you know what, walz didn't do great but as i scan the various news websites the big takeaway is that vance refused to accept the results of the 2020 election
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I think he did fine. It didn't seem likely he'd go on the offensive like Harris did, but he stayed on message and pushed back in key moments with a handful of hiccups. I don't think anyone is gonna lose sleep over his performance.
he may have started off slow, but he picked up strength as the debate went on, and I think that finishing strong is more important than starting strong
Yeah he's not perfectly polished, but he stuck to the plan and it worked out fine. Vance refusing to accept the 2020 election and screaming about fact checking were the two most memorable moments for me.
I think Harris was so spectacular in her debate with Trump, people were ready to see Walz do the same in this debate. But Walz isn't Harris and Vance isn't Trump. People's expectations were unrealistic. Walz did fine.
JD: hyperprepared debate kid who won’t stop with the direct eye contact
Walz: nice, well-informed guy flabbergasted by the bullshit he’s hearing
By horserace metrics, Vance won because he lied with confidence. But Walz won on substance, and I think that’s a better outcome for the Harris campaign.
That, his answer on abortion was atrocious, his whining about the one small fact check by the moderators was pathetic, and the ease with which he lies through his teeth with a fixed smile was creepy.
Those were the top four takeaways from me… a voter (not a journalist or a pundit).
I honestly don't think he did a terrible job. He's not a lawyer, he's not slick, he's not a creeper. He stayed true to who he was: a coach, a teacher, a dad, a midwesterner. He only got really flustered once and was much more relatable than the Vance Bot.
Walz's rope-a-dope strategy worked as he landed the haymaker on Vance in the late rounds. Loved when he said that Pence had integrity and that's why he's not there tonight.
Walz didn't "debate " well ..he wasn't "slick", he didn't EVADE and use the usual rhetorical jiujitsu most "seasoned" debaters at Yale learn to deploy.
What he did, however, was show us an unpolished, honest, sincere advocate of DEMOCRACY, who faced his questioners with TRUTH and INTEGRITY.
yeah. Walz Cindy-Brady-Baton-Rouge'd it a bit & his prep team did him few favors, but it was mostly a push. But that moment at the end dropped the mask for a second.
The main takeaway I've heard is the "you guys said you wouldn't fact check me" line, which is a pretty effective pointer into a lot of what he's been doing elsewhere. Haven't heard a single line said by Walz, which meets the "do no harm" bar for VP debates for him at least.
Picture you're in high school. Vance sounded like the insufferable debate kid with a rich dad, Walz sounded like everyone's favorite teacher.
The vibes were immaculate.
vance performed well according to conventional metrics but pretty much obliterated whatever good will he might have built up with the press with that one statement
This encapsulates the entire paradox of the republican party. Moderates are too far away from the base to appeal to both, and to stretch wide enough to appeal to both makes one thin, transparent, and easily torn with the mildest pressure.
He was awful during the abortion section and I also thought he was awful on housing. Walz just seems bad in this format. It’s like he was debating a sanctioned / scored debate and not a televised preception contest
He played dodgeball a lot. In some ways, he was like Trump - always wanting to pivot to immigration & acting as if Harris has been POTUS since 2020. He kept blaming her 'bad policies' but never articulated an honest hit on a specific policy just lied about 'open borders.'
Walz should have asked Vance whether he's going to do as much decision making in a Trump administration as he thinks Harris did in the Biden administration.
That would just invite the response, "no, because Trump is a big beautiful genius who's brain is totally not falling apart before our very eyes, Harris has to do Biden's job because he's old and senile"
"You called Trump America's Hitler just a few years ago. Did you change your mind that he's Hitler, or did you just decide that's swell with you as long as you get to be America's Himmler? Because that "mass deportation" plan you got there, not un-Hitlerian."
I think that line of attack is tough. You don’t want to say Kamala has limited power in the current administration because that feeds directly into the ‘she’s incompetent/not experienced enough/bimbo’ attack, which is the most effective attack they have (because people are racist and sexist).
It’s not a question of whether *she* has power, but whether *her current office* has power. Agree that you do need to draw that line, but I think bringing in the question of what Vance thinks he’ll be able to do as VP short circuits that.
The other (surprising?) takeaway is that Vance looks way more comfortable when casting himself as a conventional, Bush-era conservative than he does in the role of the weird Groyper freak he's been playing at for the past few years. Turns out the Yale guy's natural habitat isn't 8Chan, who knew.
Oh, he knows who he is: he's an amoral striver who can be and say whatever is necessary to advance his ambitions. I was just surprised how much more at ease he is in this role, compared to how offputting and weird he sounds when playacting at being either a Gamergater or a Man of the People.
well yah, he's 40 years old, was never actually a "hillbilly," and at this point has spent more than half his life in the company of Yalies and even more yep that word *elite*
anyway my point is that the amoral striver still has a hollow core, or he wouldn't be that.
Nothing exceptional about someone who if he wasn't on the VP stage, would be in a courtroom on behalf of a multinational corporate monster saying with the same confidence & arrogance that the microplastics and lead found in your kid's 'organic' fruit snack are actually a vital source of nutrition.
