What did you think about the VP debate?

I think that the real loser was Kamala Harris as Vance used the debate to point out the Biden/Harris’s poor management of the border, economy and foreign affairs.

I think the two VP’s are more competent than their running mates. I still dislike all of them. Vance won the debate, but not by much.

I think Vance decided to go nice and easy because i know he can be a prick but if he were attacking someone who seemed like a nice elderly guy, he’d look like a bully.

I saw that too. Walz fumbled his first question and Vance gave this look like “I can roll right over this guy” but he ended up playing somewhat nice.

I liked when the mics were muted. I am sure that Conservatives didn’t like it but i felt Vance was disrespectful to keep talking when they were trying to tell him that time was up.

Vance was glib, and still deflecting. And he refused to answer if he believes Trump won in 2020.

Walz seemed nervous, and exaggerated a bit, but at least he was straightforward.

I didn’t watch but some friends said that at the end, Vance and his wife were very gushy and showy and Walz and his wife seemed more genuine with each other. They also said they doubted that it changed anyone’s mind.

Do not care, did not watch.

Walz is definitely nicer than I am.
When Vance talked about the elderly couple with a grandchild who stood on the roof to escape from the hurricane flooding, I would have asked if Trump would just throw paper towels at them.
Walz won, if only because of the crazy shit coming out of Vance’s mouth. “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check!”

I felt Vance did a great job of battling the 3 on 1 game. I felt Walz was befuddled for the most part. You’d think he was running to be VP of the United States of Minnesota. And I felt the moderators were atrocious.

What that debate highlighted to me was the full effect of the MSM covering for the Democrats for so long. Vance came to the debate ready to give answers and not dodges to questions. He came prepared with facts. He came as a candidate on the right always has to come because the MSM always attacks them. It’s part of their job as the propagandists for the DNC. But the Dems avoid interviews, do only scripted things that can be edited to give the best look on things, and when they do get questions, they are softball questions and they are never challenged on any answer they give. That was how Walz seemed to have approached this debate…that he would be able to give garbage answers to questions and would not be challenged at all. Except he did get challenged…by Vance. And it left him looking completely at sea.

I listen to a radio show that tends to lean toward the right, but they’re amusing and they also talk about things other than politics, such as culture, funny stuff, etc. They were discussing the debate and how Walz went down a path when asked about him saying he was in China, Tiananmen Square. He started off talking about how he grew up in a small town, and how he became a teacher and they started this program that took the baseball team, football team, dancert to China. The radio show hosts were making fun of that and saying why isn’t he answering the question. But they then played a question asked by the mod team of Vance, asking him about Trump’s saying he would deport all the migrants. They asked how it would work, specifically, with people who were here illegally but had babies on US soil, legally. Vance dodged that one. He started talking about Kamala Harris’ weak border policy. It’s funny how both dodged a question and went down a long path before answering it, but yet we point at the other side for doing it, when both did it. That’s what politicians do, often. They don’t answer the question, they don’t answer “yes” or “no,” they dodge and deflect, and it gives the time to think.

These radio host guys were fuming about the cutting off of the mics part. They were saying “these are news anchors cutting off a US Senator!” Of course they were mad about anything being done to Vance, yet Vance was told his time was up and he ignored the moderators and kept talking. Then Walz chimed in. Both were muted.

I enjoyed more substance and less childish back and forth, much more civilized as debate should be imo.
Vances guyliner qas weird and Walz looked panicked then befuddled, so I will refrain from calling a winner.

@jca2 The only part of the cutting mics that bothered me was when they did it after they threw in a “fact check” that needed to be corrected and then tried to steamroll Vance and move on without giving him a chance. Kudos to him for calling them out on it. The agreement when the debate was planned was that there would be no “fact checking” by the moderators. That is one of the reasons I said the mods were atrocious. They actually slipped in about 3 fact checks until they got clocked on the third. The other thing they did was feed Walz a couple answers to get him back on track when he wandered.

^^ What’s wrong with fact-checking? I think there should be more of it. It catches them in the hot seat right then and there as they’re not being honest.

@smudges The problem with fact checking is that it is often biased and just plain wrong. To have biased moderators only fact checking one side is what has always happened in the past. Look at the Trump/Harris debate. They only “fact checked” Trump and were wrong on most of those. Ditto that with the VP debate…they only “fact checked” Vance and he finally set them straight on that. They were merely throwing in Dem talking points to say that something he said was wrong. Moderators are supposed to moderate the debate, not participate. Leave the fact checking until after the debate is over.

Look at the Trump/Harris debate. They only “fact checked” Trump and were wrong on most of those.

