JD Vance didn't answer a single question, he deflected, albeit just like a Yale debater, to the border, immigration and oddly, censorship. Perhaps he won on being slick, but I doubt a single vote changed. And Walz wiped the floor on women's health, ACA, prescription drugs, housing and Jan 6.
I agree that this debate probably changed nobody’s mind, but both of them were dodging difficult questions. That’s pretty much standard procedure for politicians.
Seriously, Chris? How can you say Vance won when he couldn’t give a straight answer on whether he would uphold his oath. That wasn’t just “a damning non-answer.” It was disqualifying.
I think you are making the pundit’s mistake of style over substance, and you succumbed to the bar lowering that Vance and company engaged in. I don’t think Vance made himself any more likable. I think his constant attacks on Kamala were disingenuous (and you have given them too much credence). Everyone knows the VP doesn’t set policy. It is, at best, n internship for the big job, and everyone in the real world knows that. You give it far too much credit as an effective line of attack.
If any of the undecided voters read a fact check, Vance did some serious gas lighting. No,
Trump didn’t save the ACA, Vance absolutely did support a national abortion ban, and Vance looked awful not saying that Trump lost 2020 (while claiming to be forward looking, and then immediately blaming Harris and Hillary Clinton for actions in 2020 and 2016). Vance basically danced around climate champ he, and argued women should have their rights dictated by their geography. 30 years ago, Walz went to Hong Kong in August instead of June. Yeah, he fumbled the answer, but it wasn’t super apropos to anything important — especially if you want to compare supposed problems with the veracity of Walz when compared to Trump and Vance. Shame on the media as if they pretend this false equivalence is remotely relevant.
Vance may not have been as awkward as we are now accustomed to, but give him some time. He’ll get there again. But, he was slick and fast talking (hard for some older folks to follow), and put on a show. Walz was less polished, for sure, but I would argue more relatable for the undecided. I also think that some of the issues Vance danced around badly were very important to younger voters, such as climate change, abortion, and housing. I am also really sure that the only moment that will play on a loop is Vance dodging the 2020 election questions.
If you look at snap polls, it was like 42% Vance, 41% Walz, and 17% undecided. So, I know this is just your hot take, but I’m not sure how well thought out it is at this moment.
But, I do agree that it probably won’t matter, other than Trump not screaming and throwing things around Mar-a-Lago if Vance had tanked.
I think you are Dead Wrong. I thought Tim was sincere, straightforward and so sincere. He is a kind, gentle, honest man. VANCE is slippery, lies, is evasive amd is simply intolerable on abortion and whether he will certfy the election results. I will never vote for an election denier. Why would any sane person do so?
I cannot believe that you, a seasoned journalist, would fall for Vance's slick transformation from a bitchy misogynist who attacks and attacks and belittles to a smooth disingenuous chameleon. Shame on you.
You’re totally wrong chris on this one JD thanks did not win this in anyway. It was a slick sample snake oil salesman and didn’t answer one question. Tim Walz may have been a little bit slow to start, but he answered the questions on women’s healthcare, housing, Healthcare in general, and most importantly got the last word in JD Vances non-answer to the question whether or not Trump won the election.
I completely agree. Vance is a good debater. Like exPINO he presented confidently but almost everything that came out of his mouth was lies and gaslighting. But he’s a more sophisticated slime ball who peddled a slicker bolus of slime and manipulation and bald-faced conflation than DT. Tim Walz was sharp and decent and outraged but civil. He looks like a guy who can keep his head.
Not admitting Trump lost in 2020 showed he was just Trump’s lapdog. If he was getting any credibility earlier in the debate, it went down like Titanic.
Vance was slick and smooth while he was telling lie after lie after lie. But I guess in your world Chris, lying is not disqualifying. He gave a good answer on abortion? Really? He told a bald faced lie when asked about his position, and it’s in print and on tape. He refused to say what we all know is true, that Trump lost the 2020 election. But he had to say that, right, or Donnie Jr would have shivved him in the spin room. I am increasingly disappointed in your analysis Chris. It appears you have absorbed far too much of the CNN spin
Vance "won" the debate, barely, but to say that his performance was superior to Kamalas v Trump is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard from a pundit. Be better.
He was not happy that Harris whooped Trump's ass in that debate so he (Chris ) is trying to down play the Trump's defeat by Harris. Chris just know that it's not working because everyone saw the debate between Harris and Trump. You can spin it anyhow you want. It's not working. Harris BEAT Trump handily during their debate period
I agree that JD Vance won on points. He smooth, but not just smooth. He thinks ahead of himself. He is the Pete Buttigieg of the Right. It was really funny, however to see him defending the indefensible on January 6. It was priceless watching Walz face as Vance was squirming through that narrative. When Waltz came back, he was not angry and not morally superior., just sad and he nailed Trump to the ground.