What I predicted: Vance would win on points (at least if scored by a checked-out high school debate coach) but people would find him unpalatable for other reasons.
If that’s true it’s amazing. Fumbled at the goal line! I stick to my story that these things don’t matter but I still love that for Vance. And it’s JUST, is the thing. He didn’t get unfairly trapped. He just signed up to defend the indefensible. That’s the job.
Disagree somewhat. Vance dressed up a lot of nonsense in civility. The juxtaposition can be jarring. There were many flashes of falseness when the pretense just didn’t match the message. Walz was sincere and strong on several key points. Especially Jan 6 and abortion.
Walz won the debate. Vance is an aggro liar. What demographic would like #Vance? Tech billionaires and aggro MAGA-t dudes. Plus dudes who will buy any bs #MAGA sells.
#Walz is more relatable, more human & more plain spoken.
I like to believe BS has its limits. Or Vance isn’t slick enough to sell what he’s hawking. Happy/surprised to see my take jibes with this alert.
“A smooth JD Vance tried to rewrite the history of the Trump presidency. Tim Walz had a rocky start but found his voice on abortion and Jan 6.”
I'm probably too hopeful here but I think any normal person watching that thing, especially if they did for the whole thing, would think Vance sucked tonight. Vance said the American people "don't trust us right now" and I gotta say that's just as damning. I'm likely being naive though.
More specifically, didn’t lie, then get called on the lie, then talk all over the women moderating to whine about he was promised he could get away with lying.
IMHO to be really good at debating, you have to be both quick-witted (not all intelligent people are) and have a mean streak (not the same as being a mean person). Like my best friend who was the state debating champion in high school. Harris has that mean streak, but I don't think Walz does.
I didn’t watch it but didn’t Trump turn the guy who actually saved ACA, the lifelong Republican, decorated soldier, and close challenger of Obama, into a pariah for doing exactly that?
The Fetterman/Oz debate I think was very instructive in how to assess the impact of debates. One extremely bad and concise clip of a candidate can have way more impact that a “win”, so the aim really should be to avoid being the one who goes viral.
This makes sense and I’m wondering if that’s the sort of prep they gave Walz. Be amiable and stick to talking points because the press are dying to run away with any stumble. It made for a boring and frustrating debate but hopefully a good strategy.
Not just that one statement, the whole segment on 2020 was a disaster. “It was a peaceful transfer because Trump reluctantly left after his violent coup failed” like wtf are you talking about you goon, we all saw it live on TV
Rewatch the inauguration and take note of all the busted windows and damage Biden had to walk by to take the oath of office. So much bullshit coming out on Vance's mouth.
Honestly probably not. If debate performance is judged by public perception and budging the needle, I don’t think telling the truth has much to do with it.
That was the crucial moment. It - along with "sometimes it's just the guns." HIs face was also expressive. Vance has only the frown and the smirk, a limited facial repertoire which is indicative of a limited capability to be for real in public. Vance debates. Walz governs.
Yeah, it seems to me that *should* be the big takeaway.
I mean, FFS, a candidate for VP repeatedly dodges a simple question about whether he agrees with his running mate that the previous election was "stolen".
Possibly except for the climate crisis, it was the most important topic of the debate.
Well, I've just started watching the taped debate. In the first couple of mins, I saw Walz wasn't doing great.
On the other hand, the Yale graduate used improper grammar within his first 2 mins and, so far in these first 10 mins, is bullshitting away.
I think Tim Walsh dud what he needed to do . The lasting impression will be that HD could not answer the question of who won in 2020 and saying - there’s a reason why Mike Pence isn’t on this stage. Boom!
i truly think walz did fine. he didn't come off as an aggressor or anything like that. But had the dontcha know eh humble guy he is. I think America will connect with that well.
Vance was OK until the end and is getting absolutely shredded for that fact check comment, which is great bc facts count
We've got to earn the trust on this issue ??? It says nothing, basically. They've tried to be all over the board. That's why they aren't trusted and the fact that he didn't give an answer isn't showing they deserve the trust. Big fail.
I disagree. This was never going to be a sequel to "Harris Torches Trump." After a wobbly start on a stupid question no one cares about, Walz got over his nerves and did what he came to do: Fact check with substantive retorts and focus on issues that matter to voters. The 2020 😱 was a bonus dunk.
In refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election Vance demonstrated his absolute loyalty to Trump and doing so will give his historically low VP pick approval rating with the Republican base a post-debate bump.
the thing with a debate that neither person really dominated is that it ends up hinging on whatever specific moments people can pull out of it and boy that was a big one
As Mark Kelly said "Walz said he was a bit of a knucklehead and misspoke, but June, July, or August in 1989 by my math that was 35 years ago, the American people aren't going to care about that"
Walz' final answer on the China question isn't nearly as clippable as Vance's 2020 non-answer tho. Walz' final answer was pretty casual, and Vance didn't have a quip to follow up iirc, he wasn't even involved in the moment. otoh Vance dodged Walz' 2020 q directly and Walz had an immediate response.
