Great read, Dave. Vance lost it all when he would not admit that Trump lost in 2020…..made him look ridiculous. These debates MUST be fact checked. It is unfair that one side has to spend all the time doing this work when the affiliate (CBS) should be responsible for providing truthful journalism for the viewers.
Let’s hope that clip gets played often in newscasts and in social media. I fear many viewers had tuned out by then. Were it not for the debate, I would have been watching the WNBA semifinals!
Vance was slick, well spoken but didn’t answer questions. A lot of word salad! Walz obviously nervous got his bearings during the second half of debate. Sound bites - takeouts used will be interesting.
Viewers saw and heard what they were looking for. Vance was obviously trying to come off as a nicer guy than he's been cast and pulled it off. I'm sure Republicans thought he was terrific - and especially Trump for his reluctance to admit who won in 2020. But I thought Walz was fine...not "slick" and understandably nervous. He crushed Vance in the closing exchanges about 2020 when JD wouldn't admit Biden won the election. With Vance fudging the truth on so many questions, I can't fault Walz for not fact-checking every reply, it would have been a full-time job. Walz could have spent all his time blasting Vance for the idiotic things he's said about motherhood, cats, making up stories to get attention, etc.
I continue to be annoyed by the media's "both-sidesism" Waltz says he was at the uprising in Tiananmen Square when in fact he was there two months later. There's an attempt to make that a big deal. He shouldn't have claimed that but it's possible he was clumsy in his original story. A few years ago the Washington Post tried to count Trump's lies and it had to assign more people to count them...thousands. In the end, this debate won't move the needle one way or the other.
Rod, I agree on the both sideism. Since the Tiananmen story broke yesterday, I assume CBS felt they would get hammered if they didn’t ask about it. Walz easily could anticipate it and come up with a better answer than he did. Rather than trying to justify his larger goals in taking kids to Asia, he should have just said he misspoke about something that happened 35 years ago, apologize and move on. It was awkward.
Apologies for being more than a comment...thank you, Dave, for the invite. 🙃
I gave Walz a pass on being nervous. To me, it made him look real, even though if Mike Wallace were alive I would keep Walz out of a televised interview on 60 Minutes. Walz's lengthy Tiananmen Square response made me cringe. His near-the-end comment about getting caught up in the moment rang true with me, even though a similar weak moment got Brian Williams removed from his anchor chair.
Walz's strength as a VP is his experience with Minnesota's excellent social services delivery within a large-corporation geographical core. At a time when ordering prescriptions online was an "ain't it awful" hot topic, I relied on Minnesota's vetted sources of access through Canada's healthcare system. Posted online for the benefit of all Minnesotans...and curious others.
Dave's comment about Vance's demeanor being different on stage than when he's stumping made me feel special . (Thank you, Dave!) I noticed the same when JD was being interviewed by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. Likable, touching on politically moderate, but not enough to favor Trumpism. Ever. A friend wasn't buying my observation in one of our lengthy telephone conversations.
I did not know that Vance made up the Ohio-immigrant pet story. Admissions like that are unclear... True? Or, cover for the boss. Trump's debate-stage fact-checking response seemed too defensive to me for the story to be made up by Vance. Made up by Trump? VERY believable. Either way, the story was a stupid reason for Trump's xenophobic policy stances.
I was embarrassed for the moderators' belated "Your time is up." Maybe there was a strategic purpose this nobody didn't understand. 🥴 As far as presidential voting is concerned this particular VP debate has no influence on me. For anyone who got this far, thanks for reading!
One of the commentators on CNN said after the debate that Vance is a chameleon, that it’s one of his political strengths. That should give voters pause to wonder which of his multiple personalities would show up if he gets the VP job.
I was also mystified by the “Your time is up” comments. What was the point!
Vance scared the heck out of me. He was so polished and reasonable sounding if you didn’t really think about what he was actually saying. I would imagine a lot of people thought he “won” last night. Dang!
Excellent summary, Dave. I didn’t watch any of the post debate coverage. Before I read this, I had read CNN’s and WaPo’s analysis. Your analysis was much better! I was disappointed in the lag on the QR code “fact-checking” site.
Great summary of the debate, Dave. I was looking forward to reading your post this morning and found myself nodding my head in agreement as I read it. One thought that occurred to me during the debate was this: When will AI have the capability to fact-check live? Seems like the perfect use of that new technology.
I don't think the debate moved the needle much for either candidate. Walz tried to hard to be something he isn't and should have just stuck to being his plain spoken self. Vance tried to be human and still came across as the "know-it-all" kid we all hated in high school. I was amazed that Walz wasn't prepared to respect that Harris wasn't the President during the last four years, but I suspect that his team didn't think that was a winning comeback. Thankfully Walz at least closed well.
