Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Walz v. Vance VP Debate - Post-Game Thread | Vance now says Trump won in 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 628
  • Views: 15K
  • Politics 


Sometimes I think I subscribe to the Bulwark for the sole purpose of seeing how increasingly idiotic of a take Bill Kristol can have.
 
The political pundit class is having a very difficult morning. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers.
 
I do think Walz missed some opportunities to be a little more biting in calling Vance on some lies and dodges. But overall I agree that the pundit class is being too hard on his performance.
 
I didn't see the whole thing, but most of the last hour. The Jan. 6 response was where I thought Vance got caught. It was like when Trump went off the rails about his rallies. A "deer in the headlights" moment for Vance. He knows in his heart that Jan. 6 was a critical moment in history that should never have happened and he is now in Pence's shoes.
 
altmin said:
Pundit class wanted a knife fight, but the public is tired of brawls.
Click to expand...
This x1000. My takeaways, for what little they’re worth -

1. The debate will not move the dial on the election. Both men met the basic standard of appearing competent to serve as VP, so very few votes will change based on their performances.

2. That version of Vance would be a credible candidate for president, but for his Jan 6 answer anyway. The problem is that version of Vance is inconsistent with what Vance has said in the past, and is VERY inconsistent with his would-be boss. I was actually thinking during the debate how interesting a debate between this version of Vance and Trump would be.

3. That first question to Walz was BRUTAL. It was fair and appropriate, but what a humdinger out of the gate. Walz didn’t completely nail it, but it’s hard to fault him too much. There’s really not a great answer to that one. Pubs can spare me the whining about bias when Walz got a high and tight fastball before he’d said a word.
 
p5mmr9 said:
somewhat tangential to the debate - Vance has this interview tic where he says "Well 'x'" - where x is the first name of the interviewer/questioner and he says it with such a snide tone. It is so off putting. He does this in almost every interview. I'm sure it is intentional and he must think it shows strength of some kind. I can't be the only one who finds it incredibly insulting.
Click to expand...

My wife mentioned this. She did not like it.
 
Paine said:
I didn’t say anything last night because the board consensus seemed to be that Vance won. That didn’t jive with my feelings while watching it, but it seems like the focus group polling is more indicative of a tie or slight Walz win.
Click to expand...

I didn't think Vance won but I thought he was polished and helped himself quite a bit.
 
dukeman92 said:
I didn't think Vance won but I thought he was polished and helped himself quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Agree with this, with a huge caveat.

From the perspective of JD Vance's rehabilitation of his image, it was a definite tactical victory.

But voters won't be voting for JD Vance on Nov 5th, they will be deciding between Trump and Harris.

I think Vance's performance was actually, big picture, a huge strategic loss for the Trump Vance ticket.

By putting on a performance that draws such a sharp contrast with his boss's demeanor, he spent two hours last night reminding undecided voters that there is another way and the chaos and drama are entirely unnecessary.

To the extent anyone saw it, the debate was a huge loss specifically for Trump.
 
Callatoroy said:
No way on this earth you think she would be a good president or that she is qualified or competent to be president. Her only qualification to you guys is she isn’t trump. No way any objective, educated person thinks she is anything but a prop.
Click to expand...
objectively false and frankly batshit insane and completely nukes any shreds of credibility you had left around here.

if someone with 22 years of public service as san francisco DA, california attorney general, california senator and vice president of the united states isn't qualified then no one is qualified.
 
I’m trying to wrap my head around how someone could be considered a “winner” of a debate when all they did was was misconstrue and lie about everything. Being able to speak well shouldn’t negate that fact that what you are speaking are lies. Does not compute.
 
Macksbrownies said:
I’m trying to wrap my head around how someone could be considered a “winner” of a debate when all they did was was misconstrue and lie about everything. Being able to speak well shouldn’t negate that fact that what you are speaking are lies. Does not compute.
Click to expand...
Because debates are as much or more about style than substance. (I'm not saying that's a good thing, or that I want it to be that way, but it's true.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top