Partisans on both sides will have arguments for why their guy did well at certain times and not as well at others in the first and only vice-presidential debate Tuesday night between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz. This debate likely will not move the needle at all in this presidential campaign, because — first and foremost — no one votes for the vice-presidential pick. After all, the most important rule of being a running mate is, “First, do no harm.” Short of a major mistake, VPs are unlikely to make a fundamental difference in the race. And there wasn’t one of those Tuesday night. But there were five takeaways from an interesting night:

On style, Vance was clearly more polished than Walz, and he likely accomplished what he sought out to do — appear more rational and agreeable than Trump and, frankly, himself. But there’s 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’s gotten a reputation as a hard-charging MAGA partisan willing to take on all comers, known for making controversial statements, whether about “childless cat ladies,” not caring what happens to Ukraine “one way or another” or propagating false claims about immigrants eating pets.

But with his popularity lower than any vice-presidential running mate in modern history, another Vance showed up Tuesday night — one largely respectful of his opponent. Vance even thanked the “folks at CBS,” a far cry from the booing that takes place on the campaign trail at his rallies when a reporter asks a question.

Vance also did a lot of laundering of Trump’s positions, especially on health care, child care and Jan. 6. Because Republicans have an inherent advantage on the cost of living in this election, his strongest moments were when he questioned why Harris hasn’t brought down prices already as part of the administration and implemented some of the things she’s promising 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 something of a chameleon.

Walz got off to a shaky start. He was asked at the beginning about foreign policy, which is clearly not his strong suit. He had some awkward pauses and misspoke (saying he’s “friends with school shooters,” for example, when he appeared to mean families of victims of school shootings). Walz seemed to find his footing, though, on domestic issues, like 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 painted Trump as uninterested in solving the problem of immigration because he blocked a bipartisan border security bill. Walz also aimed to isolate Trump as the problem — even saying he thinks Vance wants to find a solution to the issue. Vance’s comeback was to say that Harris is inauthentic and a newcomer to a harder line on immigration. Both campaigns will be happy with those lines of attack.

In addition to 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 didn’t actually travel there until later in the summer. Instead of directly saying he misspoke, Walz gave a meandering answer that included him saying, “I will talk a lot,” which could imply you can’t believe everything he says.

Walz’s best moments of the night came when talking about Jan. 6 and the 2020 presidential election. At one point, Walz asked Vance if Trump had lost the 2020 election. Vance deflected and claimed instead that the real threat to democracy was “censorship.” “That's a damning non-answer,” Walz retorted. It was something of a stunning admission: Vance dismissed the idea that experts should be trusted.

That posture mirrors how the right more broadly in the last decade of American politics has moved away from believing experts. Democrats have had their own issues with being perceived as elitist and talking down to working-class voters. Republicans, like Trump, have exploited that. In place of trusting traditional sources of knowledge, Trump has played to cultural grievance, telling people there are simple solutions to complex problems — like suggesting tariffs will pay for child care, which they will not. Vance embraces this line of thinking and says voters should trust Trump over others. Giving the example of conventional wisdom about the global economy, Vance said, “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 issues in America: People don’t agree on a shared set of facts. People have their own ideologies and are finding others who affirm what they believe — whether Trump or posts on social media — rather than having their minds changed by contrary evidence. Sowing distrust in experts lends more credence to conspiracy and makes it harder to bridge divides.

Moderators can only fit so much into a debate, but there were some things that have gotten attention in this campaign that weren’t brought up — some of which involve the vice presidential candidates directly. Vance wasn’t asked, for example, about his 2021 comments about “childless cat ladies” that have drawn so much controversy. Walz didn’t have to account for his military record timeline or his misstatements on carrying weapons of war. Vance wasn’t asked about his “stolen valor” accusations about Walz’s service, either. Neither candidate was asked about Ukraine, where these two campaigns have fundamentally different views, and Vance, in particular, has been a vocal critic of U.S. aid for Ukraine. Strikingly, there has been no substantive discussion — in this debate or the two presidential debates — about Trump’s handling of the COVID pandemic.

With the praise from the right of Vance’s performance, it makes you wonder if Trump might be reconsidering another debate with Harris. Does Trump want to let Vance have the last word? Does he want people questioning if Vance is actually a better debater and a more focused candidate? How the debate plays in conservative circles — and how much praise Vance gets — might make the decision for Trump in the end.