I so agree about the VICE president business. I was screaming that at the screen every time. She isn't president yet. What in the world could she have been doing as VICE president? Oh, I still am angry about that.
Good analysis Dave. Walz should have reminded Vance that Congress controls funding for the programs JD said VP Harris never got accomplished. Regarding censorship, nobody has been a bigger threat to the 1st amendment & press freedom than Trump.
It’s nothing more than a talking point, and a bogus one at that. I’d like to think voters are smart enough to figure that out in their own, but too many people accept the pablum fed to them by Fox News.
I agree with you on all counts, Dave. From an objective point of view, Vance appeared more poised and polished. That goes a long way with a lot of people.
Walz' bumbled answer about his China visit really bothered me. He would have won big points if he had admitted up front he misspoke about the timing of the visit. As a result, he looked cagey. And I know he's a decent guy.
Your observations are right on the money, except you left off the discussion (however abbreviated it was) about Federal lands. Vance, of course, wants to develop Federal lands, but Walz pointed out that most Federal land (PUBLIC land) is out west where endangered native fauna and flora struggle to exist. What they didn't mention was that all of that land is not habitable for development because of a lack of water! Aren't western states already struggling for water supplies?
And CBS failed, big time. ABC did such a great job in moderating the presidential candidates, muting the mics and fact-checking the speakers. CBS rarely did any of that. And you are right about it being irritating when they kept saying their time was up when they were finished anyway. Sheesh.
I was surprised that Walz didn’t speak to Vance’s voting record concerning shutting down everything the Biden administration tried to do. Also I agree that Walz was unpolished but to me Vance came across as a “snake oil salesman.” His fake caring for the women who were harmed or died because of lack of access to healthcare because of abortion bans really made me ill. Of course, it didn’t change my opinion of who to vote for-I’m glad that Walz was his own person even if he wasn’t as slick as the other guy.
I agree. I just think it was a missed opportunity to nail Vance down. Walz didn’t have to be a jerk to challenge Vance on his wacky statements. He could have done it in an open way.
If this were a college course debate, Vance would earn the higher score, strictly based on his slick performance. However, if facts matter, he'd get a failing grade. Dave's summary is right on, and I'll add that there were huge missed opportunities for Walz to nail him on his lies and exaggerations.
He could have pointed out, with biting irony, that Vance truly does not understand the role of the VP in American government. Harris ain't running the country, and no VP ever has. Vance thinks the office of the president is solely responsible for the price of gas and groceries. Yeah, no. Walz touted his many accomplishments as MN governor, but could have whacked Vance for his role in a chaotic do-nothing Congress. And he should have absolutely hammered Vance on his admitted lies about the Haitians in Springfield, a crisis he created in his own state.
Also, I got the fee that Vance was trying to bait Walz but Walz didn’t go there. If Walz had taken the bait, we’d be having a much different discussion today.
Remember the train of thought that said if Biden was re-elected, he would be replaced via the 25th Amendment within 2 years? After last night's performance, the case could be made that a second Trump term would last even less time, with Vance stepping in (no doubt both sorrowfully and reluctantly). The contrast between the snake oil mentor and mentee could not have been made any clearer last night. The needle may only move a little, but the relatively sane and smiling lying done by Vance last night could be enough for some independents to make their deal with the devil, voting for Trump (whom they see as the beard) hoping they get Vance in the White House by 2026.
God forbid. I think in some ways, Vance is more dangerous than Trump takes whatever position he thinks will win him votes. He has no moral compass or ethical center. Vance is a true believer, is way smarter and if he inherits MAGA world, will take the party and country to far more dangerous places than Trump. A scary thought.
I gotta say I agree with your assessment, 100 %. I am a fan of Governor Walz, but this was his first time out of the chute and it showed. He was a normal guy who would most likely be nervous and flustered on such a huge stage the first time out - chalk it up to stage fright. These events are not real debates - yes, they bounce back and forth and even with the hosts, they all seem to want to pick a fight to show the world how tough they are, or how charming they, or they can at least both speak. What about a sit-down conversation with one or two hosts, no time limit structure, non-partisan (?) hosts and networks and simply a conversation about the world, their thoughts and possible solutions. Am I naive to think this could work?
I like that concept. We used to do it at the station for US House races. A table, a moderator, no time limits. Just talk issues and don’t talk too long or the moderator will interrupt. It was much more civil.
Great read, Dave. Vance lost it all when he would not admit that Trump lost in 2020…..made him look ridiculous. These debates MUST be fact checked. It is unfair that one side has to spend all the time doing this work when the affiliate (CBS) should be responsible for providing truthful journalism for the viewers.
Let’s hope that clip gets played often in newscasts and in social media. I fear many viewers had tuned out by then. Were it not for the debate, I would have been watching the WNBA semifinals!
