- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 62,679
- Reaction score
- 34,667
- Points
- 118
So CNN still has the crown for worst debate moderators this election cycle.
Headline of an opinion piece from The New York Times.
He basically lied as much as Trump did during his debate with Harris. (Well, okay, maybe he lied slightly less than Trump.)I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that Vance dominated this in any way.
Like, he was better than in everything he did in the last few weeks...but even a relative Toothless Walz constantly was numbers above him on this.
Enjoying a pizza slice is anecdotal?The first is anecdotal, but I hope to be true.
The second is surprising because, while Vance is such a brick with a p, I thought his favorability rating would go up unless he strangled someone. If Walz went up about the same amount, that's a win.
The tone of the debate.....Vance being semi-human won't translate to Trump being such a being for those that know he's not.
The first is anecdotal, but I hope to be true.
The second is surprising because, while Vance is such a brick with a p, I thought his favorability rating would go up unless he strangled someone. If Walz went up about the same amount, that's a win.
The tone of the debate.....Vance being semi-human won't translate to Trump being such a being for those that know he's not.
Following the debate, 59% of debate watchers said they had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22% viewing him unfavorably – an improvement from his already positive numbers among the same voters pre-debate (46% favorable, 32% unfavorable). Debate watchers came away from the debate with roughly neutral views of Vance: 41% rated him favorably and 44% unfavorably. That’s also an improvement from their image of Vance pre-debate, when his ratings among this group were deeply underwater (30% favorable, 52% unfavorable).
Walz just had to be himself and point out the problems with the other ticket's policies. I just wish he had answered that bizarre Tiananmen thing better. Why such a long answer when you could just say "I misspoke. It was a long time ago and was off a couple of months. I can be a knucklehead sometimes, but hey I'm human."
Bottom line is both candidates were playing to not lose rather than to win.
How can anybody watch that debate and come away with a favorable view of Vance?
Bottom line is both candidates were playing to not lose rather than to win. Walz picked slightly more favorability points than Vance did in the CNN poll of registered voter debate watchers.
The problem with right really came to light when the Tea Party took over, their no compromise, we are always right policy changed politics, washington went from compromise to deadlock, its us vs. them now, Trump and Maga are a symptom of the disease that the Tea Party injected into the republican party, for all the faults of he democratic party, you still see willingness to work with republicans, republicans, especially Maga are no compromises, our way or not at all.This is the pathetic DNA of the right wing.
Unable to admit defeat because it would mean the stance they have could be flawed.
And since being a Conservative is to stand still, never change or evolve...admitting defeat would mean that standing still is a flaw.
Its poison for our world to stand still.
Humanity got where it is through moving forward, by working out flaws.
We are held back by Conservatives for all our existence, and its so annoying.
All the problems we have in 2024 exist because of Conservatives.
He needed a whaaambulance,"A damning non-answer": Walz, Vance clash over abortion, economy, and democracy at debate
“The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check," Vance said.www.salon.com
Headline of an opinion piece from The New York Times.
He basically lied as much as Trump did during his debate with Harris. (Well, okay, maybe he lied slightly less than Trump.)
Edit: to add to that: