I thought that weird JD Vance did better than I expected, even if almost his entire shtick consisted of three things: taking about himself and his family, blaming every possible problem on immigrants, and saying that we need to produce more energy.
Tim Walz is clearly not a good debater in that he sometimes spoke too fast and mixed up his words. He was at his best when he got passionate about a topic that he clearly cared about, such as child care, housing, health care, and reproductive rights.
All in all, it was a more even-tempered debate than the Harris-creepy Trump one.
There was no clear winner or loser.
I felt like Vance managed to be less creepy. And he’s a better presenter than Walz. Although he was kind of shackled by an apparent belief that we’re all idiots and willing to believe Trump saved the Affordable Care Act he was trying so hard to kill. And also by what I assume is a desire to avoid chants of “Hang JD Vance!” Because he made a pretty weak comeback when asked about the 2020 election. His schtick of everything being the fault of the policies of Kamala Harris required some torturous mental gymnastics to make sense. If I went by his statement tonight I’d have to say we’ve lived in different countries for the last 8+ years.
Walz was not the best debater but it was interesting when he agreed with Vance. He had the advantage of positions that did not require suspending reality to make sense. And he did nail some of them. I think he did a pretty reasonable job on guns and abortion which can be hard to meaningfully talk about when reduced to soundbites. I mean you’re usually talking with people who insist on gun rights but shirk gun responsibilities by not knowing basic gun safety rules. Or idiots who want to claim you’re killing babies while referencing a fetus that still resembles a tadpole more than an infant. I wish Walz had asked how legal immigrants like the Haitians of Springfield were both so poor they must scavenge for pets in dark alleyways while also being so rich they can buy a house immediately after arriving in a foreign land.
Walz stumbled over a lie about Tienneman Square while Vance wanted us to believe Trump was better at diplomacy and the economy. Good thing I wasn’t drinking while he said that last bit, it wouldn’t have been everywhere.
Vance is a debater. Walz is a motivational speaker. You’d think that this would give Vance the advantage in a debate, and in general it did… but he also couldn’t quite hide his creepiness when he went off script, and Walz managed to score a few major hits here in there. As usual, “winning” is mostly a matter of personal feels… and veep debates don’t really matter anyway. This was irrelevant and will be ultimately forgotten.
Agree with Snowberry; Vance did debate in college (and possibly high school?) so he was better trained in the skill of debate. He also avoided saying people are eating cats and dogs, but he was his usual creepy self when he went off-script. Walz is not a trained debater, and it showed, but he radiated honesty and reality-based thinking. Is the public ready for reality? Trump’s base is not.
On the topic of abortion, Vance alluded to “post birth abortion” (which does not and cannot exist) by insisting there are doctors who perform late term abortions (only performed in dire emergencies) and somehow the fetus survives, only to be neglected and die. Again, does not exist.
When dealing with weasels, it would be appropriate to fight them with another mustelid, like a wolwerine.
Polite persons like Walz are almost useless; you need debaters that will go for the throat.
birger @4: Never mind the wolverine. Honey badger doesn’t give a shit.
I agree with #4 and #5. I would have counseled Walz to hammer Vance on his extremism without mercy. He should have been called out for the dictator-loving, theocratic and misogynistic thug that he is. Allowing him to pretend to be a moderate was, IMO, a fatal mistake. Walz could have waved his hand at Vance and pointed out how awful and weird he is. You don’t make nice with creatures like Vance.
I wish Walz had asked how legal immigrants like the Haitians of Springfield were both so poor they must scavenge for pets in dark alleyways while also being so rich they can buy a house immediately after arriving in a foreign land.
Also, if all those immigrants are mooching food-stamps, and too lazy to do any honest work, why would they go to the trouble of hunting, killing, skinning and cooking pets when there’s plenty of already-packages meats in grocery stores?
Walz stumbled over a lie about Tienneman Square while Vance wanted us to believe Trump was better at diplomacy and the economy.
Yeah, he should have said something like “Oh, sorry, that was ONE misstatement of mine…and how many flat-out lies have you told so far?”
I thought Vance did well in the debate and one thing is Walz’s normal persona is not really suitable for the debate -- he cant for e.g. answer Vance’s accusation of why didnt Kamala get all of the stuff she wants to do in the 3 years with -- The house republicans are too busy kissing Trump’s arse to get any work done and the bought and paid for Supreme court is blocking things that Americans need (like load forgiveness for students) -- combativeness is not Walz’s forte.
Here’s a funny review of the debate -- Note that Rep Jack Kimble is ” co-sponsor of Poe’s Law”
https://www.thepoke.com/2024/10/02/the-tweets-by-this-republican-congressman-were-already-good-but-they-replies-made-them-even-better/
The various ‘undecided’ voter focus groups chose Walz as the winner immediately following their debate. Five of the six said Walz won, with the sixth saying neither won.
The biggest reason they gave was the fact that Shady refused to acknowledge that tfg lost in 2020, and in fact had sent a lynchmob to Congress to hang Mike Pence and attempt to steal the election. Voters are not forgetting that happened though various media pundits keep claiming that American voters have the attention span of a goldfish.