CBS refusing to fact check was a travesty, but at least they still called Vance out on the immigrant bullshit.
It was refreshing to have a civil debate without yelling and name calling. Compared to the previous debate it’s night and day.
Omg yes, I was beginning to forget what a debate between two adults looked like.
For anyone who is politically involved and knows the issues, Walz won by having better and more consistent positions; as well as Vance saying some scary fascist level shit
But I fear that most undecided voters aren’t in that camp, and for those people Vance did well just be being coherent and vaguely normal.
Vance lied and twisted the truth a bunch, but if you just tuned in without knowing all the facts and context, that wasn’t necessarily clear
For me though I was pleasantly surprised by Walz actually making a moral case for immigration, you don’t see that nearly enough
Yes. Vance was full on snake oil salesman and many Americans will buy.
Walz did fine. Unfortunately, that’s definitely not enough to be impressive. In today’s world he needed to be more aggressive and stern.
There were also a couple of times that were just bad optics for him. He looked pretty goofy nodding his head at Vance.
Of course I wanted better from Walz. Sadly, and worrisome that Vance came across as more than adequate.
Same as the previous two debates - the candidate that is constrained by not being a massive fucking liar will always be at a disadvantage because the moderators have abdicated their responsibility to do their jobs and fact check.
I think Walz improved as the night went on, he seemed a little nervous and needed to slow down a bit but he came across as relatable and human. That’s something Vance isn’t able to do.
Was it the moderators decision to not fact check? Considering they still called out Vance that one time makes me wonder if they were just as annoyed by it as we were, but needed to keep their jobs
I’m sure the instruction came from higher up. Trump is great for business, he drives engagement, so more viewers, so more ad revenue.
If the moderators are OK with this, as in they’re not speaking out, then I’d hesitate to call them journalists.
I like Walz so it was frustrating to hear him tripping over his words and misspeaking. I think I heard him say he was friends with a school shooter, when I know he meant to say people effected by shootings. I felt that unfortunately Vance sounded clear and authoritative which will sway some people, despite being full of shit. One question Walz handled excellently was the one on abortion and reproductive rights. I just wish he had been that solid and aggressive and confident throughout the whole debate.
It’s unfortunate that reds will use his stammering against him, (especially when their guy can say whatever the hell he wants w/o repercussions) but I thought it made him actually sound human, something we haven’t heard in politics in a while. I myself have a minor stutter, so it annoys the hell out of me when people try to say that makes someone unfit for office.
Obligatory:
“KAMALA WANTS TO CENSOR ME FOR LYING TO THE PUBLIC WAHHHH”Lots of deluded wishful thinking in this thread. I would never vote for Vance either, but I recognize an impressive debate performance when I see one.
