So, when asked about his stated reluctance to what Pence did 1/6/21 were he in Pence's position, Vance responded with the non-answer of "I'm focused on the future, on looking ahead." But this will not do, because he is auditioning for Mike Pence's position, and, "in the future," on January 6, 2025, may be in the position of having to certify a presidential election he himself loses, assuming the Constitution still applies and we still have elections and the 2 term limit is still a thing and Trump doesn't run again. Vance responded to a question about the future by refusing to answer it because he's focused on the future, which doesn't make very much sense.
I think that these " DEBATES" are useless & stupid..because many out here know what it means to " DEBATE"...In this toxic political climate what we get is useless chatter...It resembles a " PAGEANT " with 2 ..men who want to show us how silly men can be..We already know what each side represents. A debate like last night won't sway votes!! We already know that if one wants an AMERICA that stands for all that it has been said about her, the choice is clear!
If most politicians are chameleons, JD Vance is an octopus because he can change his appearance in ways a chameleon could only dream of, and he's also smart enough to be pretty dangerous.
You didn’t think Vance sounded patronizing when he repeatedly used the moderators’ first names, with the tone of someone explaining things to a not-so-bright child?
Also, since when does a vice president get to impose his or her own agenda? Whenever he asked, “Why hasn’t she been doing this already?”, I wanted to yell at the TV “ Because she wasn’t the president!” I think the American people understand that.
I've heard some clips of the debate - Vance's answers on January 6, the nonsense about Trump saving the ACA, about how doors and windows need to be locked harder, and whining about being fact checked, are all bad moments which I think rise above his much better stylistic showing
Nonsense, for the most part. The gist basically is if the viewer was completely stupid and was grading this only on whether Vance had the general appearance of an actual human then he won. This debate was not about trying to convince base voters to change their vote, nor was it about whether one candidate appeared more mega-church preacher ready. It was about persuading the undecided and soft voters, those oddballs who somehow “don’t know enough about Harris” to make a decision yet.
Normal people have a very good radar for bullshit and deception. They can smell poison. Their reason for watching the debate was not to grade which candidate on who is able to mask their creepiness better, rather they watched to see who was not a creep. I can see then argument that Vance came off as less-Vancey, but he was still very much Vance. Anyone with a remotely factual basis in the real world saw Vance for the liar that he was, and Walz for his authenticity. The China question was as pointless gotchaism as possible, and Walz’s reaction was humanizing. People who watched to be persuaded saw one human and one polished turd.
The other purpose of the debate was to reinforce and invigorate the base. Vance toned down his bluster and changed his tones and positions. He did not drive his MAGA minions to froth at the mouth. He essentially was a running flip-flopped who seemed to want to be liked by Walz. He did go for the gut with sucker punches and childish antics, rather he essentially was a chameleon that came across as more so a conservative Democrat than Trump’s fluffer.
Vanz tried to fill in some policy holes while trying to drive home the kitchen table differences. That was his job. He did it. Vance on the other hand intensified that he and Trump have no focus other than to lie and win by deception.
Vance wouldn't answer the direct question, but he actually conceded the 2020 election elsewhere.
“If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle class problems, then she ought to do them now, not when asking for a promotion, but in the job the American people gave her three and a half years ago.”
If the Dems are smart, they start treating Vance as the nominee. Trump always talks about Biden being pushed out because it is his fear. Trump fears just came true. JVL is right, it was too good. I woke up in the middle of the night with an ear worm. “And when the king was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown.” Use this lyric everywhere.
Sure he won. If winning means lying with a straight face for an hour and a half. Pundits care about style and Vance is flash. But he has no convictions or principles and this was laid bare when he could not admit Trump lost.
I wouldn't say Vance "won" the debate just because a projected a comparatively anodyne persona. I came away thinking it was basically a draw, as JVL suggested in his first footnote, with Vance slightly ahead on presentation and Walz marginally better on substance.
Will Vance's shape shifting draw in swing voters? I suppose it might create the proverbial "permission structure," especially for those wondering how he would run the country if Trump prematurely exited the scene. Ie, while Walz added nothing new to the Democrats' case, Vance kinda sorta whitewashed Trump's.
BTW, when Vance deflected uncomfortable questions about the 2020 election by insisting that it was time to move forward, he was kinda sorta emulating Kamala Harris's reluctance to dwell on her own past tenure and positions. Apparently "We're not going back" is contagious.
Hope Vance's performance doesn't encourage any voters reluctant to vote for trump to start thinking "Oh, well, we'll be in safe hands when the old man's gone!"
