Start spreading the news, you’re leaving today
I want to be a part of it, New York, New York –Fred Ebb, “New York, New York”
And to make the headline and the epigraph crystal clear:
Could be the best thing you’ll hear all night (though probably not, as I wrote: “Personally, I expect this debate to be more interesting than the Presidential debate, given the logorrhea of the previous combatants. But Vance has written a book, and Walz’s wife, also a teacher, had 40 students (!) on her high school debate team, so maybe something rubbed off”).
The Host: CBS.
The Time: 9:00pm ET.
The Place: CBS Broadcast Center, New York City.
The Rules:
Let’s have a good clean fight here. No holding, no low punches, no biting, gouging, or rabbit punches. You’ll break when I say break. And if you’re decked, you’ll get a count of ten to get back on your feet.
Oh, wait. Sorry for the glitch. Forbes:
The rules for tonight’s debate are similar to those set in place for the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris three weeks ago and the Trump-Biden debate in June.
At the start of the event, the moderators will introduce the candidates in order of incumbent party, with Walz going first, according to CBS News. There will be no opening statements, and campaign staff will are not permitted to interact with the candidates during the two four-minute commercial breaks.
Walz will stand behind the podium on the left side of the stage, which will be on the right side of viewers’ screens. Meanwhile, Vance will be at the podium on the stage’s right side but on the left side of people’s screens. Candidates will be given two minutes to answer a question, two minutes to respond, and one minute for rebuttals. Candidates may receive an extra minute at the moderator’s discretion.
The major difference between the presidential and vice presidential debates is that the candidate’s microphone will not be muted when their opponent speaks tonight. However, CBS still has the right to turn off microphones.
And:
The debate is being moderated by “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell and “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan.
And:
For the first time since 2008, the veep candidates will stand rather than sit.
(Hard for me to imagine debating sitting down. How does one gesture properly?)
I plowed through a good deal of opinion-having (BBC was good), but I thought Politico’s was the best take, despite the personalization. “Expect a slugfest“:
Like his running mate Donald Trump, Vance prefers to go on offense, turning his opponents’ barbs against them and blurring the line between personal and political attacks. Walz, meanwhile, can get fiery when he attacks his opponents, but he tends to lean into his folksy demeanor to defuse tough questions about his record. Both men struggle at times to hide their tempers, and with plenty of bad blood between the two of them — stemming in large part from Vance’s attacks on Walz’s military record and Walz’s crusade to label Vance as ‘weird’ — don’t be surprised if things turn personal.
(Not to mention the couch lie, in which Walz gleefully participated.)
So I’m going to sit back and watch the action. Enjoy!
UPDATE Of course, now I’m imagining the first question is about Middle East policy, with both candidates competing in displays of ritual fealty to Israel (with Vance blunderingly ruining Trump’s performance-based reputation for not being being as much of a warmonger as Biden/Harris, oh well).
158 comments
Comments are closed.
I would gleefully participate in couch jokes, but I will refrain if that’s off limits.
Maybe an equally funny joke about Walz will emerge tonight.
Another episode in inventing reality.
Ok, first question is on Israel. I won’t last more than three minutes.
> Israel
Vance didn’t blunder on Israel as I thought he might; said “ask yourself” who the President was in your lifetime with no war…..
Norah Odonnell mentions current events of conflict in the Middle East, Hurricane Helene, and striking dockworkers. Will anyone care about these in 4 weeks?
I have a hard time seeing the Middle East situation getting any better in 4 weeks, and at the rate they are going a lot of Helene victims will still be waiting for rescue or supplies in 4 weeks. Dock workers I’m not sure about.
If the dockworkers are still striking in four weeks everyone will care. If the Middle East goes nuclear, everyone still alive will care. Hurricane Helene? We lived through Hurricane Katrina, and still remember the experience. Major natural disasters can psychologically ‘define’ a generation.
So, yes to all three.
You and albrt are probably right, and the issues today manifest themselves into other issues 4 weeks from now. Guess I just have Lambert saying “Events!” in my head.
A couple weeks ago I would have agreed that we couldn’t foresee what would happen, but a number of things seem to be coming to a head now in a way that will be hard to redirect or avoid in the time remaining.
Let the games begin
#JFC
First Familyblog Question: Preemptive strike on Iran!!!!
Dems are gonna lose … book it!
LOL … Vance going for the “who was president when this happened?!”
