Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile.

IMO this is a necessary skill for the leader of the U.S. (or VP) at this moment in time, given the events going on in the world. He is who I would want going into tense negotiations with world leaders, not Kamala or Walz (though Walz is very likable and I think he is great guy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people from each side choose to stubbornly defend the candidate they support. There was a clear winner yesterday night, but each side insists on claiming their candidate won. The debate, although quite interesting, did not change anyone's mind.

clear winner on what?

on style and delivery, vance was better.

on substance and accuracy, walz was better.

on big knock-out punches, there was only one. walz landed it in the final moment of the debate.

on bad behavior, there was only one instance, when vance whined to moderators after being fact-checked that he prepared for the debate assuming he wouldn't get fact-checked.

on first half of the debate (including opening), vance did better.

on second half of debate (including closing), walz did better.

on who was overall better according to pundits, most said a tie, some said vance.

on who was overall better according to regular people focus group, most said tie, some said walz.

on who won over more independents, walz.

You wish. You're dreaming

The CNN cross-tabs among independents are very interesting. They surveyed the same people before and after the debate:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25182006/cnn-instant-poll-no-clear-winner-in-vp-debate-between-tim-walz-and-jd-vance.pdf

Takeaway: Walz underperformed expectations for Independents

Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, who do you think is likely to do a better job in
the upcoming vice-presidential debate? Walz 60%, Vance 40%

Regardless of which candidate you support, who did the better job in the debate? Walz 46%, Vance 54%

Takeaway: even if they think Vance did better in the debate, Independents still have increased their "favorable" views of Walz and he's viewed more favorably than Vance by a large margin for Independents.

Tim Walz - % "Favorable opinion"
Pre-debate: 40%
Post-debate: 58%

JD Vance - % "Favorable opinion"
Pre-debate: 18%
Post-debate: 32%

Takeaway: Walz is viewed as more relatable and representative of the America Independent voters want by strong margins

Regardless of which candidate you support, who is more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you?
Walz 47%, Vance 27%, Both 16%, Neither 10%

Regardless of which candidate you support, who more closely shares your vision for America?
Walz 46%, Vance 29%, Both 13%, Neither 12%

Takeaway: the VP debate will largely be inconsequential for Independents in casting their vote

Did tonight's debate:
Change your mind about whom to vote for - 1%
Make you reconsider, but not change your mind - 22%
Not affect your choice for president - 77%

Conclusion: JD had a better presentation style in the debate. But he was also facing very low expectations relative to Trump. The bar for a "good performance" was lower. Critically, Vance is less personally appealing to Independents relative to Walz. It also seems that Walz's lack of polish relative to Vance makes him appear more relatable and Independents are forgiving of that.

[Anonymous]

I had heard that Walz had gotten direction to be civil and not be combative or go on the offensive against Vance. He was probably struggling with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading multiple threads here, I was expecting Vance to be stupid, inarticulate , unlikeable. I found him to be the exact opposite- charming, bright, nice guy. I may not agree with every one of his policies, but I think he would be fine.

Well, except for the lies he told. That would already DQ him from a high school debate contest, even if he was otherwise respectful and the smoothest debater on the stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that there is a lot of misinformation and ignorance out there in the electorate and not everybody can evaluate policy proposals, but I think many regular people have experience with smooth salespeople that lie to you and waste your time that's exactly how Vance came across.

Exactly. Saw a great comment elsewhere. That Vance is the used car salesman trying to sell you a car without brakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile.

IMO this is a necessary skill for the leader of the U.S. (or VP) at this moment in time, given the events going on in the world. He is who I would want going into tense negotiations with world leaders, not Kamala or Walz (though Walz is very likable and I think he is great guy).

No. We don’t want people with no principles, no soul (not to mention zero managerial experience) as VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading multiple threads here, I was expecting Vance to be stupid, inarticulate , unlikeable. I found him to be the exact opposite- charming, bright, nice guy. I may not agree with every one of his policies, but I think he would be fine.

Well, except for the lies he told. That would already DQ him from a high school debate contest, even if he was otherwise respectful and the smoothest debater on the stage.

Most importantly, he did not admit that Trump lost in 2020.

Trump/Vance are not qualified to lead the US. Trump's own former VP won't endorse him by name. Many of his former appointees have renounced him and former staffers have spoken up saying how dangerous Trump is.

One thing a former Pence staffer said in Stopping the Steam is that Pence did a ton of work behind the scenes to put out Trump's fires throughotu Trump's presidency. It's just what Walz said - Vance will not be that firewall. There will be no firewall. Just chaos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile.

IMO this is a necessary skill for the leader of the U.S. (or VP) at this moment in time, given the events going on in the world. He is who I would want going into tense negotiations with world leaders, not Kamala or Walz (though Walz is very likable and I think he is great guy).

No. We don’t want people with no principles, no soul (not to mention zero managerial experience) as VP.

We already had a salesman as POTUS (2016-2020) and it was a disaster. Why would we two salesmen as POTUS/VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading multiple threads here, I was expecting Vance to be stupid, inarticulate , unlikeable. I found him to be the exact opposite- charming, bright, nice guy. I may not agree with every one of his policies, but I think he would be fine.

Well, except for the lies he told. That would already DQ him from a high school debate contest, even if he was otherwise respectful and the smoothest debater on the stage.

Most importantly, he did not admit that Trump lost in 2020.

Trump/Vance are not qualified to lead the US. Trump's own former VP won't endorse him by name. Many of his former appointees have renounced him and former staffers have spoken up saying how dangerous Trump is.

