered many of Trump’s positions, especially on health care, child care and January 6. Because Republicans have an inherent cost-of-living advantage in this election, his strongest moments came when he questioned why Harris hasn’t done so. has already lowered prices as part of the government and has implemented some of the things she promises to do if elected president.

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

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

Walz got off to a shaky start. Early on he was asked about foreign policy, which is clearly not his strong suit. He had a few awkward pauses and made a mistake (saying he was “friends with school shootings,” for example when he seemed to mean the families of school shooting victims).

However, Walz seemed to find his footing 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 the problem — even saying he thinks Vance wants to find a solution to the problem. Vance’s comeback was to say Harris is inauthentic and a newcomer to a harder line on immigration. Both campaigns will be happy with these lines of attack.

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

Instead of directly saying he made a mistake, Walz gave a meandering response, saying, “I’ll talk a lot,” which might mean you can’t believe everything he says.

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

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

3. Vance has revealed that he believes people should not trust experts

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

This attitude reflects how the broader right has turned away from religious experts over the past decade of American politics. Democrats have had their own problems with being seen as elitist and speaking down to working-class voters. Republicans, like Trump, have taken advantage of this.

Instead of relying on traditional sources of knowledge, Trump has played on cultural grievances by telling people there are simple solutions to complex problems — such as suggesting that tariffs will pay for child care, which is not the case. Vance embraces this line of thinking, saying voters should trust Trump over others. Vance gave the example of conventional wisdom on the global economy, saying: “For the first time in a generation, Donald Trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to that bipartisan consensus, ‘We’re not doing it anymore.’ “

That exposes one of the biggest problems in America: people disagreeing on a shared set of facts. People have their own ideologies and find others who confirm what they believe – whether it’s Trump or social media posts – rather than changing their minds due to contrary evidence.

Sowing distrust in experts gives conspiracy more credibility and makes it more difficult to bridge divisions.

4. There were plenty of potentially explosive topics that weren’t discussed

Moderators can only fit so much into a debate, but there were a number of things that drew attention during this campaign that weren’t brought up — some of which directly pertain to the vice presidential candidates.

For example, Vance was not asked his 2021 comments about “childless cat ladies” that have caused so much controversy.

Walz did not have to answer for the timeline of his military record or his false statements about carrying weapons of war. No questions were asked about Vance his accusations of ‘stolen courage’ also about Walz’s service.

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

Remarkably, there has been no substantive discussion – in this debate and in the two presidential debates – about Trump’s handling of the COVID pandemic.

5. Is Trump reconsidering another debate?

With the right’s praise for Vance’s performance, one wonders whether Trump would reconsider another debate with Harris.

Does Trump want to give Vance the last word? Does he want people to wonder if Vance is actually a better debater and a more focused candidate?

How the debate plays out in conservative circles — and how much praise Vance receives — could ultimately determine the decision for Trump.