Can see the memes about Libs crying into their Chardonnay come election night …
JD calls out #RussiaGate … LOL
Breathe Tim, breathe.
It’s only 9 minutes in, but I’m getting the impression that JD “Peace Through Strength” Vance is going to roll Gov. Walz.
I’ll come back to this comment and figuratively eat my words at the end if I’m wrong!
Eating my 0s and 1s. Walz rallied.
reality is what one perceives it to be?…
Question: should there be a pre-emptive strike on Iran?
Walz pranking Vance on prior stance when a “never Trumper”
TW seems, I think, to have dodged the question:
JV starts with working class bona fides. Need better leadership for a better (economic) future.
Blames Harris for Bide policy toward Iran
JV defers to Israel on decision about first strike. (But seems he would support if that is the decision)
TW: points to DJT termination of JCPOA.
Followup to JV: re JCPOA. Was DJT wrong to have ended JCPOA.
JV blames Harris for JRB policy toward the Middle East.
Normal Vice Presidents serving with normal Presidents don’t have the power to do much about much.
Not every VP can be a Dick Cheney. And not every VP with Dick Cheney potential gets a President Junior Bush to be able to exploit.
I wonder if there is a non-embarrassing way for Harris to point out that basic fact . . . that as VP she couldn’t do much. Either Biden thought up his own Middle East Policy or else his thinking-brain dogs did. And unless Harris was one of his thinking-brain dogs, she was uninvolved either way. But that would be embarrassing to say at this point in the campaign.
I remember reading Garry Wills’s book “Nixon Agonistes ( The Last Liberal)” several decades ago and one of the early chapters detailed Eisenhower’s deep contempt and loathing for his VP Nixon. Wills relates the example of how, when Eisenhower was asked about Nixon’s input into any major decision, Eisenhower said: ” Give me a week. I might think of one.”
Nukular! Walz is the Dubya for these Cheney Dems!
Happy 100th Birthday Jimmy Carter!
Vance is a smooth debater so far. Coach Tim, not so much.
I am not a fan of Vance, but I thought his response to the climate change question was better than expected for a Republican candidate. That if we assume carbon emissions are driving climate change, that Democratic economic policies are making it worse.
Vance is pretty slick.
But Walz is good. “Our number one export should’nt be topsoil.”
As indeed it shouldn’t.
Official Vice Presidential Debate Drinking Game Rules Matt Taibbi
Pre-emptive whaaa?
Israel has already bombarded Tehran. Did history just begin this morning?
Walz looks like Uncle Fester: https://www.familybrown.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=fester:fester.jpg
More like Don Rickles.
Hockey puck! That’s it!
re: Climate Change
JV redirects into reshoring (on the premise that US mfging is cleaner — but the reason is that we offshored the dirty industries).
TW: DJT a climate science denier. I can’t parse the TW answer, seems to be “both more carbon and more “new” energy, and adapt to the natural disasters.
JV: back to reshoring industry as a climate change response.
JV mentions nuclear energy as a “clean” alternative — no new NP plants in 40 yrs.
——
The interpersonal dynamic is much less hostile than in the prior debate. Both parties are sounding reasonable
Both want to talk about the other’s running mate
> I can’t parse the TW answer, seems to be “both more carbon and more “new” energy, and adapt to the natural disasters.
That’s what I heard.
Dammit, I wanted a slugfest. The two VPs seem to have nore self-discipline than the principals.
I think either of these guys would do better on the Middle East and many other policies than their principals. And I don’t think either of these guys would pick their principals as running mates.
Debating in that situation is probably tough.
This is just a sparring session, not a must see undercard match of up and comers, before the title bout
Looks like my capped mobile data is too capped to watch a debate, thanks Spectrum! (btw no notification still on this service outage, or any news at all from Spectrum. Should be a Congressional investigation on this.)
Do you have a radio? It’s on my local NPR station. I’ve heard enough. I’m going to watch some true crime. In these times I find murder on less than a mass scale somehow soothing, especially since they actually catch the bad guys.
That’s a good idea. I should probably have one for emergencies, like this one (hurricane). Oops. I have enough data now to do only one thing; for some reason, I choose this debate.
Question to Walz: What do you say to the majority of Americans supporting mass deportation?
Walz: This is what happens when we decide not to face an issue. We should face this issue; DJT told Congress not to face the issue.
A great response! Walz finding some footing here.
What is with all the fast and furious scribbling on the part of Tim Walz. It makes him look a bit nervous.