You must not have seen the post where someone copied a review of the fact checking done during the debate. It enumerated each fact checked and the result and there were a number of Harris’s which were wrong, along with many of trump’s.

@smudges Yes I did. That was all done after the fact by the NYT. It was not a review of the fact checks that were done during the debate. And it was biased as well. But that isn’t what they were talking about when they said “no fact checking” for the debate. They were saying the moderators were not allowed to fact check the candidates. And during the Trump/Harris debate, the moderators didn’t fact check Harris even once. And she lied many times. Yet they fact checked Trump many times, including times they actually changed what he said so they could fact check him. And when the debate rules explicitly stated there would be no fact checking by the moderators and they did it several times anyway, and only against one candidate, what does that say? It says the moderators had no interest in abiding by the rules.

^^ Poor put-upon trump. Everyone is out to get him…NOT!

I thought Vance, did well.
He lied, and worst (to me) of all, flat admitted he would have not approved the election had HE been in Pence’s shoes on J6, nor would he give a yes or no to Trump losing 2020. Not much else matters. He’s a willing accomplice, for a man he recently compared right Adolf Hitler.

I do think Vance handled himself well, but I’m not giving him a fucking cookie because he can behave himself better than Trump.

I DID NOT see Walz, as incompetent, or not up to the challenge. He WAS truthful, and he was fully locked in, the whole time. Whereas Vance, had to start most responses with whataboutism, and falsehoods, before deflecting the fast balls.

Ultimately. I thought there was no winner. Just a loser. The American people.

Much like our nation’s people, Walz and Vance weren’t far apart on many issues, just had different ideas for tackling each.
AND, although they were clearly opponents, they spoke with at least the appearance of respect to one another. It almost felt like the two parties might work together, occasionally. Or, I may have had a small stroke…

I am guessing that the vast majority of America, was pleased that the debate was not a debacle (obviously because Trump wasn’t there,) and I thought this was far more educational in regards to policy plans.
I definitely, cannot possibly support the heavily watered down version Vance was selling, of the Trump/Project 25 agenda.
Walz took more notes in that debate, than Trump in his entire term. Anybody want to bet, on that?...

I’ve said it before, that I think Vance will potentially be a sort of prototype Republican candidate in the next decade or so. If it isn’t him, it will be other blue eyed white men, with Lego man hair and a little 5 o’clock shadow, to try and look tougher than they are.

There WAS one point, something interesting happened.

Whilst speaking about affordable housing, Walz made a brief speech about what HE thought of in regards to a “home.” I was starring at Vance, while Walz spoke. He was holding his poker face well, and then Walz mentioned Christmas and family, and something hit Vance HARD. I don’t know if someone talking to him through a mic in his tooth ,told him something extremely disparaging, OR if Vance was somehow emotionally hurt, by Walz’s description of a big “family” Christmas.
It wasn’t JD’s eyeliner, but his eyes began rapidly blinking and I could almost see Vance’s wheels turning. Not sure what that was about. But he had some difficulty, snapping out of whatever it was.

I would have preferred Walz to have appeared more in control, than as if he were in trouble almost. He was certainly polite, but as a former football coach, I expected more of an inspirational and energetic performance. The energy he displayed, came off as nervous.

Vance, perhaps because he is far too over confident in himself, or doesn’t understand the assignment, seemed to keep a resting bitch face. Something I believe he thinks makes him look tough, or at least satisfy Trump.
He came across as an angry, white Christian man, with plans to sell his soul to ride Trump’s coattails.

I thought the “moderators,” did fine, but not spectacular.

Overall. Again, it was nice to see a relatively normal debate.

This shouldn’t move the needle much, for either candidate. In my opinion, Trump’s sheep will always obey their master, and it’s just a matter of how many are still alive, that voted for him in ‘16, and ‘20, and if they show up at the polls.

As Trump can just rest on his sheep’s gullibility, he has to hope that will be enough to outnumber the disenfranchised voters who may actually vote this time, and the democrats and people with some common sense.

I didn’t read all the responses, but I think Vance stood up there and lied the whole time. In fact, in my mind he’s more dangerous than Trump because he came off as very civil that supposed to the raving lunatic Trump. Just the fact that he got all upset when he was called out on one of his many lies, protesting that he thought they weren’t doing the fact checking that night. Why would it bother you if you were telling the truth?

From what I can tell, all the campaigning, ads, and even the debates largely do not matter. People have made up their minds. I hope some small percentage of people are swayed, but I’m not sure it matters.

The VP debate was fine but, like all of them is such a performance. I’d love to see more town hall-style debates with real people asking questions of the candidates and very strict moderators who fact check in the spot.

Personality, I don’t understand how this race is even close, but I’m clearly biased.