Posted by 
JD Vance not only was polished, but offered a more cutting critique of Kamala Harris than his running mate, Donald Trump, managed in his own debate with her last month.
Tim Walz, on the other hand, took a while to warm up — and wasn’t that great even when he did.
The debate, light on body blows and heavy on policy, was won by Vance on style points.
Vance managed, at least for one night, to move past his controversial past statements about women and families and his false claims about immigrants eating pets in Ohio. Meanwhile, Walz had his moments, including calling out Vance for not acknowledging that Trump lost the 2020 election — even if he had one of the most cringeworthy answers of the night when he all but conceded a falsehood about his whereabouts in China during the Tiananmen Square protests, saying he “misspoke.”
The two candidates arrived in New York under a drumbeat of headlines proclaiming this the most consequential vice presidential debate ever. It isn’t clear it lived up to that billing. But it’s likely the last debate Americans will see before voting in November.
We asked six POLITICO campaign reporters and editors for their takeaways from the Walz-Vance debate:
Who had the better night?
Holly Otterbein: The conventional wisdom was that Vance was going to be combative, mean and personal tonight. There were certainly moments when he hit Walz hard. But for much of the night, Vance deliberately treated Walz with a softer touch, saying he was sure the governor wants to solve various problems, but that Harris doesn’t. It was an effort to present himself as a gentler version of Vance than we’ve seen on the campaign trail so far — and it appeared to throw off Walz.
That said, Walz warmed up and got better as the debate went on, making an energetic case that Trump had only built a fraction of his wall and torpedoed a border security bill for purely political reasons. And Walz’s strongest moment came at the very end, when he asked Vance if Trump lost the 2020 election (which he did), and Vance dodged.
Steve Shepard: Vance wins on points. He was more comfortable in the setting and didn’t have any serious missteps. Walz’s hypercaffeinated folksiness came out at times, especially once the debate turned to domestic policy. And his passion came through on abortion rights to such an extent that Vance admitted the PR problem Republicans have had on the issue since the 2022 Dobbs decision — a potential lasting moment, even if the Ohio senator was the more polished debater for the balance of the evening.
But neither candidate had the kind of moment that would make them a liability on their respective tickets. That was job No. 1 for both men tonight: Do no harm.
Lisa Kashinsky: Vance. This is where all those hours being grilled on the talk-show circuit and parrying reporters on the trail paid off. Vance was poised. He defended Trump’s record. He effectively made the case against Harris where Trump failed in his last debate. Walz was nervous from the top. He took awkward pauses like he was trying to remember the talking points he drilled in debate prep. This was never going to be the ideal setting for Walz, whose affable personality is his biggest selling point.
Eugene Daniels: It was the most Midwestern vice presidential debate in history, but I think you gotta give it to Vance. It seems like the expectation setting from the Walz folks ended up being true: debating isn’t his forte. Most people watch the first bit of the debate, and if you tuned out early, you saw Walz seeming pretty nervous early on and Vance seeming much more comfortable.
Walz got steadier as time went on. His answers on health care and access to reproductive care were his best moments throughout the debate. But Vance was able to do something his running mate couldn’t last month: tie Harris to President Joe Biden. For weeks, Trump aides have promised the campaign would link Harris and Biden on every issue, and Vance did that effectively, often and on almost everything.
Tonight was undoubtedly the best night for JD Vance since he became Trump’s running mate.
Adam Wren: Vance. The Harris-Walz strategy of all but hiding Walz since his early August rollout showed tonight. Walz’s answer on the Tiananmen Square question — he had a significant amount of time to formulate a response to this prior to the debate — was rocky at best. One of the enduring questions for the Harris-Walz campaign will be why they bubble-wrapped a guy who rose to prominence on the strength of his media hits during the mini-veepstakes. I just don’t understand it.
And Holly is right about Vance’s “softer touch.” Did you know Vance had “three beautiful little kids”? Because he said it three times, which read to me like an attempt to soften his image. Also this: at the revelation Walz’s son had witnessed a shooting, Vance, a practicing Catholic, said “Christ have mercy.” A human moment for a candidate who has been panned as less than.
Natalie Allison: I agree with Adam. Walz seemed uncomfortable on a number of occasions during the debate. There were awkward pauses. At times, he almost looked like he was holding his breath as he strained his eyes and stared at Vance while Vance spoke. (Was he going through a script in his head? Holding in hiccups?) Walz certainly had moments when he tapped into his folksy brand and came across as confident — like when he repeatedly highlighted common ground he and Vance share — but Vance, in his pink tie, overall came across as more engaging on stage tonight.