One thing a former Pence staffer said in Stopping the Steam is that Pence did a ton of work behind the scenes to put out Trump's fires throughout Trump's presidency. It's just what Walz said - Vance will not be that firewall. There will be no firewall. Just chaos.

That should have said Stopping the Steal
https://youtu.be/DYiPxpSBhRo?si=obEFdxgVmfaiiu-U

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people from each side choose to stubbornly defend the candidate they support. There was a clear winner yesterday night, but each side insists on claiming their candidate won. The debate, although quite interesting, did not change anyone's mind.

clear winner on what?

on style and delivery, vance was better.

on substance and accuracy, walz was better.

on big knock-out punches, there was only one. walz landed it in the final moment of the debate.

on bad behavior, there was only one instance, when vance whined to moderators after being fact-checked that he prepared for the debate assuming he wouldn't get fact-checked.

on first half of the debate (including opening), vance did better.

on second half of debate (including closing), walz did better.

on who was overall better according to pundits, most said a tie, some said vance.

on who was overall better according to regular people focus group, most said tie, some said walz.

on who won over more independents, walz.

You wish. You're dreaming

The CNN cross-tabs among independents are very interesting. They surveyed the same people before and after the debate:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25182006/cnn-instant-poll-no-clear-winner-in-vp-debate-between-tim-walz-and-jd-vance.pdf

Takeaway: Walz underperformed expectations for Independents

Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, who do you think is likely to do a better job in
the upcoming vice-presidential debate? Walz 60%, Vance 40%

Regardless of which candidate you support, who did the better job in the debate? Walz 46%, Vance 54%

Takeaway: even if they think Vance did better in the debate, Independents still have increased their "favorable" views of Walz and he's viewed more favorably than Vance by a large margin for Independents.

Tim Walz - % "Favorable opinion"
Pre-debate: 40%
Post-debate: 58%

JD Vance - % "Favorable opinion"
Pre-debate: 18%
Post-debate: 32%

Takeaway: Walz is viewed as more relatable and representative of the America Independent voters want by strong margins

Regardless of which candidate you support, who is more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you?
Walz 47%, Vance 27%, Both 16%, Neither 10%

Regardless of which candidate you support, who more closely shares your vision for America?
Walz 46%, Vance 29%, Both 13%, Neither 12%

Takeaway: the VP debate will largely be inconsequential for Independents in casting their vote

Did tonight's debate:
Change your mind about whom to vote for - 1%
Make you reconsider, but not change your mind - 22%
Not affect your choice for president - 77%

Conclusion: JD had a better presentation style in the debate. But he was also facing very low expectations relative to Trump. The bar for a "good performance" was lower. Critically, Vance is less personally appealing to Independents relative to Walz. It also seems that Walz's lack of polish relative to Vance makes him appear more relatable and Independents are forgiving of that.

Yes. Vance was smooth. But it was clear that Walz has actual experience and knows how to get things done. Understands the principle of compromise. Walz was fluent in detail and honest about the challenges.

Vance was confident but substantively empty. It was notable that he did not refer to any of his work in the senate or was he has accomplished for his constituents. His lack of real world experience was apparent and not what you want for the VP of a guy as elderly and declining as Trump. We don’t need someone learning on the job.

- independent

[Anonymous]

This debate will be studied for years. Vance was extremely impressive. Great pick by Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doesn't want to be fact checked should be disqualified...what is the point otherwise? I want to believe my leaders whether or not I agree with them who wants to be gaslighted for 4 years?? I don't want to hear lies that make me happy. I want to hear the truth.

Politicians already get a bad rep for being slimy, smooth, not answering direct questions and outright lying. Vance acted like a exaggerated version of a "bad politician" trope last night. Vance was lying about obvious, proveable things (Donald Trump lost in 2020 (he did), Donald Trump peacefully transferred power in 2020 (he didn't), Donald Trump promoted ACA/Obamacare (he didn't), Haitian immigrant community in Springfield are illegals (they aren't), Vance never in favor of national abortion ban (he's on record and audio saying he would like an national abortion ban).

It was a crazy amount of lies on big, major, important significant things. How does Vance tell such enormous, egregious lies with such ...ease??

It's chilling.

this. Just above you someone commented how impressed they were by Vance. Some people have no bs meter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile.

IMO this is a necessary skill for the leader of the U.S. (or VP) at this moment in time, given the events going on in the world. He is who I would want going into tense negotiations with world leaders, not Kamala or Walz (though Walz is very likable and I think he is great guy).

But he was lying to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vance is the white Obama.

I thought we already agreed that Mayor Pete is the white Obama.
For one thing Obama never would have agreed to run as anyone's second fiddle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doesn't want to be fact checked should be disqualified...what is the point otherwise? I want to believe my leaders whether or not I agree with them who wants to be gaslighted for 4 years?? I don't want to hear lies that make me happy. I want to hear the truth.

Politicians already get a bad rep for being slimy, smooth, not answering direct questions and outright lying. Vance acted like a exaggerated version of a "bad politician" trope last night. Vance was lying about obvious, proveable things (Donald Trump lost in 2020 (he did), Donald Trump peacefully transferred power in 2020 (he didn't), Donald Trump promoted ACA/Obamacare (he didn't), Haitian immigrant community in Springfield are illegals (they aren't), Vance never in favor of national abortion ban (he's on record and audio saying he would like an national abortion ban).

It was a crazy amount of lies on big, major, important significant things. How does Vance tell such enormous, egregious lies with such ...ease??

It's chilling.

Some people have no bs meter.

this is how we got Trump in the first place. Stupid voters