Very Scary that you can declare a liar who never answers questions to be the winner of a debate simply because he appears “smooth and polished”. Like Trump, you can’t trust a single thought or word that comes out of his mouth. Are you truly that enamored with “slick” that the lies don’t matter? This is fast becoming the fall of Rome. Wake up people and show some brains or be prepared to be living under the jack boot of MAGA republicans!
Let’s not go nuts here. Vance came across as polished and unctuous. Not in an appealing way. Trump’s appeal is his unconventional nature. Vance is living in the wrong century.
There were lots of questions the moderators neglected to ask, with the comments about autocracy being an important area. If they sought to ask Walz about the date of his China visit (trivial), they should have asked JD about his many comments about childless cat ladies (not trivial). They should have asked about his admission of lying about the Springfield, Ohio Haitian pet story and asked how has this helped the local residents.
I really enjoyed your post-debate post-mortem. I did not see the pre-debate talk or the debate as I was on the phone with my 30-something son talking philosophy of world change and intermittently messaging his godmother who lives in Beirut. Then I read the Triad today and got the gist of the whole thing. Thank you. What I would like to see is a frame-by-frame split-screen of JD Vance's debate performance with a fact-checking by one of the Bulwark staff. If someone there will do that, I will upgrade to founding member in a heartbeat.
This J.D. Vance is the guy who puts the sheen on MAGA. He makes it sound palatable to the masses (even if some of his arguments are false and mostly absurd) while not necessarily betraying the core principles of persecuting everyone the right hates. What Vance hasn't been able to do is bridge this version with the off-putting weirdo that shows up at Trump rallies and crypto-bro podcasts.
The guy who was on the debate stage last night - if he could channel that in real life - would be a far more formidable and worrisome political force in the long-term. But Vance has shown no ability to be that guy outside of the sanitized debate stage.
Since I was reading Bulwark emails last to first today, I already commented that J.D. Vance reminds me of Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver. You know, when he grew up and became a used car salesman (no offense intended to used car salesmen). There’s a difference between smooth and just creepy and Vance makes my skin crawl. Tim Walz reminded me of myself when I crammed too much for an exam. Too much information in my head struggling to get out in a coherent manner.
Vance was playing a long game for which Trump is the springboard, win or lose. Walz was supporting Harris. I call it a draw.
As a longtime student of propaganda (I was an international shortwave radio listener for years during the Cold War), I have to admire the rhetorical brilliance of Sen Vance’s debate performance: he was the RT (Russia’s smooth, sleekly produced, and reasonably toned modern television propaganda channel) to DJT’s Radio Moscow (the polemic ridden, sometimes crazy, and confrontational Soviet-era radio broadcasts). Well done!
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the sanewashing of shiny packaging, Vance still was spewing the same old right wing lies. As is the case with RT, polishing a turd doesn’t make it any less of a turd.
Won? 51% to 49% in one poll. 41% and 40% and 17% tied in another? You say he dominated and Walz was fine. You just showed that you're one of those elites that don't understand authentic midwesterners. A debate is won on who they like. Oh, and look, Walz favorablitly went up 4% points more than slick, polished, wonky Vance. Do another column JVL, using the data this time and not just your own "stylistic' bias. Do better.
Very Scary that you can declare a liar who never answers questions to be the winner of a debate simply because he appears “smooth and polished”. Like Trump, you can’t trust a single thought or word that comes out of his mouth. Are you truly that enamored with “slick” that the lies don’t matter? This is fast becoming the fall of Rome. Wake up people and show some brains or be prepared to be living under the jack boot of MAGA republicans!
Let’s not go nuts here. Vance came across as polished and unctuous. Not in an appealing way. Trump’s appeal is his unconventional nature. Vance is living in the wrong century.
Let's hope Trump's meltdown over Vances good press coverage in a very public place
Vance buried Trump , he’s taking over the ship !
Who needs Trump ? Vance
Said it ! He’s old and loser !
What does he do now ?
Where do we send our donations?
Glad that you touched on this. With the way Vance handled his part of the debate, my first thought was what was the egotistical Trump going to think?
There were lots of questions the moderators neglected to ask, with the comments about autocracy being an important area. If they sought to ask Walz about the date of his China visit (trivial), they should have asked JD about his many comments about childless cat ladies (not trivial). They should have asked about his admission of lying about the Springfield, Ohio Haitian pet story and asked how has this helped the local residents.
I don't foresee Vance's stellar performance becoming a friction point. All that DJT needs is a victory and a pardon from President Vance.
I really enjoyed your post-debate post-mortem. I did not see the pre-debate talk or the debate as I was on the phone with my 30-something son talking philosophy of world change and intermittently messaging his godmother who lives in Beirut. Then I read the Triad today and got the gist of the whole thing. Thank you. What I would like to see is a frame-by-frame split-screen of JD Vance's debate performance with a fact-checking by one of the Bulwark staff. If someone there will do that, I will upgrade to founding member in a heartbeat.
Best to all from the California Delta,
CC - The Missouri Mugwump®
This J.D. Vance is the guy who puts the sheen on MAGA. He makes it sound palatable to the masses (even if some of his arguments are false and mostly absurd) while not necessarily betraying the core principles of persecuting everyone the right hates. What Vance hasn't been able to do is bridge this version with the off-putting weirdo that shows up at Trump rallies and crypto-bro podcasts.
The guy who was on the debate stage last night - if he could channel that in real life - would be a far more formidable and worrisome political force in the long-term. But Vance has shown no ability to be that guy outside of the sanitized debate stage.
A VP Vance would be little more than a bobble head on the Resolute Desk. Surely he realizes this as he assails Kamala's record as VP.
I love Coach, but as VP, someone has to coach him to say NOOK-lee-ur, not nook-you-ler.
I love the take that Trump will need to fear Vance!
Since I was reading Bulwark emails last to first today, I already commented that J.D. Vance reminds me of Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver. You know, when he grew up and became a used car salesman (no offense intended to used car salesmen). There’s a difference between smooth and just creepy and Vance makes my skin crawl. Tim Walz reminded me of myself when I crammed too much for an exam. Too much information in my head struggling to get out in a coherent manner.
Vance was playing a long game for which Trump is the springboard, win or lose. Walz was supporting Harris. I call it a draw.
As a longtime student of propaganda (I was an international shortwave radio listener for years during the Cold War), I have to admire the rhetorical brilliance of Sen Vance’s debate performance: he was the RT (Russia’s smooth, sleekly produced, and reasonably toned modern television propaganda channel) to DJT’s Radio Moscow (the polemic ridden, sometimes crazy, and confrontational Soviet-era radio broadcasts). Well done!
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the sanewashing of shiny packaging, Vance still was spewing the same old right wing lies. As is the case with RT, polishing a turd doesn’t make it any less of a turd.
Won? 51% to 49% in one poll. 41% and 40% and 17% tied in another? You say he dominated and Walz was fine. You just showed that you're one of those elites that don't understand authentic midwesterners. A debate is won on who they like. Oh, and look, Walz favorablitly went up 4% points more than slick, polished, wonky Vance. Do another column JVL, using the data this time and not just your own "stylistic' bias. Do better.
"Won"?
The man was a smooth, likable scumbag. How stupid do you think the people need to be to agree to this verdict?