How will the debate change the trajectory of the race?
Shepard: Unless Vance or Walz is actually going to be leading his party’s ticket five weeks from now — and in this campaign year, I guess you never know — it won’t. At all.
Wren: This debate was billed as the most consequential vice presidential debate ever. OK. But who is the voter who said to themselves, “I’m not quite sure what I think of Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, so I’m going to punt on that decision and move to a runoff between Tim Walz and JD Vance?” I just don’t see what this debate did to change things beyond giving Trump a good news cycle for a day.
Allison: If you aren’t someone who is really into politics (the kind of person reading a POLITICO post-debate roundtable) and already hyper tuned-in to the election, you probably weren’t watching the vice presidential debate, or at least not all of it. This really wasn’t must-see prime-time television for most people. I watched Ohio Republican Senate primary debates featuring Vance that were more entertaining than this, so my assumption is that normies probably tuned out and won’t give this debate another thought.
Otterbein: A few online videos and perhaps ads will be cut showcasing Walz and Vance’s worst moments. Money will be raised. But few minds will be changed.
Daniels: It just won’t. Neither of them bombed the debate, which would have created panic within their respective party. But a non-spicy, nice guy debate isn’t changing minds. This race has been so resistant to big swings, not sure how anyone would anticipate this creating some kind of bounce for either man.
Kashinsky: It appears to have compelled Trump to declare he would veto a national abortion ban — something he refused to answer in his own debate against Harris. That, more than any of the things that were said on the VP debate stage tonight, could matter.
What’s the one moment each candidate will regret, and what will we remember about this debate a year from now?
Allison: I am confident a pang of regret shot through Walz the moment Norah O’Donnell asked him to explain on prime-time television why he lied about being in Hong Kong for the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 when he was not, in fact, yet in the country. It was the cringiest moment of the night, when we could feel Walz digging himself into the hole further and further, talking a million miles an hour without answering the question — saying things like “My community knows who I am” and “I’ve not been perfect.” And assuming it was a flub when Walz said he “became friends with school shooters,” he probably regrets that one, too.
Vance couldn’t have been thrilled when Walz masterfully put him on the spot to answer whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance, knowing that Trump was watching and giving his own Truth Social play-by-play of the debate, refused to answer.
In terms of what we’ll remember, probably very little. Trump, at least, seemed to make a policy announcement during the debate, issuing an all-caps rant online about how “EVERYONE KNOWS” he would veto a national abortion ban — something he repeatedly refused to answer when asked about it at his own debate.
Kashinsky: Couldn’t agree more, Natalie. And the part Walz might end up regretting the most about that whole response is saying “I’m a knucklehead at times.” Self-deprecation — though usually of the humorous kind — is a part of Walz’s brand. But that one line is ripe to be taken out of context by the Trump campaign. It’s almost the equalizer to how Democrats got so much mileage out of Trump saying he had “concepts of a plan” for health care in his debate against Harris.
Wren: Pete Buttigieg prepped Walz. It’s hard not to imagine what tonight would’ve been like if he was debating Vance tonight in Walz’s stead. Can you imagine Buttigieg being hidden from the media leading up to a debate like this? But to answer the question: Walz’s Tiananmen Square answer was rough. And something I’ll remember for a while.
Otterbein: Walz’s exact line about this — “I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just — that’s what I’ve said” — was so awkward it was painful. But allow me to note another moment we might remember: Moderator Margaret Brennan shutting down Vance when he tried to defend himself after she clarified his claim about Haitian migrants. “Thank you, senator, for describing the legal process,” she said, in a moment that Democrats on social media ate up.
Shepard: As my colleagues have said, Walz botched the Tiananmen Square question. The worst part to me was near the end, when there was the pregnant pause, and the moderators may have moved on. But Walz filled that pause with some aimless rambling, making a bad answer even worse.
Meanwhile, the danger going into this debate for Vance — who would be the third-youngest vice president in history if elected — was that he’d come off as an Ivy League know-it-all. Whining that he was being fact-checked (when he wasn’t really) was a bad look.
Daniels: Everyone is right. The Tiananmen Square question was one Walz should have just been prepared for. But luckily for him, it’s one of those things that not many people care about. I’m surprised the “stolen valor” questions never came.
For Vance, the “Americans don’t trust us on abortion,” is something that Democrats have been saying for … decades, and they are going to pounce on that. It’s arguably a talking point to try and moderate his own stance on abortion, but the benefit to his opposition likely outweighs any benefit he might derive from having been the guy to say it.
