I haven't watched the debate yet, but based on all the hooting and hollering going on from our resident pubbies JD did well. Not a shocker that an Ivy educated lawyer can beat the pride of Chadron State College in a debate. All of this sudden noise from the right does contrast pretty starkly with the crickets we heard from them following the actual Presidential debate, confirming that Trump did indeed piss himself as badly as we all thought he did.
He did a lot of dodging when called upon it. To reiterate he now says he changed his mind on Trump after he saw how he “delivered” while President yet was still criticizing him in 2020 in the last year of his term.
They both did well. Vance remained calm for the most part in contrast to his boss - and he knew the policy very well. He came across as a salesman and awkward at times as well. Waltz had pauses, and on two questions didn’t answer the question. He lacked polish and didn’t come across as a politician - but came across as more sincere. There is enough there for both sides to be largely satisfied. Also both candidates performances symbolize the weaknesses in the candidate bases.
I do recommend watching it as it was a good debate and a throwback to debates like Obama McCain. What is perhaps not surprising is that Trump supporters are still relying upon memes and petty name calling while Vance studiously avoided that and was instead civil. Some sound disappointed he didn’t indulge in name calling. Vance is getting commended for that in style but it goes to show where much of Trump’s support is.
Most of the the time the candidates don't go to the spin room. Their proxies do. Don't you remember the shock when Trump went to the spin room? People were saying he went because he got his ass kicked and was trying to do damage control. Please educate yourself and get more than a 30 second memory on how this **** works.
For whatever it’s worth CNN insta polls are showing but Walz and Vance gaining in likeability with Walz getting a greater bump.
I didn't watch it, but from the recaps it sounds like it went about as I expected. Vance was more polished and benefited more from the debate setting. Seems like Waltz's folksy likeable persona might have worked against him. I'm seeing critiques that Waltz was too friendly with Vance, too often expressing qualified agreement with him and in the process making him look more moderate than he actually is.
Vance refused to say Trump lost in 2020, and then had the nerve to say there was a peaceful transfer of power after the last election. This is ridiculous and is harmful to democracy in this country.
Actually, I was state the opposite.... Waltz was more approachable and transparent.. Not acting like a lawyer or politician.. For me Waltz was more like Andy Griffith.. T_Man
Trump's actions after the 2020 election were indefensible. Vance's options are to lie about what happened or point out that Trump was wrong. And he can't do the latter and survive on the ticket.
See here's the thing... despite what the pundits on CNN and Fox say, if your goal is to win a debate.... yeah that's one thing. Walz was basically a tie, or slightly better as a performance. However... the reality is if you are trying to win a presidential election I think the measurement for what Walz did last night is exponentially better received by voters on the fence than what Vance did. Vance did what he needed to do to potentially bring home many Republican voters who just want to know there's someone in the room with Trump who can put two sentences together, and say things to make themselves feel like they aren't pariahs. But Walz presented someone who was fundamentally a good person. Someone empathetic, relatable, caring, and someone who is willing to work with even a$$holes like JD Vance. People forget why Biden was so popular as Obama's VP. Biden even back in 08-15 had a bad studder, and had gaffs all the time. However he was someone that presented a persona that alot of voters just felt they could trust. Empathy, common sense, and relatability matter in politics at that level. So again if we are judging the debate in classic debate grudgematch competition... it's probably a draw. If we are judging it by who can help you win a presidential election I think Walz is exponentially more effective than JD Vance. I think the Harris campaign needs to get Walz out there even more, and let him be his authentic self in as many settings as possible that are un-DC like.
My biggest takeaway from the debate is that Vance will be a yes man to anything and everything Trump does, and lie to defend him. I couldn't believe when he said we should trust common sense over experts. Seriously? Describe common sense. Surely he doesn't believe Trump has more common sense than all the experts. That's scary as hell, considering how unfit to serve Trump is. He is just like Trump when it comes to rewriting history, that's for sure. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't trust him any more than the pathological lying orange man now. I mean he totally rewrote the stories of Trump's efforts to destroy the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," instead repeating the campaign's claim that Trump had rescued it. Vance said that if Trump is re-elected, that we’re going to cover Americans with pre-existing conditions. At what cost? He's already suggested that the health insurance market needs to be deregulated. He's suggested placing people with chronic conditions into separate insurance pools. But this could lead to insurers charging higher premiums for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could deny coverage or charge higher premiums when people had pre-existing conditions. Imagine if people with those conditions had to pay premiums not capped by income. What would stop it from going further, where people in risky jobs like firefighters, police, and others pay more for health plans? He sure whitewashed the whole January 6th story too, as he scoffed off that violent day of insurrection, and Trump's attempt to overturn the votes of a free and fair election. He makes me believe he would be right next to Trump if he loses again. I can see him now, dressed like Trump in a blue suit and red tie trying to stir up lies and a coup again if Trump loses. That's what yes men do. That's why Trump and his son chose him. He didn't explain mass deportations, and skirted to answer the question twice about if he'd separate the children born here from immigrants, and continued the MAGA mantra that immigrants and Kamala the border czar are to blame for everything bad in Springfield and this country. I'm not sure what federal lands he is talking about when he suggests the government building houses on, but most of those lands are in the vast, rural, empty Mountain West, in regions with lots of tumbleweeds and absolutely no jobs. Fracking jobs maybe? Start fracking nearby their new housing and pollute the waters they drink? When asked about Trump’s assertion that climate change is a hoax he didn't answer. The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the Earth’s climate is warming at an unprecedented rate. Vance went on to say we’re the cleanest economy in the entire world, even though that's a flat out lie. We're the second-largest emitter of planet-warming gases, behind only China. When Vance was asked if he planned to create a federal pregnancy monitoring agency, he said “certainly we won’t.” But Project 2025 proposes to rename the Department of Health and Human Services as the “Department of Life,” and recommends that the CDC implement nationwide “abortion surveillance” to track abortions, complications, and miscarriages nationwide. All I know is I don't trust anything out of the mouths of Trump and Vance when it comes to what they would do on the issue if they were in power. Even last month Trump said at a rally "Everybody, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, and Conservatives, wanted Roe v. Wade TERMINATED, and brought back to the States” which is a flat out lie. So, in summary. Vance confirmed to me that he is not a guy I would trust to lead this country if Trump keeled over choking on a hamberder.
The only two things that matter are convincing undecided voters and motivating the base to turn out. Clearly, the Trump campaign still believes a civilized approach is the best strategy for swaying undecided voters, but they’ve given up expecting that from the top of their ticket. VP debates rarely make much of a difference. It's 95% about the lead candidate. (there isn't even a VP debate thread lol)
Let's recap what actually happened: MB: Thank you, Governor. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status. Norah. JDV: Well, Margaret, Margaret, I think it's important because… MB: Thank you, senator. We have so much to get to. NO: We're going to turn now to the economy. Thank you. JDV: Margaret. The rules were that you guys were not going to fact check, and since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on. So there's an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for 10 years. MB: Thank you, Senator. JDV: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway. MB: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to. TW: Those laws have been in the book since 1990. MB: Thank you, gentlemen. We want to have - JDV (mic gets cut but you still clearly hear): The CBP app has not been on the books since 1990. It's something that Kamala Harris created, Margaret. And people were telling me before the debate I was crazy for saying Vance will do a good job appealing to moderates.
No it doesn't. Moderators were getting it wrong. After that they played it smart and didn't try "fact checking" him again