Vance just fact-checked the moderator; Walz interupts.
Then a moderator cuts both their mikes.
“You’ll break when I say break,”
Immigration, quesiton about DT deportation plans
JV: Harris let in fentanyl at record levels –
JV: Notes downward pressure on wages from high immigration
TW: re: fentanyl — opoid deaths declining recently. Harris’ record as Calif. AG. Bipartisan legislation to enhance border; DJT pressured to not pass in order to be able to run against border failure (a charge Harris made, “rather run against a problem than solve a problem”)
Will JV separate parents from children? JV: separations already happening due to open borders.
JV: blames KH for reversal of DT executive orders on border
TW: blames DT for legislative gridlock on the border. Credits JV with wanting to solve the problem; DT is the problem.
Question to JV: doesn’t COngress have to act to fund border? JV: “empowering” border control personnel to do their job. Seems a bit bafflegab.
JV: concedes that TW wants to solve the problem, but Harris doesn’t.
(neither wants to attack the other, me thinks. Their running mates are bigger targets)
It is more civil than the DT/KH “debate”. The nastiest things are being said about people not present.
TW: invokes a saying of Jesus, “what you do to the least of these”
trying to cut off JV
These ‘moderators’ are turrible imo.
And JD fact checks the moderators, and I believe he may be correct.
But I thought the moderators were not going to fact check.
The microphone turn off was just an awful look for CBS and the moderators,
I really want Lehrer back.
Let’s get the League of Women Voters back – the UniParty kicked them out after Ross Perot crashed the Debate in 1992.
Agreed!
The UniParty will never let them back in. Nor will the big money MSM.
If the LoWV wants to host and moderate debates, it will have to create its own platform on its own Channel in order to do so. Either on You Tube or PodCast or wherever. Set up the stage and studio, get just enough microphones and cameras to record the debate and/or livecast it in real time, and then invite officeseekers to come and debate.
And this will only work if enough viewers take the time to watch it on its ” PSM” ( Parallel Stream Media) that they-the-viewers-indicate to officeseekers that it is worth their time to appear on such a debate.
And it would take 2-3 decades of slow steady recruitment of viewers to view such a debate on several different platforms to grow them to a viewership size that officeseekers feel they can’t afford to ignore them. Are enough tens of millions of potential viewers ready to be part of a 2-3 decades’ long movement to be and grow part of a growing dedicated audience to such serious and non-entertaining viewing?
And does America have 2-3 decades left for such an initiative to get somewhere?
The biased phrasing of that first question on Israel and then the Tim Walz answer ticked me off so much I turned it off immediately. They all disgust me so much. Imma go read a book.
> TW: invokes a saying of Jesus, “what you do to the least of these”
That was, in fact, very good. Immigration is hard. Walz did well.
From the Washington Post
A huge miss on the part of the WP
Vance. “Tim. admirably…” <-- very good
So the lie again about the “sales tax”, which is tariffs. Do what things Harris wants to do? I can’t tell yet, an opportunity economy? You mean capitalism? They keep pushing the “sales tax” line.
Although it is amusing hearing about how Harris made life worse, when really the VP doesn’t do much of anything. She did kill a $15 minimum wage by not overriding the Senate Parliamentarian.
Yep. Trump Tax Cuts hooked me up. If you paid income tax, you got a tax cut. Full stop.
It’s a shame these two aren’t running for president, at least they sound somewhat competent.
“My pro tip”: Listen to experts! Yeah, that worked on COVID, for example, or say, economics!
Vance is 100% right about outsourcing manufacturing. Entirely correct, even if Trump’s industrial policy wasn’t coherent. (Love that he pulls out the kids thing to punk Harris probably.)
Wow. Vance is absolutely killing it though. If only Republicans actually cared about delivering for Americans, oh well.
Economy: plans of respective
to TW: how to pay for economic development policy without ballooning deficit.
TW: dodges question, talks about policy details. Housing, prescription drugs costs, child tax credit, large tax credits for new small business
DT tax cuts ballooned deficit, DT policy will raise consumer costs
to JV: how to pay for Trump economic policies
JV: criticizes Harris for JRB economy performance
re: DT policies, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
TW: blames JRB economy on DJT/pandemic
(again, they’re attacking the running mate, not the person they’re debating with)
JV: criticizes neoliberal economic policies. Portrays DT as leaning against that. (did much actually happen? He did stop the TPP, for one)
TW: “I’m a union guy”. Trade deficit with China peaked under DJT. “I agree with JV on much of this”.