I disagree. He was definitely more smooth, but Tim Walz won on substance. He dealt in reality, where Vance would say anything at all. Take Vance’s answer on preexisting conditions and the ACA.
One of these days the people crowing about Shapiro will realize that he was a bit of a hat on a hat. He was a younger, polished prosecutor. He didn’t guarantee PA by any stretch. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the remaining anti-Semitism throughout segments of the Democratic electorate, progressives, and in the Midwest. Walz is a change of pace to Kamala, doesn’t overshadow or compete with her, and talks to different segments of the electorate than she does, with his coaching, military experience, and agricultural roots. He performs many of similar communications functions that Biden played for Obama. Shapiro was not a magic bullet here.
I agree with you on Walz being more complementary to Kamala, but he is being reigned in, likely by the Harris brain trust, and less authentically himself both on the campaign trail and for a good portion of the debate
Sure. I think this was a case of "first, do no harm". The VP debate doesn't generally have any noticeable impact. Keep Walz out there talking about issues and policies that people care about. Talk about the economy, housing, abortion, and wanting to sign the bipartisan immigration bill. Walz was clearly pulling his punches. There were several times on housing where he walked right up to the line of noting that venture capital firms are driving up housing prices, and was within a whisker of pointing out that JD spent his career as a VC lapdog for Peter Thiel -- but pulled back. Instead for looking for a knockout punch, they just let the 90 minutes expire, got a good shot at the end about January 6th -- which will be the only thing that plays on a loop on most networks after this. They will let the spinners and fact checkers do their jobs, and let the campaign stay largely between Kamala and Trump, which is where it was always going to be anyway.
The overwhelming consensus is that Vance won. I wasn't a big fan of him coming into this, but he certainly redeemed himself. Walz wasn't a total disaster but he didn't do himself or Harris any favors. It won't change the race much, but it certainly makes Vance a more attractive surrogate in the Midwest.
JD Vance didn't answer a single question, he deflected, albeit just like a Yale debater, to the border, immigration and oddly, censorship. Perhaps he won on being slick, but I doubt a single vote changed. And Walz wiped the floor on women's health, ACA, prescription drugs, housing and Jan 6.
Yes, he definitely won!
Did Donald Trump win the 2020 election?
Still waiting on that answer….
I agree that this debate probably changed nobody’s mind, but both of them were dodging difficult questions. That’s pretty much standard procedure for politicians.
I completely agree.
Seriously, Chris? How can you say Vance won when he couldn’t give a straight answer on whether he would uphold his oath. That wasn’t just “a damning non-answer.” It was disqualifying.
I agree.
WaPo had a panel of 22 uncommitted voters in swing states: 14 said Vance did better, 8 said Walz.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/vice-presidential-debate-voter-poll
Vance LIED HIS ASS OFF...over and over and over and over again.
It was like his whole persona and everything he said in the past went down the memory hole of LIES.
Thinking that Vance did "well", is being gullible by buying into his bullshit. He was is a phony.
I totally disagree. Vance talked fast and in circles all night. He never answered a question and his permanent smirk was annoying.
You smile when you are winning
I guess you have to know the difference between spin and real life. I’ll take the latter and that is not the slick guy who hangs with Trump.
I think you are making the pundit’s mistake of style over substance, and you succumbed to the bar lowering that Vance and company engaged in. I don’t think Vance made himself any more likable. I think his constant attacks on Kamala were disingenuous (and you have given them too much credence). Everyone knows the VP doesn’t set policy. It is, at best, n internship for the big job, and everyone in the real world knows that. You give it far too much credit as an effective line of attack.
If any of the undecided voters read a fact check, Vance did some serious gas lighting. No,
Trump didn’t save the ACA, Vance absolutely did support a national abortion ban, and Vance looked awful not saying that Trump lost 2020 (while claiming to be forward looking, and then immediately blaming Harris and Hillary Clinton for actions in 2020 and 2016). Vance basically danced around climate champ he, and argued women should have their rights dictated by their geography. 30 years ago, Walz went to Hong Kong in August instead of June. Yeah, he fumbled the answer, but it wasn’t super apropos to anything important — especially if you want to compare supposed problems with the veracity of Walz when compared to Trump and Vance. Shame on the media as if they pretend this false equivalence is remotely relevant.
Vance may not have been as awkward as we are now accustomed to, but give him some time. He’ll get there again. But, he was slick and fast talking (hard for some older folks to follow), and put on a show. Walz was less polished, for sure, but I would argue more relatable for the undecided. I also think that some of the issues Vance danced around badly were very important to younger voters, such as climate change, abortion, and housing. I am also really sure that the only moment that will play on a loop is Vance dodging the 2020 election questions.
If you look at snap polls, it was like 42% Vance, 41% Walz, and 17% undecided. So, I know this is just your hot take, but I’m not sure how well thought out it is at this moment.
