JD Vance is a slick debater. He has the natural advantages of lacking a moral core and an ability to lie shamelessly. It’s how you go from calling Trump “America’s Hitler” to licking every boot in the MAGA media to possibly serve as Trump’s vice president.

Tim Walz started the debate a little nervous. He had some awkward moments. Most theater critics on Twitter and the political media scored the debate as a win for Vance. And if this were a high school debate competition, they would be right. Vance was poised. His answers were precise. Walz was overly elliptical at times and missed opportunities to call out Vance’s blatant lies, but political debates aren’t won by winning the approval of the pundits. They are won by making persuasive arguments to the voters tuning in.

On that measure, Walz outperformed Vance. He spent the debate talking about what voters care about, while Vance harrumphed about censorship for reasons that defy explanation.

In other words, Walz spoke to the voters in the battleground states who will decide the election. Vance played to media elites and tried to keep Donald Trump happy.

1. What You Say is More Important than How You Say It

There’s no question that Vance spoke more precisely than Walz. His arguments were clear and prepared. Walz misspoke on a couple of occasions. He even once claimed to have befriended school shooters (he meant to say the families of victims of school shootings). But one thing I have learned over the years is that, unlike the media and political junkies, voters care much more about what people say than how they say it. They can forgive gaffes and garbled words. Being too slick is often a turnoff. Walz’s mistakes were minor and relatable to the average person...