JV: TW has to pretend that DT economy was not better than KH (JRB) economy. “We can do so much better”
Moderator to Walz: Were you in TAM?
Walz: Does the equivalent of Kamala’s “I was born into the middle class.” Does not answer!!!
Walz: Mispoke, was in HK.
Moderator to Vance: “America’s Hitler?” And “Trump faled to deliver economic populism”
Vance: I was wrong about Trump, partly because I believed the media. But Trump delivered.
So far anyway, I’d rather see Vance running for President with Walz as VP and dump both Harris and Trump altogether. :)
same here, at least have them as the main event, but we are where we are…
I’d give the edge to vance but both are doing well, esp. in comparison…
decent moderators, gotchas but not too many
Personal Qualifications?
I am a bit confused
To TW: did he misrepresent his connection with Tianenman Square.
TW: seems to admit to mispeaking at times. Points to history of public service.
to JV: 2016: “DT unfit for highest office”, DT could be America’s dictator, DT failed to deliver economic populism
JV: “I was wrong about DT”. Credits DT with solving some significant problems.
Congress dysfunctional, not governing.
Credits JRB with good tariff policy (continuing DT policy)
> Tiananmen Square
TW: seems to admit to mispeaking at times. Points to history of public service
I think he pulled it of at the end but could’ve gone the long ago route much sooner.
No debate points there…too many waffles
Not sure about waffles; too many statements designed to distract IMHO.
It was a dumb, pointless question. So why such a tortured response? Just say it was 35 years ago and that you misspoke. A simple mistake.
If I wasn’t sus about him before, I sure as hell am now.
yes, exactly
Whatever happened to “Tankman”?
Coach Tim: Sometimes I misspeak about having been in China because I was raised in a small town and I get carried away with myself.
My immigrant wife who does not watch debates and avoids politics is mesmerized.
Her comment about the China Tianamen Square issue which I felt was very awkward to watch – “He really is a knucklehead. You never lie about stuff like that.”
Her comment overall about JD Vance – “ A Star is Born” like Obama at the DNC in 2006.
And up until the past few years, this was a staunch Dem household.
It’s a shame he’s a crypto bro and funded by tech bro nut jobs.
Thiel is a piece of work.
Heartbreaking
Vance is a sharpened stake which Trump has pounded into the heart of Con Inc.
The Borg must remove him so that Romneyistic Cheneyism with Buckleyite characteristics can resume its traditional role as controlled opposition.
I tuned in briefly (bedtime in Blighty). Instant impression, Walz was talking slightly too fast and looked slightly pop-eyed. He looks nervous and like an over-actor in a sitcom. Vance was very controlled in his movements and speech. He looks like the star.
Ooh, personal fitness question. Walz’s dates in China don’t add up. His answer is terrible, he goes back.to childhood and talks about growing up and being elected and evades the question but implies that he got his dates wrong (or lied) without admitting it. Digging deeper into the hole, telling a complex lie. He’s never been in court, clearly. Vance should eat him alive here.
Oh dear, “I will say anything. I get carried away in the moment”. Walz just hanged himself. He had to be asked the question again and still could not come clean, did a pathetic supplicatory gesture and essentially dared the audience to think he lied.
Vance gets an easy question about disagreeing with Trump in the past. He should dispatch that cleanly.
> Walz was talking slightly too fast and looked slightly pop-eyed. He looks nervous and like an over-actor in a sitcom. Vance was very controlled in his movements and speech. He looks like the star.
I agree. Walz’s register is slightlty too high and too fast to be authoritative (speaking as a primate, here, I admit).
I’m listening, not watching. Peeking for one moment, Walz’s face… The raised eyebrows give him a pleading look. Makes me think of reasonable, soft liberalism. Undercuts any tough policies.
Listening only here so no body language cues…props for coherence to both on that score
Yes, too much “am I a good dog?”. I suspect we saw the same moments….
I am not truly listening with a policy ear. I am listening and watching with a prosecutorial bent. Did the witness answer the question? Are they credible? The quality of the answer is almost irrelevant provided it meets the minimum for relevance and is not a sudden confession or accusation of guilt. I think that’s all this format needs.
I am going to stop watching.
It is clear to me that the Dems have made a critical error in refusing to be interviewed. Walz is very clumsy and clearly not on game.
Vance who has been on all the channels all the time is clearly prepared and used to tough questions. It really stands out.
