Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is more frustrating to me than JD's lies.The political pundit class is having a very difficult morning. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers.
Pundit class wanted a knife fight, but the public is tired of brawls.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.
This x1000. My takeaways, for what little they’re worth -Pundit class wanted a knife fight, but the public is tired of brawls.
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.
Is it though?It's amazing how far she's fallen in terms of her career and respectability.
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.
Agree with this, with a huge caveat.I didn't think Vance won but I thought he was polished and helped himself quite a bit.
objectively false and frankly batshit insane and completely nukes any shreds of credibility you had left around here.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.
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.)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.
This is a great observation and I agree completely. I saw a lot of people saying last night Vance was campaigning for 2028, not 2024. Can’t help but think there’s some truth to that, as his performance last night was of a post-Trump candidate as much as it was of Trump’s VP. Trump will never admit it, but I bet he was RAGING at some of the things Vance said.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.