NO, J.D. VANCE DID NOT WIN LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE

Here are some divergent opinions about last night's debate. First, from media elitists at The New York Times:

And now ordinary people:

We shouldn't be surprised. Media elitists value poise, preparation, looking good in a suit, being well spoken in an emotionally beige way. Prior to the debate, J.D. Vance did the kind of prep you'd do if you were preparing for oral arguments before the Supreme Court. He was polished and ready. I'll admit that Democrats whose best debate performances have demonstrated this level of preparation and poise -- the Clintons, Barack Obama, and, yes, Kamala Harris -- have impressed me.

Tim Walz didn't impress the elitists at the Times -- but ordinary people who watched the debate liked him just fine. Vance was smart and slick, but Walz was smart and human. Debate viewers came away liking both candidates more than they did before the debate, but even after the debate, Vance's numbers were no better than break-even, while Walz's numbers were strong. From CNN:

Following the debate, 59% of debate watchers said they had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22% viewing him unfavorably – an improvement from his already positive numbers among the same voters pre-debate (46% favorable, 32% unfavorable). Debate watchers came away from the debate with roughly neutral views of Vance: 41% rated him favorably and 44% unfavorably. That’s also an improvement from their image of Vance pre-debate, when his ratings among this group were deeply underwater (30% favorable, 52% unfavorable).

It's just debate watchers, but 59%-22% is a spectacular approval rating in this political climate (41%-44% isn't). In CBS's poll of debate watchers, Walz's post-debate approval rating is 60%-35%; Vance's is 49%-47%.

And it's not just personal favorability:

A 65% majority of debate watchers now say Walz is qualified to serve as president if necessary, with 58% saying the same of Vance. Prior to the debate, 62% of the same voters thought Walz was qualified to assume the presidency if needed and 50% that Vance was qualified to do so.

And at CBS:

If you have an elite background, the rumpled guy whose sentences sometimes didn't quite parse seemed unprepared to be president. (Times op-ed columnist Megan Stack said Walz "often looked woolly and discombobulated, widened eyes suggesting panic.") But viewers had a different impression.

Maybe it's because Walz seemed more in tune with their views. CNN:

Debate watchers said, 48% to 35%, that Walz is more in touch than Vance with the needs and problems of people like them, and by a similar margin, 48% to 39%, that Walz, rather than Vance, more closely shares their vision for America.

CBS:

Walz has a strong advantage on the first two issues. The others are a tie.

I'm often unhappy when American voters choose folksy -- Ronald Reagan, the Bushes, even Trump, with his outer-borough accent and coarse language, which people all over the country seem to read as an economic class marker, even though Trump is the billionaire son of a millionaire. (Reagan, of course, was a wealthy actor married to a rich doctor's daughter, and the Bushes were old money.) But if that's what Americans want, it's good if a Democrat was the one who provided it last night. No matter how many times Vance talked about his past, Walz was the candidate on stage who seemed to know what it's like to lead an ordinary life.

As I wrote a couple of months ago, pundits used to complain that Democrats didn't want to appeal to "beer-track" voters anymore, but when Harris picked Walz over the obviously "wine-track" Josh Shapiro, the same pundits attacked her for it. Last night, Walz was clearly the beer-track guy. Vance was the wine-track guy. Debate watchers thought Vance was sharp, but they thought Walz was empathetic and relatable. That's why Vance didn't score the big win the pundits thought they saw.