The Bulwak commentator team that was live was way too hard on Walz in my view. I now live in New Zealand, but have been obsessively watching every major speech/debate/whatever (and the Bulwark). And Tim was FINE. He ain't Kamala, but he was FINE. Several times I wanted him to speak up/talk back but basically he was FINE. Political pundits will spot lots of things I didn't, but I'm no dummy and I thought he was a good human being with a solid moral compass -- and that showed. You all need to pull back now and again.
"Fine" doesn't win elections. Before they were the Bulwark team, these guys were political operatives (not pundits). They worked on campaigns and strategized to get the candidate they were working for across the finish line. They know what gets votes and which votes they need to get. My progressive daughter loves Walz because of his "Dad vibes". I'm a lifetime Republican and I hate Walz. As a Never Trumper, I'd much prefer Pete Buttigieg or Josh Shapiro. If Harris loses Pennsylvania, and thus the election, it will be because she didn't pick Shapiro for VP. Sarah Longwell is right about that.
My concern is that political operatives may react quite differently from us plebs. Like trained musicians judging harshly a performance that gave pleasure to less refined ears. Hard to solve that conundrum.
The next question to DT must be: "President Trump, considering how well Senator Vance performed last night, and I realise you vastly superior crowds, would you consider putting him at the top of the ticket?"
He only proved that sometimes the devil is so smooth, so slick, so believable, that they can sucker in some people if you don't scratch the surface.
But when one looks underneath this guys's skirt, or blue suit, we find such a dark underbelly of filth and putrid lying meanness it makes one ill. He could almost pull it off for two hours till he gave that laughable answer to 1/6 And Trump's election lies. Then he let slip and showed himself to be the sycophant we all know him to be.
Tonight's performance will be forgotten, and tomorrow he will be calling us crazy childless cat ladies again.
So, when asked about his stated reluctance to what Pence did 1/6/21 were he in Pence's position, Vance responded with the non-answer of "I'm focused on the future, on looking ahead." But this will not do, because he is auditioning for Mike Pence's position, and, "in the future," on January 6, 2025, may be in the position of having to certify a presidential election he himself loses, assuming the Constitution still applies and we still have elections and the 2 term limit is still a thing and Trump doesn't run again. Vance responded to a question about the future by refusing to answer it because he's focused on the future, which doesn't make very much sense.
I think that these " DEBATES" are useless & stupid..because many out here know what it means to " DEBATE"...In this toxic political climate what we get is useless chatter...It resembles a " PAGEANT " with 2 ..men who want to show us how silly men can be..We already know what each side represents. A debate like last night won't sway votes!! We already know that if one wants an AMERICA that stands for all that it has been said about her, the choice is clear!
JVL is right.
The question is if Trump’s meltdown worsens to the point people are relieved to vote for JD.
Run adds against his actual stands or better yet, multiple stands.
If most politicians are chameleons, JD Vance is an octopus because he can change his appearance in ways a chameleon could only dream of, and he's also smart enough to be pretty dangerous.
You didn’t think Vance sounded patronizing when he repeatedly used the moderators’ first names, with the tone of someone explaining things to a not-so-bright child?
Also, since when does a vice president get to impose his or her own agenda? Whenever he asked, “Why hasn’t she been doing this already?”, I wanted to yell at the TV “ Because she wasn’t the president!” I think the American people understand that.
Then Walz talked about what she did in office. Sigh.
I've heard some clips of the debate - Vance's answers on January 6, the nonsense about Trump saving the ACA, about how doors and windows need to be locked harder, and whining about being fact checked, are all bad moments which I think rise above his much better stylistic showing
Nonsense, for the most part. The gist basically is if the viewer was completely stupid and was grading this only on whether Vance had the general appearance of an actual human then he won. This debate was not about trying to convince base voters to change their vote, nor was it about whether one candidate appeared more mega-church preacher ready. It was about persuading the undecided and soft voters, those oddballs who somehow “don’t know enough about Harris” to make a decision yet.
Normal people have a very good radar for bullshit and deception. They can smell poison. Their reason for watching the debate was not to grade which candidate on who is able to mask their creepiness better, rather they watched to see who was not a creep. I can see then argument that Vance came off as less-Vancey, but he was still very much Vance. Anyone with a remotely factual basis in the real world saw Vance for the liar that he was, and Walz for his authenticity. The China question was as pointless gotchaism as possible, and Walz’s reaction was humanizing. People who watched to be persuaded saw one human and one polished turd.
