J.D. Vance was the clear winner of Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate. His sharp intellect and smooth, polished delivery vindicated Donald Trump, whose choice of a running mate has been maligned by those besotted with conventional wisdom as a miscalculation.

Ever since Vance was announced as the pick in July, critics have said he was too radical, too much like Trump. Vance’s debate rival, Tim Walz, raised himself from obscurity by labeling Vance “weird.” But which candidate seemed like the “weird” one on Tuesday night?

The most extreme thing Vance said at the debate, at least from the standpoint of Walz and the fussy liberal moderators, was this: “The people I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’s open border.” Calling that extreme probably sounds pretty weird to most Americans.

The two words Vance used repeatedly were “common sense.” Of late, it has also become a favorite phrase for Trump, who has used it to distinguish himself from conservative ideologues and radical leftists alike.

Vance’s artful responses on abortion reflected this common-sense approach, which has pushed the more unpopular elements of the pro-life movement to the margins and elevated more salient issues, particularly immigration. Vance articulated Trump’s nationalist vision to a mass audience with a precision that Trump lacks, notwithstanding Trump’s unique virtues as a personality and leader, and he responded to the disingenuous attacks of Walz and the moderators with equal skill. 

Walz answered the first question, about the crisis in the Middle East, with a lazy attack painting Trump as an agent of chaos. The consistent superficiality of Walz’s arguments teed up opportunity after opportunity for Vance to explain the common sense behind Trump’s agenda and remind viewers of the reality of the Trump years: no major wars, a stable border, and lower prices.

When Walz parroted the so-called experts to attack Trump’s economic proposals, Vance noted these same experts are the ones who sang the praises of the offshoring that has devastated the middle class. Moments later, Walz went on to claim that Biden and Harris have brought back manufacturing jobs—which is weird, Vance observed, since Walz had just accused Trump of ignoring the wisdom of the experts who sent the jobs away.

Regarding immigration, Walz and the moderators teamed up to scold Vance for daring to criticize the hallowed Haitians who have taken over Springfield, Ohio. CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan took pains to note they are living in America “legally.” Again, Vance shot back with common sense: he described the many ways mass immigration hurts Americans, from pressure on scarce housing, to lower wages and crowded schools. When asked to explain how mass deportations would work, Vance suggested that many migrants would return home of their own volition if only the government stopped the gravy train facilitating this cheap imported labor. All Walz could do was attempt to shame Trump and Vance for “demonizing” foreigners.

Walz has the same fundamental problem as Kamala Harris: He has a disastrous and unpopular record to defend, and, like Harris, he lacks the intellectual agility needed to polish it. Instead, Walz oozed and leaked with emotion, venting about Trump, abortion, rich people, and Project 2025. At times, Walz betrayed hints of the freakish radical lurking behind his “folksy” exterior. He rambled through his talking points with eyes bulging, and his soft, effeminate voice contained notes of irritation, even panic. At times he appeared to involuntarily nod in affirmation at Vance’s most devastating points.

Walz’s limited capabilities were on full display during the section on abortion, which, given the state of public opinion, should have been an easy win for him. Vance blasted Walz for a “barbaric” law that allows abortion at any gestational stage and even after birth. Walz denied the charge, but in the same breath, called abortion “a human right” and “health care.” A smarter person would perhaps find a more nuanced way of dodging the issue, but Walz was limited to mouthing tired talking points.

Still, Vance went easy on his opponent. He was relentlessly focused on Harris’s record on immigration and the economy, leaving little time to bring up Walz’s own serious flaws, like his craven attempts to inflate his military service, and other aspects of his disturbing social agenda, like placing tampons in boys’ bathrooms. It was largely civil, if a rhetorical massacre can be called civil.  

If the role of a VP debate is to size up a potential president, Tuesday night left little doubt of which candidate is presidential material. Walz showed himself to be a token, a “white minstrel” with the intellectual caliber of an average social studies teacher. He called himself a “knucklehead” on national television. Nobody, least of all him, expects this human footstool to wield real power.

J.D. Vance has higher aspirations. Trump chose him to be a successor, and after Tuesday night’s performance, it’s clear that Trump chose well.