This was not a good debate for Walz.
But what I would not give for them to be the candidates and not the two on the top.
Doc, I feel like Walz got better as the debate went on. You oughta stick around!
Abortion: Walz is debating from strength here, and I think Vance is trying to “what if” him to death.
Good moment for Walz, in my opinion.
My feed is behind yours but Walz is just mentioning sob stories in his answer. Vance should point out that 52 years of Roe v Wade was never codified into law by countless Dems and Burden and Harris could do it by November if they wanted it as much as war with Iran or Russia.
Abortion:
to TW: “late term abortion?”
TW: not what the bill says. Mentions cases of medically indicated abortions outlawed in Texas. Rising maternal mortality in Texas.
to JV: “a federal pregnancy monitoring agency?”
acknowledges R weakness on the subject. Wants to support fertility treatments, afforbale housing, “more options” for women
segues to “leave it to the states”
TW: case example of drawback to “leave it to the states.”
TW: I agree a lot with Senator Vance.
(I think they are really trying not to antagonize each other)
JV: Rs need to do a better job of earning women’s trust, better family supports
TW: we’re not “pro-abortion”, we’re “pro-women, pro-freedom”.
JV: no obligation to provide life-saving care in cases of accidental live-births in late-term abortion.
TW/JV back and forth about this detail of the MN law. TW denies that this is an implication of the law
Gun Violence:
to JV: should holding parents responsible curb child shooters?
JV: defers to local law authority, segues to his experience as father of young children.
90% of violence committed with illegality obtained firearms (Kamala/open borders fault!)
need more security in schools.
pragmatically, guns too widespread to control use
TW: I’m a dad too. Son witnessed a shooting. I’m hunter, own firearms. 2nd amendment doesn’t trump duty to our children.
attributes “we should just live with it” to the other side.
cites Finland; high gun ownership, low violence. Certain weapons should not be in civilian hands.
TW/JW civil moment re: TW’s son.
JW: US has higher rates of illness, mental illness, (channeling RFK?).
Better law enforcement in big cities. Need more security in schools.
to TW: why did you flip/flop on assault weapons. TW: because of amass shooting. Rural gun violence or accident/suicide a bigger problem. The problem is sometimes just the guns.
I guess this is how you would know that the Dems are fully aware of how this is all going down tonight.
https://x.com/davidaxelrod/status/1841290392106328207
Good night everyone.
+1
Pretty good chance Vance will be Prez in four years’ time, I would say, between Trump’s age and the monthly assassination attempts. Might as well know his policies!
There’s a good chance he’ll be president in 4 years regardless of who wins in 2024, I’d say
Hmm, they both seem in courteous agreement about gun violence and America being (I paraphrase) a land of nutjobs and criminals. No tension, time for bed.
Prediction, Walz looks strong and stable 90% of the time but cracks under pressure, Vance remains poised throughout and wins on points and hairspray.
One last question about an issue that has bugged me for years.
Tim Walz has now just announced to the entire country that he has become friends with school shooters.
Asking for all of America, were your new friends recently started on antidepressant, seizure, or antipsychotic meds? And how many did they actually murder? I am certain the friends and family of the victims are all ears…..
re school shooters I was like did you miss speak there? hmmm…
maybe theres a story…
> become friends with school shooters
The Christian thing to do… But I would indeed like to know who they are, and what the circumstances were.
Christian
I was gonna say…
but I dint
I watch the America this week video and they thought, and I thought, that he had simply misspoke. But now that I’m reading the comments I realize that TW actually meant that he had become friends with school shooters. (plural!) As you say Lambert, the Christian thing to do.
I heard that as an obvious malapropism. Earlier Walz talked about meeting the families of Sandy Hook victims, and how that changed his mind about gun regulation. So, here, I’m sure he meant to say that he has become friends with the victims of school shooters.
I heard this as IM Doc did, but you could be right. I’ll have to check the transcript.
time will tell, I’m thinking maybe a set up for tomorrows news…a red herring, too obvious
Sigh. The gun debate that has been going on my entire life. But no real solutions. The usual driver being mental health, because of course it has to be that.
(I keep hearing coughing on this debate. Who’s coughing? That’s odd.)
Oh, housing! Not handing out. Oh, okay? Waltz isn’t wrong about housing. How did you invest in housing there? Did you build public housing? We should have national high quality public housing.
And there goes my internet, so missed the rest of that, but I doubt public housing was in there. Just complex eligibility requirements for tax credits, hooray.