The other purpose of the debate was to reinforce and invigorate the base. Vance toned down his bluster and changed his tones and positions. He did not drive his MAGA minions to froth at the mouth. He essentially was a running flip-flopped who seemed to want to be liked by Walz. He did go for the gut with sucker punches and childish antics, rather he essentially was a chameleon that came across as more so a conservative Democrat than Trump’s fluffer.
Vanz tried to fill in some policy holes while trying to drive home the kitchen table differences. That was his job. He did it. Vance on the other hand intensified that he and Trump have no focus other than to lie and win by deception.
Vance wouldn't answer the direct question, but he actually conceded the 2020 election elsewhere.
“If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle class problems, then she ought to do them now, not when asking for a promotion, but in the job the American people gave her three and a half years ago.”
Slick lying is still lying. He didn’t win. He just didn’t act like a crazy person.
If the Dems are smart, they start treating Vance as the nominee. Trump always talks about Biden being pushed out because it is his fear. Trump fears just came true. JVL is right, it was too good. I woke up in the middle of the night with an ear worm. “And when the king was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown.” Use this lyric everywhere.
Sure he won. If winning means lying with a straight face for an hour and a half. Pundits care about style and Vance is flash. But he has no convictions or principles and this was laid bare when he could not admit Trump lost.
Re. Trump's Pete Rose tweet - "one of the most magnificent baseball players ever to play the game. He paid the price! "
Err . . . no, he didn't "pay the price" for being magnificent - he paid the price for breaking the rules.
I suspect Donnie identifies with him "When you're magnificent, everybody picks on you. . . "
I wouldn't say Vance "won" the debate just because a projected a comparatively anodyne persona. I came away thinking it was basically a draw, as JVL suggested in his first footnote, with Vance slightly ahead on presentation and Walz marginally better on substance.
Will Vance's shape shifting draw in swing voters? I suppose it might create the proverbial "permission structure," especially for those wondering how he would run the country if Trump prematurely exited the scene. Ie, while Walz added nothing new to the Democrats' case, Vance kinda sorta whitewashed Trump's.
BTW, when Vance deflected uncomfortable questions about the 2020 election by insisting that it was time to move forward, he was kinda sorta emulating Kamala Harris's reluctance to dwell on her own past tenure and positions. Apparently "We're not going back" is contagious.
Hope Vance's performance doesn't encourage any voters reluctant to vote for trump to start thinking "Oh, well, we'll be in safe hands when the old man's gone!"
The Bulwak commentator team that was live was way too hard on Walz in my view. I now live in New Zealand, but have been obsessively watching every major speech/debate/whatever (and the Bulwark). And Tim was FINE. He ain't Kamala, but he was FINE. Several times I wanted him to speak up/talk back but basically he was FINE. Political pundits will spot lots of things I didn't, but I'm no dummy and I thought he was a good human being with a solid moral compass -- and that showed. You all need to pull back now and again.
"a solid moral compass "
If you've got that, you are already voting for Harris.
"Fine" doesn't win elections. Before they were the Bulwark team, these guys were political operatives (not pundits). They worked on campaigns and strategized to get the candidate they were working for across the finish line. They know what gets votes and which votes they need to get. My progressive daughter loves Walz because of his "Dad vibes". I'm a lifetime Republican and I hate Walz. As a Never Trumper, I'd much prefer Pete Buttigieg or Josh Shapiro. If Harris loses Pennsylvania, and thus the election, it will be because she didn't pick Shapiro for VP. Sarah Longwell is right about that.
My concern is that political operatives may react quite differently from us plebs. Like trained musicians judging harshly a performance that gave pleasure to less refined ears. Hard to solve that conundrum.
The next question to DT must be: "President Trump, considering how well Senator Vance performed last night, and I realise you vastly superior crowds, would you consider putting him at the top of the ticket?"
Exactly. That is the spirit. They compare Trump to King David. Here is Absalom.
He only proved that sometimes the devil is so smooth, so slick, so believable, that they can sucker in some people if you don't scratch the surface.
But when one looks underneath this guys's skirt, or blue suit, we find such a dark underbelly of filth and putrid lying meanness it makes one ill. He could almost pull it off for two hours till he gave that laughable answer to 1/6 And Trump's election lies. Then he let slip and showed himself to be the sycophant we all know him to be.
Tonight's performance will be forgotten, and tomorrow he will be calling us crazy childless cat ladies again.