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.
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.
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.
Walz lied his ass off over and over again. Saying he was in Tiananmen square, lying about illegal CBP app laws being on the books since 1990 when we had no app or smart phones, saying he was friends with school shooters. Looking like he knucklehead he called himself. I could never imagine this guy sitting across and negotiations with the toughest dictators around the world. He would be terrified. He’s dumb
And you rely more on a brand new Senator serving less than 2 years?!?! Wants to be a would-be president. Lies like hell? Implementing project 2025 project? Walz did not lie.
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.
I'm not clear on how you came to the conclusion that Vance won. Is it style over substance? Lies don't matter? I don't need or want one sided commentary, but I expect astute commentary. Absolute failure. I'm out.
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
Those are the uncommitted voters who do not follow political news closely. Their votes count and their perceptions matter.
WoPo we know is not known for truth and not reliable.
So do you think that the WaPo did not actually interview these people? Or what, exactly?
Boy are you under some serious delusion
Agree whole heartily, Tamela.
I agree. Just posted similar before I saw your response.
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.
Wrong!!!
Yes, he definitely won!
Did Donald Trump win the 2020 election?
Still waiting on that answer….
And you'll be waiting. . .
And waiting…. Love this divorced from reality folks. 🤦♂️😂
Obviously not, at least not according to the people announcing the results. Didn’t he leave office?
I completely agree.
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 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.
Totally agree. I kept saying to no one in particular, "Someone please remind that idiot that Kamala Harris is not the President!"
But she IS in fact the acting president. Biden says so.
Well said, I totally agree.
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.
Exactly.
EXACTLY!!! Since when does lies win debates?!?!
Walz lied his ass off over and over again. Saying he was in Tiananmen square, lying about illegal CBP app laws being on the books since 1990 when we had no app or smart phones, saying he was friends with school shooters. Looking like he knucklehead he called himself. I could never imagine this guy sitting across and negotiations with the toughest dictators around the world. He would be terrified. He’s dumb
And you rely more on a brand new Senator serving less than 2 years?!?! Wants to be a would-be president. Lies like hell? Implementing project 2025 project? Walz did not lie.
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.
You also smile when you're covering up for something.
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.
Chris kinda flitted over Vance’s slippery surface.
Totally agree, Howard!!!
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.
Agree, Barbara!!
Thank you Michelle! You exquisitely described the debate that I just watched!
Agree Michelle
Sadly for ol’ JD…this debate was not about him, or his mom, or his meemaw.
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
Thank you, Richard!! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
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
If you couldn't see the tissue-thin swarminess of Vance's schtick -- apparent even to this Texas hick -- you are too far gone, Chris. Check yourself.
Yup yup yup!!!!
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.
Agree w/you, Deanna. Jd lies smoothly like he’s so accustomed to lying.
I'm not clear on how you came to the conclusion that Vance won. Is it style over substance? Lies don't matter? I don't need or want one sided commentary, but I expect astute commentary. Absolute failure. I'm out.