While vice-presidential contenders are usually an afterthought when it comes to casting a vote on election day, there are often demographic or geographic considerations bubbling just below the surface. However, as Tim Walz and JD Vance took to the debate stage Tuesday night, October 1, there were far more critical undercurrents that the casual observer may have overlooked.

A Contest of Personalities

Traditionally, these debates between VP candidates are a second-tier affair. The choice of a running mate can be crucial in shoring up support in a specific state, or as Joe Biden demonstrated with his decision to anoint “a woman of color,” a certain voting bloc. This time around, however, it seems that the importance of the pick is to act as a surrogate for their respective candidates. And that’s where at least one of the candidates ran into trouble.

The Republican senator from Ohio delivered a masterclass on how to give a strong performance without turning to hostility. He was self-assured, empathetic, and polite, conveying the Trump platform with a sound understanding of facts and figures. Notably, he was also in his element dealing with the CBS moderators.

On the other hand, the Minnesota governor appeared unable to directly answer questions and was frequently flustered, seemingly taken aback by Vance’s civil demeanor. Where directness would have been beneficial, he obfuscated. Where calm would have won the day, he appeared unsettled. For Tim Walz, it was a clouded performance in which even the Harris-friendly media had a hard time finding a silver lining.

Vance’s Highs and Lows

Abortion: A debate topic that is usually considered safe ground for the Democratic contender and should have been a weak spot in terms of public perception for Vance. However, he delivered for the potential Trump administration by setting out the advantages of state-led decisions. He said:

“Donald Trump has been very clear that on the abortion policy specifically, that we have a big country and it’s diverse. And California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia. Georgia has a different viewpoint from Arizona. And the proper way to handle this, as messy as democracy sometimes is, is to let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy. And I think that’s what makes the most sense in a very big, a very diverse, and let’s be honest, sometimes a very, very messy and divided country.”

It likely won’t move the needle for many voters, but it clarified precisely why Trump would not enact a national abortion ban, which is an accusation that has gained considerable coverage in the national media.

Fact-Checking: In the wake of the ABC presidential debate, the CBS hosts pointed out that they would not engage in the – often egregious – fact-checking that so marred the September 10 event. This was a commitment Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan failed to uphold.

When Vance was “fact-checked” on his comments over Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, he responded, “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check. And since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on.” He then proceeded to fact-check the fact-checkers, saying:

“So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years … That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.”

Brennan then said, “Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to,” effectively admitting that Vance had the issue right before turning the volume down on the microphones to end further discussion.

Walz Struggles for Highs

During a 90-minute debate, one would assume that both candidates could at least gain a couple of positive soundbites with which to mobilize the online base. Sadly, for Governor Walz, the clips will largely be of the negative variety.

Whether it was saying, “I’ve become friends with school shooters,” or talking about how he grew up in a “town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on, and I’m proud of that service,” the internet world is already making fun of the VP hopeful. But it was his non-answers that will likely draw the most scrutiny.

When asked why he had lied about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, he obfuscated and finally came down on “I’ve tried to do the best I can, but I’ve not been perfect. And I’m a knucklehead at times, but it’s always been about that.” Coupled with his other tall tales about carrying a weapon of war in combat or regarding the rank he held upon retirement from the National Guard, Walz does himself no favors by trying to bluster his way out of admitting the truth.

Then there were the bizarre head nods made visible by the split screen format. When Vance noted, “I didn’t accuse Kamala Harris of inviting drug mules, I said that she enabled the Mexican drug cartels to operate freely in this country, and we know that they use children as drug mules, and it is a disgrace and it has to stop,” Walz could be seen nodding along as though he agreed with the senator’s sentiments. This weird timing affirmation happened on numerous occasions.

An American Meet and Greet

To be an effective surrogate, the people you talk to must know who you are. Senator JD Vance is a famous author whose life story has been made into an Oscar-nominated movie. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, on the other hand, has barely achieved name recognition in his own state.

No one knows Walz, and even worse for the Harris campaign, no one seems to want to know him. In fact, Google searches demonstrate that, over the last few months, Vance is a more requested search option than Walz in all but one state: Minnesota. Seeing how he is the sitting governor of said state, it suggests he is not well known even by those who pay his salary.

For the history aficionados out there, it is an exact replica of the 1984 presidential election map in which Ronald Reagan defeated Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in a 49-state landslide. The only win for Mondale was in his home state of Minnesota. For many viewers, the debate would have been their first opportunity to get to know the VP candidates outside the media spin machine. With the polite and prepared JD Vance, it was a very good first impression.

A Pitch to the Heartland

The VP debate often acts as a trawling net to scoop up potential voters when the presidential candidates are not overly popular. Both Walz and Vance repeatedly referenced swing states by name and tried to tie policy proposals or track records to the voters who live in them. The whole debate was a direct pitch to the states that will ultimately decide who sits in the Oval Office next year. Both men made a compelling case for their bosses.

Whether it moved the needle, however, is the big question.

This debate, as with the presidential debate last month, likely won’t sway committed Republicans and devoted Democrats. But that leaves a whole host of independents who could swing either way. Tim Walz did a reasonable job of downplaying the far-left accusations against Kamala Harris, which could provide some comfort to those who fear a radical might be on course to win the White House. The governor comes across as very down-to-earth and aims to embody the indefinable quality that makes a person “Midwestern.”

He did not present as a radical, nor did he propose new initiatives that could scare away the more moderate center.

Likewise, JD Vance allayed concerns that Donald Trump would herald a new age of MAGA nationalism so ubiquitously claimed by his enemies in the legacy media. He may have won over some centrists, but more importantly, he may also have made headway with conservatives who are not fans of The Donald. Voices like Ann Coulter, who have long since parted ways with Mr. Trump, were ebullient in their praise for Vance’s performance. And while these folks are a tiny minority in the grand scheme, it is by small percentages that elections are won, and they do have their legions of fans who look to them for news and analysis.

Vance Won Big, But Walz Lost Bigger

As The New Yorker wrote in its top story the morning after, “The pace was sometimes a little too much for Tim Walz.” Considering the notable publication has endorsed Kamala Harris for president, such an open admission must either be setting off alarm bells or mustering a fugue state of cognitive dissonance, the likes of which the world has never witnessed.

Elections are not decided by VP debates. But impressions are made, and confidence is either buoyed or deflated. What is clear is that JD Vance is an asset to the Trump campaign and that Tim Walz may prove to be a liability to Kamala.