Yeah my read of that moment was that his debate prep kicked in and he went into a jumbled version of some very over-rehearsed answer that was meant to be a catch-all for answering attacks on China, instead of just… answering the question
I watched Frost/Nixon recently, and that’s kinda the central theme of the movie. Even though Nixon “won” 99% of the interviews, the only moment most people remember is Nixon saying “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” The 1% is what sticks.
Walz mistakenly seemed to believe that Vance possessed some shred of decency up until that very moment. You could see the realization hit him on stage. Hopefully it emboldens him going forward.
I think Walz landed some decent centrist hits by quoting the bible, calling a conservative a good man who sticks to his principles, and pointing out how geography shouldn’t restrict human rights vis-à-vis abortion. But yeah, it was frustrating to see the flubs and the missed opportunities overall.
They clearly had both practiced for that segment. There was only one correct answer, Vance bent over backwards not to give it, and Walz reacted perfectly.
Not to excuse a poor performance, but I do believe the campaign is right if they're intentionally trying to make sure Walz doesn't upstage or outperform Harris in any way, no matter how small -- for multiple reasons, Harris needs to always be perceived as the dominant leader of the ticket
The polls are 48-48 and that last 4% is watching baseball. The only thing they’ll see about this debate are 30 second clips on social media. And I think that’s good for Walz.
Trump as the bigly bipartisan president who saved Obamacare and wants to give women options, all ready to shake hands at the transition...🤦
I realize I live in a slightly disconnected continuum, but at some point there had to be some cognitive dissonance for his supporters too, right? Right?!?
Comments
Walz: nice, well-informed guy flabbergasted by the bullshit he’s hearing
By horserace metrics, Vance won because he lied with confidence. But Walz won on substance, and I think that’s a better outcome for the Harris campaign.
I think the public’s memory of debates is:
general vibe plus snappy gibe
Those were the top four takeaways from me… a voter (not a journalist or a pundit).
#HarrisWalz2024 🇺🇸
Well, that and "the rules said you guys weren't going to fact check".
Essentially, "Kid, you wouldn't even *be here* if your running mate wasn't such an entitled whiney loser and you weren't such a suck-up."
What he did, however, was show us an unpolished, honest, sincere advocate of DEMOCRACY, who faced his questioners with TRUTH and INTEGRITY.
more important than whatever bullshit about an economic plan that he's lying about anyway
The vibes were immaculate.
Mission accomplished.
"You called Trump America's Hitler just a few years ago. Did you change your mind that he's Hitler, or did you just decide that's swell with you as long as you get to be America's Himmler? Because that "mass deportation" plan you got there, not un-Hitlerian."
people like that are dangerous.
anyway my point is that the amoral striver still has a hollow core, or he wouldn't be that.
This seems in line with that
#Walz is more relatable, more human & more plain spoken.
“A smooth JD Vance tried to rewrite the history of the Trump presidency. Tim Walz had a rocky start but found his voice on abortion and Jan 6.”
https://bsky.app/profile/davekarpf.bsky.social/post/3l5iw4ugjim27
He is not, however, a professional prosecutor. Harris was probably made for that moment tbh. Find all the weak spots and drill relentlessly.
He also has "concepts of a plan" to replace it.
Honestly it's too fucking much.
Hopefully the takeaway is he's a lying liar who lies as well as a fucking weirdo who wants to control women's lives/wombs/bits and shtups couches.
and can't order a donut.
We see you, Vance, you ain't slick
I didn't watch but I already know the media is generally going to score one for the Cult.
They need to keep it a cliffhanger for $$$$$$
Low expectations work for tbe Trumpists
Mx? Or just Tad? 😳
I mean, FFS, a candidate for VP repeatedly dodges a simple question about whether he agrees with his running mate that the previous election was "stolen".
Possibly except for the climate crisis, it was the most important topic of the debate.
If neither gets mocked disproportionately then this takeaway makes Vance the loser.
On the other hand, the Yale graduate used improper grammar within his first 2 mins and, so far in these first 10 mins, is bullshitting away.
Vance: I will lie through my teeth.
Walz: He's lying through his teeth and here's why...
2nd half:
Vance: I can't admit the truth.
Walz: Thanks for playing.
Yes, I'm barely old enough to remember the fights were 15 rounds.
Kamala Harris's open border policy
Vance was OK until the end and is getting absolutely shredded for that fact check comment, which is great bc facts count
But I understand I am not the intended audience for his debate performance, and I accept that.
Vance demonstrated total fealty to Trump, unlike Pence. His oath would be personally to Trump, not the Constitution. That's why he was on the stage.
In UK we have people still refusing to accept a democratic vote after close on 9 years.....😃
the thing with a debate that neither person really dominated is that it ends up hinging on whatever specific moments people can pull out of it and boy that was a big one
(Possible exception of the stupid Tiananmen thing)
https://bsky.app/profile/insavga.bsky.social/post/3l5inj7k42l2d
Because if that's the primary takeaway, that's pretty frickin' great.
I realize I live in a slightly disconnected continuum, but at some point there had to be some cognitive dissonance for his supporters too, right? Right?!?