This is exactly the point. The problem is the superficiality with which voters make judgments. Vance, in a very calm and reasonable tone, defended the crimes and transgressions of his orange master and wannabe dictator and the extremist puppeteers at Project 2025 and others who inform his most far-right policies. He was remarkably successful at normalizing the craziness with the smooth and blatant dishonesty of a snake-oil salesman.
Everyone says that, but nothing about this election is following historical norms, so why expect it in this case? I think this might be the one time it does make a difference. Look at the polling numbers after the debate:
Post-debate polling from CBS News and YouGov among 1,630 likely voters who watched the debate found Walz’s favorability increased from 52% to 60% after the debate, and Vance’s increased from 40% to 49%.
Both candidates unfavorability also decreased, with Walz’s falling from 41% to 35% and Vance’s dropping from 54% to 47%, according to the poll, which had a margin of error of ±2.7 points.
In a campaign characterized by almost no movement in the polls for months at a time, both of them got huge bumps. This is particularly important for Vance, who was particularly disliked prior to the debate, and who is running with Trump. A big bump for Vance might mean some unlikely voters will use him as an excuse to vote for Trump, and it won’t take many of them to make a difference.
It might mean that, or it could be that those voters were already on Team Trump, but now don’t hate Vance as much. What we would need is a poll of alleged “undecided” voters, and see if they moved much. It seems like Walz maintained his advantage with “likely voters” but we don’t know much else (at least not yet)
I wish these moderators and all moderators at these debates would call the candidates out for not answering the question. They need to straight-up say “you didn’t answer the question. I’m giving you one more chance to directly answer the question.” And if after that, the candidate still can’t answer the question, the moderator needs to say “let it be known that Mr. [candidate] did not answer the question. Moving on.” It’s total bullshit that both Walz and Vance totally evaded the first question about Israel and Iran. This happens all the time in these debates and I’ll never understand why they ALWAYS get a pass for not answering the question, when the whole goddamn purpose of the thing is for them to answer questions.
The response to this evasive bullshit shouldn’t be polite smiles and “thank you’s” from the moderators. These people ought to get as pissed off at these candidates for not answering the question as the goddamn audience is.
Doesn’t matter that multiple polls say the debate was a draw, Fox News knows that Vance swept to an overwhelming victory.
The have seven separate stories on the Fox News website confirming it, one citing a “body language expert”.
Nothing like a filing to highlight Vance’s answer to the did Biden win 2020 question.
I generally agree with you… although in this case, the very first question, which they both evaded (something like “would you give the go-ahead to a preemptive invasion of Lebanon by Israel”) was total BS, a no-win question. The only possible correct answer is some combination of “Israel doesn’t need to ask the US permission to take military action” and “it depends on the situation”. Starting the debate, when the candidates are going to want to have a few minutes to give their who-I-am spiel, was kinda nonsense.
Yes, the gun smuggling goes INTO Mexico, not OUT of Mexico.
Walz is smart and likable, but not quick witted. His clearly is not the master of the snappy repartee. That’s Harris. And Hillary.
I know. Him the longtime high school teacher/National Guard sergeant we expected to see an old hand at dealing with smartass adolescent males, I was disappointed Walz lacked what old cowboys called “sand.”
Not sure if this was already shared…
Harris campaign pans JD Vance in new ad released just hours after VP debate
Here is the ad:
Linky
That’s a perfect ad. Fair and hard hitting.
OK, but Walz isn’t a novice at all. He’s the governor of Minnesota. There must have been countless occasions when he had to speak on TV and/or in front of big crowds, press conferences, answering questions with little or no prep beforehand.
I wish this topic would be hit a little harder. “We all saw with our own eyes and ears - this was NOT a peaceful protest or first amendment thing. Donald Trump incited an insurrection. He lied to Americans to get them to break the law on his behalf. Don’t fall again for the BIG LIE and Trump’s insurrectile dysfunction!”
“And I commit that when Donald Trump is president again, the government will put the citizens of this country first when they suffer from a disaster.”
…since we’ve completely forgotten the COVID response
They were asked if they would be in favor of Israel launching “a pre-emptive strike against Iran.” I agree it’s a very tough question with a more complex answer than “yes” or “no”, but THEY DIDN’T EVEN REMOTELY ANSWER IT AT ALL, they both just talked bullshit in circles.
I would have said: “pre-emptive of what? An imminent existantial threat to Israel’s survival? A drone attack like what happened earlier this year? It would highly depend on the advice of the top echelon of the intelligence community and the nature of whatever conflict proceeded it up until that point. There are many factors that could affect whether or not a strike on Iran would be a good idea or a terrible idea, and I wouldn’t be able to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a hypothetical in a vacuum like this.”
I have no experience or advanced knowledge of any kind of military conflict or political office. I spent today on a ladder painting siding. That kind of work is the extent of my lived experience. Why is it that I can answer that question better than a governor and a senator?
Right, which is a fine answer deep into a relative in-depth discussion of foreign policy. As the very first answer someone is going to give in a debate which is their best chance to make an impression on millions of voters, it’s a pretty serious ask for someone to give an answer that nuanced.
Not to mention you don’t know the question is coming and you have a time limit.
The Israel/Iran question was not a good one to start with. Both candidates would be a little bit nervous at the start, and to jump right into a sticky question dealing with foreign policy—well, I’m not surprised that both of them botched it.
The moderators should have started with domestic issues. Not big ones (e.g. illegal immigration), but smaller ones (e.g. housing). Let the candidates find their feet on easy issues, and save the big stuff for later.
Meh. Not a hard one to predict ahead of time:
“Reality is that I do not have current intelligence and my thoughts would of course depend on the specifics and confidence of that information. That said my default is that the burden of proof to justify a pre emptive strike would need to be very high. Innocents are certain to die. The risk of mistakes that spiral is high. My hope is that the parties can step away from this brink with a negotiated ceasefire before we ever have to confront that conversation.”
That’s going a bit far. 
C’mon, people! You’re acting like he totally blew it, and he did not.
Yeah, Vance was glib, but he lied. Let’s deduct points for that.