Walz is a great pick—he manages to make progressive policies look like common sense and is totally unthreatening when he does it. He looks older (but is about the same age as Harris) and that can be reassuring to a lot of votes who don’t want OLD-old, but want someone who is tested. This will be a good team.
Walz is a great pick—he manages to make progressive policies look like common sense and is totally unthreatening when he does it. He looks older (but is about the same age as Harris) and that can be reassuring to a lot of votes who don’t want OLD-old, but want someone who is tested. This will be a good team.
Agreed. I love his line about, "Oh, what a monster - he feeds kids and they have full bellies!" (paraphrasing) He can help make Republican criticisms look weak, and he's a great attack dog. I can't wait to see him debate Vance!
Will JD Vain show up, or take his cue from OCF and decide that he accepted the nomination thinking he would debate Kamala Harris (subtext, a "black woman"), not another older (than JD) white guy.
If JD and Trump refuse to debate, they need to get trolled hard - flood their social media feeds with chicken emojis, send people dressed as chickens to their rallies. I'm showing my age, but I'm reminded of the people dressing up as flip-flops criticizing John Kerry. ;-)
Christina, 100% agree, but you were clearly expecting a "debate" between the two. Frankly, other than seeing who would step in if the President can't do the job (which is also an actuarlial gimme given their ages and dietary habits), I see absolutely no reason to even have, let alone watch, that if it were shown.
Ever since these televised 'debates' devolved into false mud-slinging events (primarily by one side), they've not only become useless, they've become detrimental to informing the viewing electorate. My only question, which is of historical interest only, is when did this happen? I know it was quite a few cycles ago.
Steve, I think your question is when did they devolve into uninformative mud-slinging matches, right? Without having reviewed the past thirty years or so of debates (my time is too valuable for that waste), I strongly suspect that it got into high gear with OCF, when normally mild-mannered Joe Biden had to say, "Will you shut up?" because OCF was not providing anything of value, just interrupting and spewing his normal line of BS, mostly false at that. I recall that in 2016 he did not so much insult Hillary as he did try to unsettle her by his actions. I expect that other Bulwarkians have perhaps more based information.
Walz is a great pick—he manages to make progressive policies look like common sense and is totally unthreatening when he does it. He looks older (but is about the same age as Harris) and that can be reassuring to a lot of votes who don’t want OLD-old, but want someone who is tested. This will be a good team.
Think Old School Midwestern Progressive. Ala Humphrey. This can work
Well said, Peggy.
Because progressive policies are common sense. 😉
Like your emoji.
100%!
Agreed. I love his line about, "Oh, what a monster - he feeds kids and they have full bellies!" (paraphrasing) He can help make Republican criticisms look weak, and he's a great attack dog. I can't wait to see him debate Vance!
Will JD Vain show up, or take his cue from OCF and decide that he accepted the nomination thinking he would debate Kamala Harris (subtext, a "black woman"), not another older (than JD) white guy.
If JD and Trump refuse to debate, they need to get trolled hard - flood their social media feeds with chicken emojis, send people dressed as chickens to their rallies. I'm showing my age, but I'm reminded of the people dressing up as flip-flops criticizing John Kerry. ;-)
Christina, 100% agree, but you were clearly expecting a "debate" between the two. Frankly, other than seeing who would step in if the President can't do the job (which is also an actuarlial gimme given their ages and dietary habits), I see absolutely no reason to even have, let alone watch, that if it were shown.
The fly was must see TV last time.
Ever since these televised 'debates' devolved into false mud-slinging events (primarily by one side), they've not only become useless, they've become detrimental to informing the viewing electorate. My only question, which is of historical interest only, is when did this happen? I know it was quite a few cycles ago.
Steve, I think your question is when did they devolve into uninformative mud-slinging matches, right? Without having reviewed the past thirty years or so of debates (my time is too valuable for that waste), I strongly suspect that it got into high gear with OCF, when normally mild-mannered Joe Biden had to say, "Will you shut up?" because OCF was not providing anything of value, just interrupting and spewing his normal line of BS, mostly false at that. I recall that in 2016 he did not so much insult Hillary as he did try to unsettle her by his actions. I expect that other Bulwarkians have perhaps more based information.
I like your assessment, Peggy.