I thought they both came across really well. I’m glad Walz said the “damning non-answer”.
I had higher expectations of Walz, so Vance is the one who exceeded expectations by a larger margin. Unfortunately based on his Senate campaign I know he’s pretty slimy but people who didn’t follow that race wouldn’t know that.
I’m glad that Trump picked Vance over Ramaswamy as I do think Vance is the less terrible of the two and there’s a non-trivial chance that Trump’s running mate will become POTUS some day.
Obviously nothing changed my mind tonight, but it was a refreshing change of pace.
I don’t think this debate will move the needle one bit. There were no big stumbles on either side and there were no memorable take away lines like “you’re no Jack Kennedy” so I’m thinking this debate will quickly be forgotten
The expectations werent that high for Walz because apparently Vance is a skilled debater with incredible intellect. Based on what I saw, I thought Walz did fine. The problem with Walz is that he’s jittery as hell. He probably does better at parties than debates. Vance can’t even fake small talk with donut workers.
Yeah, that’s because Vance actually thinks that Trump is “America’s Hitler” and is opportunistically using Trump to launch him into the national spotlight.
If Trump wins I would certainly hope that he serves as little of his 2nd term as possible. As bad as Vance is… he’s SO much better than Trump.
Also if Vance takes over before January 20, 2027 then he can’t run in 2032 although hopefully it doesn’t come to that. I do think we’ll see Vance’s name at the top of the GOP ticket at some point. Or he is certainly going to try anyway.
We all wanted walz to get Vance cornered on some of the extreme things Trump has said. I’m sure there are people on the right thinking Vance missed opportunities as well. It was civil, and we aren’t used to that.
One thing it did show, even if you conclude vance won… politicians can actually talk to each other. Why can’t we have that with Trump on stage? If the only take away is that the other side isn’t that scary, maybe people realize it’s just time to move on from Trump.
Couldn’t listen to most of the debate, but read a lot, watched some late-night comedy.
Seems that Vance did decently, and polling seems to indicate he very narrowly was seen to have done better. But the same polling I read showed Walz at +10% vs. Vance on “Whose vision of America best agrees with yours?”
Vance lied his pants off. Trump saved Obamacare, how can you say Trump didn’t accept the election when he handed over power after his failed coup.
Vance did well in pivoting away from things he didn’t want to talk about. He is fairly good at debate in a post-truth world.
Walz never went for the throat. I caught him mentioning a quote from Vance that Trump is unfit for office, but from what I caught/read he never pressed topics like that. Maybe that’s for the best, because Tim seems to have an appearance of being kind. Not sure.
Looking on the Drudge report, the debate is buried in the page and the lead headline is “Vance-Walz debate dull”, followed by a story on the moderators fact checking and then something about Vance’s eyeliner.
Something else I was thinking about is that Vance’s personal story (grew up poor, mother struggled with addiction, enlisted, used the GI Bill to go to college) is something that actually fits what Trump purports to be … “just like us” for a lot of Americans.
It’s basically an idealized version of what a lot of poor parents probably hope for their kids. The graduate degree from Yale is like the cherry on top.
I’m sure during debate prep they hammered home that no matter what the first question was, he needed to lead with his personal story. And he referred back to it a number of times throughout the debate.
But when he brought up the friend who had an abortion… yeah great, so he understands why it’s important for women to be able to make that choice for themselves… but he wants to take that choice away from them anyway.
I wish Walz would have been tougher on Vance on that point.
I think they both did a good job portraying the direction they would like to see America go and neither was extreme in this. Walz brought the receipts that he has done this Minnesota. Vance didn’t offer too much on solutions to the problems he brought up.
Walz made several really good points that deserve more attention. Calling our rural suicides from guns as a problem, noting that research on guns is consistently avoided, and the use of rhetoric on immigration as a distraction to broader discussions. People are unlikely to change their minds on abortion and inflation at this point, but hopefully some of those more subtle comments caught some attention.
Walz could have made the point a little stronger by pointing out that research with federal money has mostly been forbidden by Congress.
I appreciated how he tried to deflect the usual “Dems are going to take ur guns” criticism by talking about his own experiences hunting (and keeping his rifle usecured in his truck).
Agree it could have been stronger, but I guess the question is how much should he be trying to educate Americans on an issue during a debate or would it be lost regardless? Is funding a study at the federal level a top priority of his? Vance brought up mental health as a problem, I think right after this from Walz, so there is a risk of focusing too much on one issue before you see what direction your opponent is going to go on a topic.