Morning after thoughts:

• Walz is not actually a bad debater. He’s not polished and practiced, but his command of policy and numbers means he still comes across as fairly confident. He knows what he knows, and that can stand in for polish.
• Vance didn’t do badly, but I genuinely can’t remember any of his answers, and that’s kind of weird. I think it’s because he answered like he’d been raised by a generative AI instead of human parents. Seriously, can anyone actually remember anything he said, without looking it up?
• Walz had more flubs. But he also got in a lot more hits. It remains to be seen which will stick in the minds of voters more, if either.
• The lack of Trump on the stage made this one a lot more mature. It’s amazing what a difference it makes when one of the debaters isn’t a demented man-baby.

The way I see it, Walz’s clearly superior command of policy details, and the way that fact-checkers are counting nearly everything Vance said as a lie, gives Walz the technical win, while Vance gets the nod for being more polished. In the end, I don’t think this debate will matter much to the election.

Those with an interest in history might remember that back during the 1988 election, Lloyd Bentsen absolutely demolished Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush’s pick for VP, in a debate. But it was forgotten in a matter of days - if not hours - and Bush went on to win handily.

I think this debate will likely be forgotten soon, too.