Vance was slick, well spoken but didn’t answer questions. A lot of word salad! Walz obviously nervous got his bearings during the second half of debate. Sound bites - takeouts used will be interesting.
The word “unctuous” came to mind while watching Vance. If he mentioned his “three beautiful little children” one more time…
"Word salad," I love that!
Viewers saw and heard what they were looking for. Vance was obviously trying to come off as a nicer guy than he's been cast and pulled it off. I'm sure Republicans thought he was terrific - and especially Trump for his reluctance to admit who won in 2020. But I thought Walz was fine...not "slick" and understandably nervous. He crushed Vance in the closing exchanges about 2020 when JD wouldn't admit Biden won the election. With Vance fudging the truth on so many questions, I can't fault Walz for not fact-checking every reply, it would have been a full-time job. Walz could have spent all his time blasting Vance for the idiotic things he's said about motherhood, cats, making up stories to get attention, etc.
I continue to be annoyed by the media's "both-sidesism" Waltz says he was at the uprising in Tiananmen Square when in fact he was there two months later. There's an attempt to make that a big deal. He shouldn't have claimed that but it's possible he was clumsy in his original story. A few years ago the Washington Post tried to count Trump's lies and it had to assign more people to count them...thousands. In the end, this debate won't move the needle one way or the other.
Rod, I agree on the both sideism. Since the Tiananmen story broke yesterday, I assume CBS felt they would get hammered if they didn’t ask about it. Walz easily could anticipate it and come up with a better answer than he did. Rather than trying to justify his larger goals in taking kids to Asia, he should have just said he misspoke about something that happened 35 years ago, apologize and move on. It was awkward.
Awkward but not criminal. He did apologize for misspeaking later. 👍🏼
Apologies for being more than a comment...thank you, Dave, for the invite. 🙃
I gave Walz a pass on being nervous. To me, it made him look real, even though if Mike Wallace were alive I would keep Walz out of a televised interview on 60 Minutes. Walz's lengthy Tiananmen Square response made me cringe. His near-the-end comment about getting caught up in the moment rang true with me, even though a similar weak moment got Brian Williams removed from his anchor chair.
Walz's strength as a VP is his experience with Minnesota's excellent social services delivery within a large-corporation geographical core. At a time when ordering prescriptions online was an "ain't it awful" hot topic, I relied on Minnesota's vetted sources of access through Canada's healthcare system. Posted online for the benefit of all Minnesotans...and curious others.
Dave's comment about Vance's demeanor being different on stage than when he's stumping made me feel special . (Thank you, Dave!) I noticed the same when JD was being interviewed by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. Likable, touching on politically moderate, but not enough to favor Trumpism. Ever. A friend wasn't buying my observation in one of our lengthy telephone conversations.
I did not know that Vance made up the Ohio-immigrant pet story. Admissions like that are unclear... True? Or, cover for the boss. Trump's debate-stage fact-checking response seemed too defensive to me for the story to be made up by Vance. Made up by Trump? VERY believable. Either way, the story was a stupid reason for Trump's xenophobic policy stances.
I was embarrassed for the moderators' belated "Your time is up." Maybe there was a strategic purpose this nobody didn't understand. 🥴 As far as presidential voting is concerned this particular VP debate has no influence on me. For anyone who got this far, thanks for reading!
One of the commentators on CNN said after the debate that Vance is a chameleon, that it’s one of his political strengths. That should give voters pause to wonder which of his multiple personalities would show up if he gets the VP job.
If Mr. Trump is elected; Vance will not be the "Gentleman" we watched last night.
Just listen crazy comments, and interviews.
This RINO is not following him and Trump into the "hell hole".
I was also mystified by the “Your time is up” comments. What was the point!
Vance scared the heck out of me. He was so polished and reasonable sounding if you didn’t really think about what he was actually saying. I would imagine a lot of people thought he “won” last night. Dang!
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one annoyed by the repeated “your time is up” AFTER they stopped talking.
Excellent summary, Dave. I didn’t watch any of the post debate coverage. Before I read this, I had read CNN’s and WaPo’s analysis. Your analysis was much better! I was disappointed in the lag on the QR code “fact-checking” site.
QR codes irritate me anyway because not all of us have smart phones. We need a web address!
Great summary of the debate, Dave. I was looking forward to reading your post this morning and found myself nodding my head in agreement as I read it. One thought that occurred to me during the debate was this: When will AI have the capability to fact-check live? Seems like the perfect use of that new technology.
Oh, good lord, I'm not sure we're ready for AI on live TV! Perhaps that would lead to our first AI candidate.
No thank you!!
I don't think the debate moved the needle much for either candidate. Walz tried to hard to be something he isn't and should have just stuck to being his plain spoken self. Vance tried to be human and still came across as the "know-it-all" kid we all hated in high school. I was amazed that Walz wasn't prepared to respect that Harris wasn't the President during the last four years, but I suspect that his team didn't think that was a winning comeback. Thankfully Walz at least closed well.
