That was answered up thread in response to a post of mine asking the same thing:
Both vp candidates have gotten a big bounce in personal approval polling since the debate, but there is an argument that Walz’s bounce was more significant.
See:
WaPo: Vance probably ‘won’ the debate. But Walz might have gained more
YouGov Polling:
Vance deflected the question about the 2020 election lies before the large television audience watching the debate, but he has no problem supporting the lies before smaller audiences …
“Who won the 2020 election? Could you just answer? Did Donald Trump win?” Selvig asked.
“Yes,” Vance replied.
After asking Vance to confirm that he was saying Trump won in 2020, Vance replied “Yep.”
The comedian then pressed Vance, asking if he would concede if he and Trump lose in the 2020 election.
Vance did not answer directly, instead just saying “I really feel bad for you man.”
Selvig continued to push, asking “if your opponent gets more votes, will you concede,” after which Vance walked away without answering.
That’s the real JD Vance that we didn’t see at the debate because he was disguised as a normal human being.
I saw a recording of the debate just now. My mother had listened to the debate with my nine year old nephew. When the candidates said 2-3x over that they share similar concerns re: women’s rights, gun violence and other topics, my nephew said “C’mon! We know the differences between Democrats and Republicans.” He then pointed out how they’re supposed to be different on issues. There’s hope for future voters if they’re able to differentiate like that.
I disagree. Not with the “political talent” on display, but I think you fell for his charm offensive. He advocates strict anti-abortion. Yeah, as a policy he’s had to back down because Trump is the candidate, but if he were the top of the ticket he would be pushing for a federal abortion ban.
He wants to support families. Okay, children are expensive and they are the next generation of Americans maybe children deserve a bit of assistance to their parents. But he does so by attacking people who don’t have biological children. He makes a positive into a negative. “Help families” becomes “shame single people and childless women”.
He’s spreading malicious, racist lies originated by neoNAZIs about legal refugees , calling them illegals, and stirring up bomb threats and threats to children.
Vance was hand-picked by Peter Theil, and like Theil, he is a follower of Curtis Yarvin. Steve Bannon also likes Yarvin.
Yarvin is the proponent of the idea that democracy is a failed experiment, and wants to replace it with corporate neo-monarchy, run by technocrats.
Yarvin has a strange mix of ideas, but he advocates for authoritarian rule, thinks whites are genetically more intelligent than Blacks, and thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake. But don’t worry women, he wants to get rid of everybody’s right to vote.
And Vance is his hand-picked successor to Trump.
Vance is also a full out liar, saying Trump saved Obamacare.
Vance may not be as smarmy and weasel-faced as Ted Cruz, but he’s absolutely as abhorrent, and probably more dangerous.
You’re making the mistake of thinking his debate skill is a measure of his effectiveness as a leader. He’s been governor of Minnesota since 2019 - 5 1/2 years.
He’s been an effective governor who has gotten laws to protect reproductive freedom, including a shield law for women seeking help from other states.
He provided all children access to free breakfasts and lunches and increased spending to schools and pre-k programs. Laws also require evidence- based teaching methods for reading. Provides paid sick and family medical leave. And much more of the liberal agenda.
Don’t discount him because he’s not polished on the “2 minute response” format.
He did continue to say he and Trump have issues with 2020.
Basically agree with what you are saying about both Vance and Walz. Here’s what I think would be a more accurate statement of my position:
One of the primary purposes of the VP position is to step up and be president. There have been massive successes in this area (Teddy Roosevelt; LBJ, at least domestically) as well as massive failures (John Tyler, Andrew Johnson). It’s hard to know beforehand how well someone will perform in the role. There have been some surprises in the country’s history.
I think both Vance and Walz could either succeed or fail in the role.
Vance strikes me as someone who is very organized and perceptive. He might be the kind of person who drops his current shtick (cat ladies, etc.), steps up, and tries to be a real president for the people while leading the GOP in a new direction. He’s a chameleon and might make the right choice, in contrast to someone like Trump, who is incapable of change. Also, being extra-young in the toughest of jobs can’t hurt.
