Closing statement: Dick Cheney is an optimistic person.
Love Walz but Kamala is a better presidential candidate.
Needed less schtick and more dawg.
Vance got away with canned responses all night.
âIâve been in politics long enoughâŚâ
1 2/3 years?
Grades
Vance: A. He is one slick liar.
Walz: B. Seemed afraid to let it rip.
I am disappointed.
Alright, well that happened. Beetlejuice, you could have been in Arrakis already.
My wife, who is generally not super political, offers her take: WHY WAS HE SO FUCKING NICE?
If there isnât a clear winner after 90 mins, they go into OT and begin asking questions about automobile repair and gardening basics until there is a clear winner.
Weâre back to Dems getting run over by lying liars spraying the liarâs turbo cannon. Iâm they have the very best people coaching the debate prep.
Yeah Walz was just absolutely fucking awful at this. He should never debate again.
nah, Walz was good.
I guess they wanted him to keep up the American Dad image while also being very competent on issues which he was.
Dems are going after Cactusâ(?) boss somewhat in these things. People who donât like Trump, but somehow think Republicans are the only competent ones when it comes to the economy
The only people who jones to see Walz slay Vance are people who are 1000% voting for Harris. It may have been more entertaining for you if Walz did what you wanted, but that doesnât accomplish anything useful.
Walz was nothing special - I said it before the debate, but I donât know that there was ever any reason to expect he would be special - but itâs nothing worth fretting about,
The âwhy so nice?!â thing is understandable, yet there was also pretty universal agreement during the 2016 VP debate that Kaine turned in an especially bad night because he unnaturally strained himself into a constant attack dog posture throughout the debate. This Walz performance was better than that one, and thinking back on that one makes for a really clear âbe careful what you wish for.â Itâs a bit more difficult to pull off the aggro thing than people are giving it credit for, especially when youâre departing from your usual demeanor to play a part.
Walz playing pattycake with Vance may be frustrating, but it also kept the debate boring, which in turn further ensures what was a near-certainty: that none of it mattered. I have no real question that Vance could have played rough successfully also, and the debate might have been slightly stickier if it took on that tone.
The issues donât matter. This is two minute sound bites on complex political problems. But one thing I definitely took away from the debate is that Walz mostly agrees with an eyeliner vulture capital Nazi on the issues because thatâs what he kept saying.
He agreed with some of what Vance was saying, not what Vance actually believes. All Vance did was lie and evade questions all night. I pretty much think the average viewer over/under was about 7 minutes. This debate was boring af, even though Vance was moderately successful at appearing normal outside of that weird facial expression and his very strange complexion.