I so agree about the VICE president business. I was screaming that at the screen every time. She isn't president yet. What in the world could she have been doing as VICE president? Oh, I still am angry about that.
If only Walz had made the point effectively.
Good analysis Dave. Walz should have reminded Vance that Congress controls funding for the programs JD said VP Harris never got accomplished. Regarding censorship, nobody has been a bigger threat to the 1st amendment & press freedom than Trump.
Tim did make the point about Congress controlling funding. He just got stepped on so thoroughly at some points you might have mussed it.
It’s nothing more than a talking point, and a bogus one at that. I’d like to think voters are smart enough to figure that out in their own, but too many people accept the pablum fed to them by Fox News.
I agree with you on all counts, Dave. From an objective point of view, Vance appeared more poised and polished. That goes a long way with a lot of people.
Walz' bumbled answer about his China visit really bothered me. He would have won big points if he had admitted up front he misspoke about the timing of the visit. As a result, he looked cagey. And I know he's a decent guy.
Your observations are right on the money, except you left off the discussion (however abbreviated it was) about Federal lands. Vance, of course, wants to develop Federal lands, but Walz pointed out that most Federal land (PUBLIC land) is out west where endangered native fauna and flora struggle to exist. What they didn't mention was that all of that land is not habitable for development because of a lack of water! Aren't western states already struggling for water supplies?
And CBS failed, big time. ABC did such a great job in moderating the presidential candidates, muting the mics and fact-checking the speakers. CBS rarely did any of that. And you are right about it being irritating when they kept saying their time was up when they were finished anyway. Sheesh.
Thanks, Andrea. It’s nice to know I’m not the only one noticing these things!
I was surprised that Walz didn’t speak to Vance’s voting record concerning shutting down everything the Biden administration tried to do. Also I agree that Walz was unpolished but to me Vance came across as a “snake oil salesman.” His fake caring for the women who were harmed or died because of lack of access to healthcare because of abortion bans really made me ill. Of course, it didn’t change my opinion of who to vote for-I’m glad that Walz was his own person even if he wasn’t as slick as the other guy.
I agree. I just think it was a missed opportunity to nail Vance down. Walz didn’t have to be a jerk to challenge Vance on his wacky statements. He could have done it in an open way.
If this were a college course debate, Vance would earn the higher score, strictly based on his slick performance. However, if facts matter, he'd get a failing grade. Dave's summary is right on, and I'll add that there were huge missed opportunities for Walz to nail him on his lies and exaggerations.
He could have pointed out, with biting irony, that Vance truly does not understand the role of the VP in American government. Harris ain't running the country, and no VP ever has. Vance thinks the office of the president is solely responsible for the price of gas and groceries. Yeah, no. Walz touted his many accomplishments as MN governor, but could have whacked Vance for his role in a chaotic do-nothing Congress. And he should have absolutely hammered Vance on his admitted lies about the Haitians in Springfield, a crisis he created in his own state.
Exactly. Spot on.
Also, I got the fee that Vance was trying to bait Walz but Walz didn’t go there. If Walz had taken the bait, we’d be having a much different discussion today.
I meant “feeling”
Remember the train of thought that said if Biden was re-elected, he would be replaced via the 25th Amendment within 2 years? After last night's performance, the case could be made that a second Trump term would last even less time, with Vance stepping in (no doubt both sorrowfully and reluctantly). The contrast between the snake oil mentor and mentee could not have been made any clearer last night. The needle may only move a little, but the relatively sane and smiling lying done by Vance last night could be enough for some independents to make their deal with the devil, voting for Trump (whom they see as the beard) hoping they get Vance in the White House by 2026.
God forbid. I think in some ways, Vance is more dangerous than Trump takes whatever position he thinks will win him votes. He has no moral compass or ethical center. Vance is a true believer, is way smarter and if he inherits MAGA world, will take the party and country to far more dangerous places than Trump. A scary thought.
I gotta say I agree with your assessment, 100 %. I am a fan of Governor Walz, but this was his first time out of the chute and it showed. He was a normal guy who would most likely be nervous and flustered on such a huge stage the first time out - chalk it up to stage fright. These events are not real debates - yes, they bounce back and forth and even with the hosts, they all seem to want to pick a fight to show the world how tough they are, or how charming they, or they can at least both speak. What about a sit-down conversation with one or two hosts, no time limit structure, non-partisan (?) hosts and networks and simply a conversation about the world, their thoughts and possible solutions. Am I naive to think this could work?
I like that concept. We used to do it at the station for US House races. A table, a moderator, no time limits. Just talk issues and don’t talk too long or the moderator will interrupt. It was much more civil.