But, I do agree that it probably won’t matter, other than Trump not screaming and throwing things around Mar-a-Lago if Vance had tanked.
I agree. JD did some serious gaslighting, esp. around Harris’ power as VP.
I think you are Dead Wrong. I thought Tim was sincere, straightforward and so sincere. He is a kind, gentle, honest man. VANCE is slippery, lies, is evasive amd is simply intolerable on abortion and whether he will certfy the election results. I will never vote for an election denier. Why would any sane person do so?
I cannot believe that you, a seasoned journalist, would fall for Vance's slick transformation from a bitchy misogynist who attacks and attacks and belittles to a smooth disingenuous chameleon. Shame on you.
I so agree.
Sadly for ol’ JD…this debate was not about him, or his mom, or his meemaw.
You’re totally wrong chris on this one JD thanks did not win this in anyway. It was a slick sample snake oil salesman and didn’t answer one question. Tim Walz may have been a little bit slow to start, but he answered the questions on women’s healthcare, housing, Healthcare in general, and most importantly got the last word in JD Vances non-answer to the question whether or not Trump won the election.
I completely agree. Vance is a good debater. Like exPINO he presented confidently but almost everything that came out of his mouth was lies and gaslighting. But he’s a more sophisticated slime ball who peddled a slicker bolus of slime and manipulation and bald-faced conflation than DT. Tim Walz was sharp and decent and outraged but civil. He looks like a guy who can keep his head.
Not admitting Trump lost in 2020 showed he was just Trump’s lapdog. If he was getting any credibility earlier in the debate, it went down like Titanic.
If you can’t definitely say that Trump lost the 2020 election you lose credibility with EVERTHING.
Vance was slick and smooth while he was telling lie after lie after lie. But I guess in your world Chris, lying is not disqualifying. He gave a good answer on abortion? Really? He told a bald faced lie when asked about his position, and it’s in print and on tape. He refused to say what we all know is true, that Trump lost the 2020 election. But he had to say that, right, or Donnie Jr would have shivved him in the spin room. I am increasingly disappointed in your analysis Chris. It appears you have absorbed far too much of the CNN spin
Vance "won" the debate, barely, but to say that his performance was superior to Kamalas v Trump is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard from a pundit. Be better.
He was not happy that Harris whooped Trump's ass in that debate so he (Chris ) is trying to down play the Trump's defeat by Harris. Chris just know that it's not working because everyone saw the debate between Harris and Trump. You can spin it anyhow you want. It's not working. Harris BEAT Trump handily during their debate period
I agree that JD Vance won on points. He smooth, but not just smooth. He thinks ahead of himself. He is the Pete Buttigieg of the Right. It was really funny, however to see him defending the indefensible on January 6. It was priceless watching Walz face as Vance was squirming through that narrative. When Waltz came back, he was not angry and not morally superior., just sad and he nailed Trump to the ground.
I disagree. He was definitely more smooth, but Tim Walz won on substance. He dealt in reality, where Vance would say anything at all. Take Vance’s answer on preexisting conditions and the ACA.
Tim did not win on substance. He was tentative, he was anxious, it was bad.
One of these days the people crowing about Shapiro will realize that he was a bit of a hat on a hat. He was a younger, polished prosecutor. He didn’t guarantee PA by any stretch. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the remaining anti-Semitism throughout segments of the Democratic electorate, progressives, and in the Midwest. Walz is a change of pace to Kamala, doesn’t overshadow or compete with her, and talks to different segments of the electorate than she does, with his coaching, military experience, and agricultural roots. He performs many of similar communications functions that Biden played for Obama. Shapiro was not a magic bullet here.
Not taking Shapiro will only matter if Harris ends up losing with the strategy of avoiding interviews.
I agree with you on Walz being more complementary to Kamala, but he is being reigned in, likely by the Harris brain trust, and less authentically himself both on the campaign trail and for a good portion of the debate
Sure. I think this was a case of "first, do no harm". The VP debate doesn't generally have any noticeable impact. Keep Walz out there talking about issues and policies that people care about. Talk about the economy, housing, abortion, and wanting to sign the bipartisan immigration bill. Walz was clearly pulling his punches. There were several times on housing where he walked right up to the line of noting that venture capital firms are driving up housing prices, and was within a whisker of pointing out that JD spent his career as a VC lapdog for Peter Thiel -- but pulled back. Instead for looking for a knockout punch, they just let the 90 minutes expire, got a good shot at the end about January 6th -- which will be the only thing that plays on a loop on most networks after this. They will let the spinners and fact checkers do their jobs, and let the campaign stay largely between Kamala and Trump, which is where it was always going to be anyway.
The overwhelming consensus is that Vance won. I wasn't a big fan of him coming into this, but he certainly redeemed himself. Walz wasn't a total disaster but he didn't do himself or Harris any favors. It won't change the race much, but it certainly makes Vance a more attractive surrogate in the Midwest.