Morning after thoughts:

• Walz is not actually a bad debater. He’s not polished and practiced, but his command of policy and numbers means he still comes across as fairly confident. He knows what he knows, and that can stand in for polish.
• Vance didn’t do badly, but I genuinely can’t remember any of his answers, and that’s kind of weird. I think it’s because he answered like he’d been raised by a generative AI instead of human parents. Seriously, can anyone actually remember anything he said, without looking it up?
• Walz had more flubs. But he also got in a lot more hits. It remains to be seen which will stick in the minds of voters more, if either.
• The lack of Trump on the stage made this one a lot more mature. It’s amazing what a difference it makes when one of the debaters isn’t a demented man-baby.

The way I see it, Walz’s clearly superior command of policy details, and the way that fact-checkers are counting nearly everything Vance said as a lie, gives Walz the technical win, while Vance gets the nod for being more polished. In the end, I don’t think this debate will matter much to the election.

Those with an interest in history might remember that back during the 1988 election, Lloyd Bentsen absolutely demolished Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush’s pick for VP, in a debate. But it was forgotten in a matter of days - if not hours - and Bush went on to win handily.

I think this debate will likely be forgotten soon, too.

It was okay. Walz was the nice dad. Vance was the slimy, mudslinging worm he is, a true politician in every negative sense of the word.

Walz was too nice and charitable towards Vance and gave him credit on certain issues, and Vance didn’t return it in kind.

Vance lied through his teeth and wouldn’t answer a single goddamn question. Spent most of his time saying how terrible Kamala was and almost none about how Trump would be good for people.

I left thinking it was an okay performance from both, but I suspect people will remember Vance being a greasy little weasel and Walz being a nice dad. Overall, a net positive for Harris/Walz, but only a little.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Walz gave good answers about 90% of the time but definite dodged a few. Vance, otoh, made shit up constantly and harped on fear topics. Always about the border, blaming Harris for policy she wasn’t responsible for, and offering up an economy that the republicans have zero plans to create.

Walz was way too soft on Vance and let him control most of the debate. I’m tired of Dems positioning themselves as diet Republicans, then acting like they are nothing like while saying how much they agree with a guy like Vance on things lol. Vance also loudly saying you weren’t supposed to fact-check me was embarrassing. Walz laid out actual plans and policy but that is not going to reach that crowd they are targeting.

Ha, fuck you. My life was destroyed by disability, and the only drug that was helping me went from $250 a month to $3000 a month between 2015 to 2017. Everything got worse, to the point I can’t even afford to live.

This especially pisses me off.

Fuck you Vance and fuck everything you just said. It’s all lies.

Walz: “Well I don’t run Facebook and Trump lost.”

I will say that I worry about Vance as a candidate when he’s no longer directly tied to Trump and his madness. He’s the face of non-truth leading to fascism.

“Did he lose the 2020 election?”

“OH YEAH?!?! Well did Kamala Harris censor people?”

“Under Kamala Harris’ leadership.”

I wish Walz would say that JOE BIDEN IS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT.

vance won’t answer if trump lost the 2020 election. oh its the lauph into cry now. man he is so weasily.

Listening to these idiotic “uncommitted voters” in the focus group are the absolute worse. It’s a collection of people that love the attention of being an indecisive moron.

“She hasn’t accomplished what she set out to do in three years” is kind of weird for the running mate of the guy who accomplished fuck all in terms of his campaign promises for four.

To Vance’s credit, he’s doing a monumental amount of damage control and sanewashing for Donald Trump and is doing a decent job at it. Yes Vance is lying through his teeth with each answer but he is markedly better at keeping his cool compared to the former Narcissist-in-Chief against VP Harris. It’s a position Walz wouldn’t envy. So overall I think this is within the best range of events Vance could expect.

They both did well at acknowledging each other and keeping this like a somewhat normal debate, can you imagine. That said, if any viewer can hold a thought without focusing solely on whatever deflection each candidate is doing, Walz is giving better answers, and Vance is putting way more false equivalencies in.

Walz is doing very well with his answers, he’s not as calculated and rehearsed as Harris, and you know having a heart makes you mess up more than the recently changed telephone options menu, but he is doing a fantastically better job at connecting with voters than Vance did. Walz’s jabs are quick and easily missed (“Wharton”) but even with apolitical people, if they understand Walz’s language then they’ll get when he is jabbing at Vance.

Obviously I was hoping Vance would fold up into a chair and was disappointed for that to not happen. More than that though is that I’m crossing my fingers the news cycle doesn’t begin pretending it’s a normal election cycle just because the VP candidates could actually look each other in the eye for a night. Idk, give it 48hours and Trump will be starved enough of attention to break the spell and make people glare at him again in disgust.

It’s crazy how… like. Normal? This debate is. I mean they obviously disagree on stuff, but there’s at least a baseline of respect here so far.

Vance after the Debate