Opinion: I was wrong about Vance. And he just sold Trump to voters.

The first and only debate between the vice presidential nominees, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, was the first chance for Americans to hear both discuss the differences between their campaigns. It also showed the difference between Vance and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Unlike the debates between the former president and Vice President Kamala Harris, Tuesday’s debate was without question one of the smoothest we’ve had in years (with some slight outbursts on immigration). 
It was a rare moment when politicians did not widely attack each other.
However, my biggest takeaway is that I was wrong about Vance. After his selection as Trump’s running mate, I argued that Vance was a weak choice for Republicans. But while I remain far from the senator’s biggest fan, he proved he can effectively blend Trump’s political record with actual policy points. 
Vance had a great debate.
With the exception of one major point of contention with the moderators, whom he called out for fact-checking him despite their promise not to do so, Vance came off as a competent version of Trump, devoid of the typical outbursts characteristic of a Trump debate. 
The Ohio senator was chosen as a VP candidate to strongly advocate for Trump and MAGA. Despite his political inexperience, there was no doubt Vance could be a talented speaker. Tuesday’s debate reinforced that potential.
Opinion poll:Who won the vice president debate – Vance or Walz? Take our survey.
In Trump’s debate against Harris, the best he could muster up on the economy, for example, was contrasting the economy under his administration with the Biden-Harris record.
Vance was able to speak to specific metrics to compare the two economies. Rather than simply asking Americans if they are better off than they were four years ago, he was able to point to exactly why they are not.
On the issue of foreign policy, Trump has continued to insist that if he were in office, none of the global conflicts that have occurred over the past four years would have happened. Vance, on the other hand, was able to outline a specific doctrine through which a new administration could restore order in the world.
This is the first time Trump has had an effective advocate alongside himself. Rather than somebody like former Vice President Mike Pence, who was attempting to fit MAGA into the existing framework of conservatism, Vance is willing to embrace the movement as something entirely new. 
For me, Vance’s effectiveness once again reinforces that Trump is the primary problem with the Republican ticket. Trump’s policies sound much better when Vance talks about them and just incoherent when Trump tries.
Opinion:Trump lied about mail-in voting. Now the GOP is spending millions to fix his mess.
The job of vice presidential candidates is to add appeal to the ticket. Vance’s appeal is that he can coherently sell Trump’s message without the character flaws. 
When I initially covered Vance’s selection, I failed to see that appeal. I thought we would get the pure Trump acolyte we’ve seen in the past, but Tuesday showed Vance is capable of integrating his Trump loyalty into a coherent policy view.
Vance had a stronger performance than Walz, but by no means did the Minnesota governor have a bad performance. Despite some initial jitters, the Democrats settled in and did more than enough to keep his voters optimistic about his spot on the ticket.
Very few people are left undecided in this election, and I am skeptical that the VP debate truly moved the needle for any significant number of people. At this point in the cycle, the people who are going to vote for Trump are going to vote for him, and the people who aren’t are not. The same goes for Harris. Something drastic would have to happen for any significant swing in the votes.
It is a shame that this debate mattered very little because it is the best one we have had in the past eight years.
There were numerous times throughout the debate where the candidates spoke directly to each other, even finding agreement on certain issues concerning the economy. You would never see Harris and Trump doing that. 
Following each of their selections, much of the media criticism (including from myself) was that both candidates were relatively weak choices as running mates. Vance lacks the political experience and broad appeal that other Republicans had. Walz lacked national name recognition and impact in a swing state that other candidates had. 
However, Tuesday’s debate showed that both are capable of selling the policy proposals of their running mates, which is invaluable. Most important for the country, they can do so without going for each other’s throats. For Republicans, Vance showed how Trump should have been communicating this whole time.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.