VP Debate

[ceeboo]

In short: Color me very impressed by both candidates.

Common decency extended in both directions - Substance - Civil - Respectful.

A bizarre thought: Kind of wish these two were the Presidential candidates.

In my opinion, a huge breath of fresh air.

Your thoughts?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[ajax18]

It cut against the left's hateful caricature of JD Vance and the people of Appalachia. It also cut against the idea that a child with a lousy mother, who took him away from his father couldn't pick himself up by his bootstraps and become one of the most polished, well read, statesman that the America First movement has ever seen. It was three on one. The moderators tried to falsely fact check him like they did Trump. But 3:1 odds is good odds for were always good odds for our people. The mods had to cut his microphone and censor him because the American people got way to close for the comfort of the liberal elite to hearing the truth. JD did all this while connecting with women. Walz didn't do bad. He just has a very bad record to defend in Harris. JD should have pointed out that Harris wants to outlaw private insurance and put us all on Medicaid, confiscate our guns (of course not hers). But JD understood that this is an election debate, not a law school practice debate. :

But seriously Republicans. I'm sick of one sided debates with partisan democrat moderators. No more debates tl they want to come and face partisan right wing moderators. Just because Vance can win a 3 on 1 argument muzzled doesn't mean every Republican candidate should have to be that much better than the Democrats.

[ceeboo]

It cut against the left's hateful caricature of JD Vance

Indeed - JD had an exceptional performance in my view. Given how he has been demonized by the DNC campaign arm main stream media from the moment he was picked as VP, he shattered that portrait and provided Americans a direct look at who he is.

It was three on one. The moderators tried to falsely fact check him like they did Trump.

While not as bad as the last debate (Harris/Trump), the moderators, obviously, were bias favoring the D side. Truth be told, the great majority of rational Americans understand that this is the case, and they have surrendered to this unfortunate reality. It is what it is.

Walz didn't do bad.

I agree. He did far better than I expected.

I'm sick of one sided debates with partisan democrat moderators.

You're not alone. I would guess that there are many millions of American citizens that are just as sick of it as you are. What's the remedy? At this point there isn't one, but don't underestimate how this obvious lack of basic fairness angers millions of American citizens. They see it wherever they look (these debates included), and in many cases, it's backfiring as more and more Americans have seen it and/or are now seeing it.

[Some Schmo]

The media has a Trump bias. They keep interpreting his insane comments in an attempt to make him seem normal. They keep maintaining one standard for Harris (normal pol) and a low bar for Trump (belligerent child).

The only reason Trumptards think the media has a liberal bias is that the truth has a liberal bias. Maybe if the right stopped lying to themselves and living in a fantasy world, they wouldn't get fact-checked so often, and they'd notice how obvious the right-wing bias is.

But nope, the right isn't equipped to make reasonable arguments having decided years ago that lying was easier than making a reasonable argument.

[ceeboo]

The media has a Trump bias.

You're hilarious, SS.

[Xenophon]

Nothing crazy surprising from last night for me. I recognize for many voters this may be their first real taste of either candidate and I think they'll both likely walk away from this pleased with their performance and representation.

Early polling seems to place responses in a veritable tie with maybe the tiniest edge to Vance. I did see one where independents were specifically singled out and they were more inclined to view Walz as having won. All of that being fairly moot as data mostly points to the VP pick (and their debates in particular) being not all that impactful to the overall election picture.

As always I'm sure the soundbites will rule the day. For Trump & Co. I suspect they'll be happy to reply a few of Walz weaker responses, particularly around China. I also thought Vance did particularly well at staying on message around Harris already being VP and not having put some of her stated policies in place. Obviously I think there are valid answers for a lot of those points but the messaging will likely resonate with folks which is really all you're looking for. For Harris's team they'll latch onto the "fact check" comment and the refusal to answer the question about the winner of 2020 and that should make for some solid political hay.

[Some Schmo]

The media has a Trump bias.

You're hilarious, SS.

Thanks.

If the media had a liberal bias, Trump would not be competitive. But right-wingnuts can't accept that, so they employ their go-to strategy: projection.

You pretend to care about morality but you plan to vote for Trump. There are only a couple explanations for this: you're either lying about your concern for morality (highly possible), or you've been suckered into thinking Trump would be a good President despite how bad he really was and how stupid he is. Sounds like media bias to me.

[ceeboo]

Hey X-Man

Nothing crazy surprising from last night for me. I recognize for many voters this may be their first real taste of either candidate and I think they'll both likely walk away from this pleased with their performance and representation.

Early polling seems to place responses in a veritable tie with maybe the tiniest edge to Vance. I did see one where independents were specifically singled out and they were more inclined to view Walz as having won. All of that being fairly moot as data mostly points to the VP pick (and their debates in particular) being not all that impactful to the overall election picture.

As always I'm sure the soundbites will rule the day. For Trump & Co. I suspect they'll be happy to reply a few of Walz weaker responses, particularly around China. I also thought Vance did particularly well at staying on message around Harris already being VP and not having put some of her stated policies in place. Obviously I think there are valid answers for a lot of those points but the messaging will likely resonate with folks which is really all you're looking for. For Harris's team they'll latch onto the "fact check" comment and the refusal to answer the question about the winner of 2020 and that should make for some solid political hay.

An accurate and balanced review of the debate, in my opinion.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I know it's superficial, but I couldn't stop thinking about Vance's eyeliner. Why does he deny wearing it?

To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a man penciling on some liner, but why deny it and then show up to the debate wearing eyeliner? I suspect people keep publicly pointing it out as a way to needle Vance, who, it’s true, looks every inch the kind of guy who would become apoplectic with rage if you said “ Hey Vance, it looks like you’re wearing makeup” to his face.

ETA: Trump wears buckets of orange makeup and Vance wears eyeliner. No big deal.