Note that I think Vance has betrayed the country as have all people who have supported and enabled Trump. He is disqualified from American politics forever as far as I’m concerned (unless, as some others have, he at some point sincerely apologizes). That said, I think the above scenario is possible. Or if, Og forbid, he were to become president, he might end up being evil, incompetent, or both. Hard to know.
Walz is somewhat of the opposite case. He is clearly a good, moral person. And yes, he has been governor and done a good job in Minnesota. Something about him doesn’t quite scream “presidential” to me. He does not, it seems to me, have the same force of will and grit that Harris clearly does. But again, he could possibly step up and be extremely effective.
That’s one of the problems with today’s political lineup. The evil ones are so evil that the only moderately evil ones start to look normal by comparison. We can’t let that shape our thinking.
This really isn’t fair to him.
I think the only part of his current shtick he’d drop would be the Trump ass kissing. He added that just to win his spot on the ticket, and would drop it in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose.
All the other stuff, I suspect he’d end up doubling down on. As bad as you think he might be for women, cats, immigrants, religion, democracy and all that, he’ll end up actually being worse.
Look to what I just said about who is backing Vance. They want to be the inheritors of the Project 2025 landscape, to make moves that Trump wishes for but isn’t knowledgeable enough to pull off.
People here have been throwing around the word fascist, but Yarvin is very much one.
No, Trump was convinced, very likely by a large sum of money, by Peter Theil. Vance is Theil’s boy. Theil is the one responsible for every step in Vance’s career since college.
Walz came off a bit flustered through the whole thing. He interrupted himself numerous times to shift his statement, and he struggled to clearly state some points.
He did have a great sense on his speaking time, and I don’t recall once getting interrupted that his time was up. He usually was just finished with his statement right as they said time was up. Vance did get cut off a couple times.
Yes.
He didn’t miss an opportunity. Both had their mics cut right then.
I think you’re right about this. Vance has no good opinion of Trump and he’d love to drop the pretense of supporting him. AND Vance genuinely believes he has the right and the duty to control everyone who fails to be a straight white Christian male. (And also some who succeed in that but fail to be rich enough.)
Someone upthread said they thought Vance isn’t really evil. I disagree with that assessment. I think he’s mean-spirited, hate-filled, and power-hungry. “Sadistic” is a real possibility, too, in my view.
I hate vance probably as much if not more than trump. trump is nuts and a fraud. vance is a true believer, both will, if not destroy the country, will damage it for the foreseeable future.
Neither of those two pricks cares at all about all the people of the country. trump cares about trump, and vance cares about his plitical power, and people who look, think, and act like him.
You could be completely right, and I wouldn’t want to take a chance on it.
Clock management is the last thing I’d expect to trip up a football coach.
That would make debates more interesting. Unfortunately, it seems to be accepted practice to let the candidates answer however they want, or whatever question they wanted instead. Moderators Auth teeth would be more interesting and interesting even more helpful to voters.
I’ve seen news interviewers do this. Less make it the way debates happen. Except the candidates probably won’t agree to those terms, just like they punted fact checking.
Yes, somehow they agree to no opening statements then turn the first question into an opening statement.
The Overton Window Works is holding on line 2.
You have not watched Mike McCarthy.
“Walz is somewhat of the opposite case. He is clearly a good, moral person. And yes, he has been governor and done a good job in Minnesota. Something about him doesn’t quite scream “presidential” to me. He does not, it seems to me, have the same force of will and grit that Harris clearly does. But again, he could possibly step up and be extremely effective.”
I think there is probably a vast difference between a debate and actually governing - something that Walz has experience and success at and Vance… not.
Or Andy Reid.
I think governing as governor is great experience for the presidency, but there are also major quantitative (much more intense, etc.) and qualitative (foreign policy added to domestic, etc.) differences that make it hard to know who will succeed and who not.
God willing he’ll be running for the nomination as an experienced sitting VP in 7 plus years against a solid competitive bench. We can debate it then!