Conventionally, that’s the case.
This time around I think a “sedate debate” was a win for the Trump ticket.
Trump is a lunatic, and Vance has supported all his extreme views, while somehow polling as even more unlikeable. If Vance did nothing in the debate but look normal it would be a big win for MAGA, but on top of that, he managed to launder many of the crazy positions.
Meanwhile Walz needed to draw attention to just how crazy their views and revisionist history is.
I think it was Sam Seder that suggested that Walz strategy was likely to let Vance implode, as Trump did, and as Vance has on cable news. When Vance approached the debate in a calm, composed way, there was a need for Walz to go on the offensive, and he didn’t do that until too late.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is going to make a big difference in the polls; no-one is going to look back on this debate as critical. But I am expecting at least a short term boost to Trump/Vance.
Basically, Vance was there to make Trump look good, regardless of how many lies he had to tell. But a pig with lipstick is still pork, and Vance is as big a liar as his boss.
Yeah, through various bits and pieces like this, Walz has been revealed to be, not an extreme malevolent liar, but definitely something of a bullshitter.
Agreed. Vance performed about as well as I had expected, but Walz did significantly worse. He’s been so good on the stump that I thought he’d bring more of that charisma and humor. I also felt that he needed to take a deep breath and just talk slower. He was, in terms of delivery, a C-, and in terms of content a B, B-. IMHO.
I don’t like him, and I certainly don’t want him to be president. But I think I’d characterize him in the same way I characterized Ron DeSantis, a long time ago when that guy was relevant: he’s good at being a dick, but I don’t think he has the evil dictator thing in him. Trump, in contrast, does.
But instead, he made trump look bad. All of the comparisons between Vance and trump are about how much better he is at debating, about how much more polished he was, about how he’d be a more formidable presidential nominee, etc. He’s widely considered to have either won or drawn at his debate, while trump is almost universally recognized as having lost miserably at his. How do you think the Supreme Narcissist Psychopath will respond to all that once it sets in and starts to fester? I hope the Lincoln Project points it out to him!
Perhaps “look good” was the wrong term. He was trying to rehabilitate Trump by lying about his supposed accomplishments while in office (mostly huge fails) while also lying about what the Biden administration has done.
Walz didn’t look good for much of it. He was nervous and stilted at times, not his usual affable self.
I’m not sure how “universally recognized” Trump’s loss was, there are a lot of people who claim, out loud at least, that they think Trump won.
But even if, in their hearts, they know Trump lost, what Vance’s debate performance does is, it gives them the excuse they need to ignore that, and vote for Trump anyways. “See, our ideas aren’t insane! Vance sounded perfectly cromulent up there! Tariffs and barbecued cats for everyone!”
Yes. Vance was trying to present a sensitive and human version of Trump. Make him look Presidential again. Make him look like he was influenced by the Adults In The Room. So this has been tried before, with no success. UnADULTerated anger and spite has no happy face.
Maybe there is a way to do that without lying, or being intellectually dishonest. I’m not sure there is. Vance did not find that way. He was a good enough debater that he applied a modicum of lipstick. His mask slipped when discussing J6 and certiFYing elections. Most Americans care nothing about this debate and it won’t move the polls one iota. Either you see Trump as mendacious, can’t see at all, or you have forgiven Him His trespasses.
You can say Trump saved Obamacare. Or you can realize He lambasted His party since they had no actual alternative plans, just concepts of an idea of obstructionism.
yeah, it was a surprise with a capital “S”. Vance kicked the snot out of Waltz and it wasn’t particularly close. Ultimately, I don’t see it moving the needle though, people are too entrenched in their position already.
You’re not wrong. I think he wanted to play pronatalist pundit for a bit but did so in a way that was very edgelordy. Hence his second series of controversial comments about cat ladies, etc. (the first series being the negative things he said about Trump, which were of course true but controversial now in context).
I’m not sure how he reconciles christofascist Project 2025 with a Hindu wife, etc. etc. It’s a mess. I think a lot of his dumb comments can be chalked up to simple immaturity and not trying to be an actual politician when he was talking so much. Then he hitched his wagon to Trump, and that will be it for him unless they win–which I am pretty sure they will not at this point.
I think it’s a bit of a pity as Vance is clearly smarter and more charismatic than a numbskull like Ron DeSantis. But he took the wrong path, and so goes life.
He may believe that Trump will win; and that Trump won’t go quietly away on his own in 4 years, and that even if he does running in whatever’s left of the Republican party won’t get him away from Trump’s legacy, which is likely to be considerably worse by that time.
And/or he may believe that if Trump wins there’s no way there’ll be a fair election in 4 or 8 years, and may be under the delusion that being Trump’s VP is the best way to be Trump’s anointee.
And/or he may believe that there’ll be an election in 4 years, and he can be the R nominee, and that if he’s the VP at the time he can refuse to certify if the D wins.
And/or he may believe that if Harris wins, the country won’t be in a political place in which Vance would have a chance in 4 years or in 8 years.
And/or he may think that if he told Trump no, Trump would turn what’s left of the Republican party against him, and therefore he wouldn’t get nominated by them for anything.
Or, of course, Vance may be thinking something I haven’t thought of. His mind works very differently from mine.
The debate made me wish that Shapiro could have tapped in for the night. Walz has been as good or better for the campaign than Shapiro so far but he would have mopped the floor with Vance.
Yep. As bullshitty as some of his answers may have been, you can’t deny Vance came off as smooth, polished and articulate. I imagine there’s more than a few establishment Republicans right now wishing desperately that there were a way to convince Trump to step aside and let Vance take the nomination.
No. I agree Shapiro would have been a better debater. But the VP debate just doesn’t matter. Walz has been a great choice. Shapiro would have been very good too, but it isn’t clear he would have attracted the same enthusiasm.
Sure, it would have been better if Walz was a little more aggressive and a little less anxious. But his answers were fine. Which of Vance’s lines was so memorable that people are quoting it gleefully? Vance tried to humanize Trump. He did that passably well, if you already think Trump is a pretty humane dude.