Who’s the down payment go to? The capitalists, hooray! Housing must be a human right.
How is it “illegal aliens” are competing for homes? How is it destitute people can buy property in this country? That’s just nonsense. These immigrations live in squalid conditions, often, exploited by capitalists, or the triple up with relatives. Not sure how they’re buying up American homes? This is just lunacy.
How can you “seize” federal lands? They’re federal. That makes no sense.
How is it the VP is letting in anyone. She gets to decide? That’s silly too. Debates are hopelessly reductionist.
Waltz is right, they’re gonna auction that federal land off to the lowest capitalist bidder to build housing on. A privatization scam.
tax credits and complexity are sops the the better situated…zzzzttt! wrong answer to the problems
Cost of Housing:
to TW: proposal would simply drive housing costs up
TW: housing is treated like a commodity by many, (inelastic demand)
I don’t know the details of the program TW is talking about. Evidently he increased supply?
Don’t blame immigrants; there’s a shortage of affordable house, goct should help with (supply)
to JV: how would your plan solve the problems.
JV: don’t blame immigrants for coming in, blame Kamala for letting them in.
Blames Harris for not overruling JRB housing policy.
lower energy prices, will lower the cost of construction.
build on unused Federal-owned land. More Suburbia?
TW: talks about Federal lands — how would construction of new housing on Federal lands actually work.
JV: migration can drive housing costs. Blames Harris for JRB repgulatory policy. (They really want to still be running against JRB)
agrees with TW that housing as commodity is not a good thing (I think they mean that it’s treated as a profitable investment by moneyed interests)
“… how would construction of new housing on Federal lands actually work.”
The U.S. has already set a precedent; it looked like this.
Visuals are stunning. No one seeing this without the sound on would ever pick Walz as the winner.
I found two articles on Walz and school gun violence from September of this year, one in Politico, one in USA Today. Fairly long stories but no mention of his son being near a school shooting.
> No one seeing this without the sound on would ever pick Walz as the winner.
Yep. The eyebrows….
The visual contrast!! Actually I think this is why TW perform so badly in the first part of the debate, because he saw how good JDV looked and how bad he looked by comparison. TW couldn’t shake his own mental self-image in contrast with what he was looking at every time he looked over at JDV!!
costs: Health Care
to TW: clarify “concepts of plans”
JV: drug price inflation higher under Harris (JRB) than under DJT
says that DT “salvaged Obamacare” by fixing regulatory regime
(is there anything to this? I don’t recall anything other than the failure to repeal ACA)
TW: was there at the creation (of the ACA). GIves Harris credit for JRB health care policy. (Was she involved? )
notes the repeated failure to repeal the ACA under DJT, but tried sincerely.
TW claims that JV wants to repeal mandatory risk pooling (which keeps premiums low for the sicker cohorts)
TW: not true! Adverse selection under pre-Trump version of the ACA.
I don’t know the details of DJT regulatory adjustment of ACA. Are TW’s claims accurate?
No-one dares to breath “single payer” or “national health system”.
Monkeypox on both of them.
Oh, man, Walz just supported the individual mandate and Vance caught it right away. Yikes!!
All the experts (Gruber) said ObamaCare had to have it, Trump did away with it, it turned out the experts were wrong, and Trump saved me real money. (Now, Walz was IIRC correct on the history of Trump trying to nobble the act, and perhaps Trump believed the experts too, but in any case it worked out well for everyone.)
Vance looks incredibly prepared and he appears confident. When he can’t answer or has to go on the defensive, he brings it back to the same message. Doesn’t matter if he can’t speak to it, he takes control. Walz looks nervous and he can’t deliver his message plainly. He’s been getting caught up in some of these questions and hasn’t delivered a real blow.
I’ll keep watching, but Vance has spoken to economic issues in a way Walz hasn’t.
Yes. I haven’t seen a knockout blow, but Vance is way ahead on points.
I think part of Walz’s problem is that conservative talking points are much more well-crafted and smooth, liberal ones less so. So Vance’s ideas tend to seem instantly clear and reasonable, and Walz fights the double battle of making the ideas clear and inventing the right framing at the same time (probably a consequence of liberalism’s incoherence, too).
This is not Minnesota’s Tim Walz. The Walz you saw endless videos of early on is the Walz we know. This guy looks like Uncle Fester from The Addams Family.
> This is not Minnesota’s Tim Walz.
Can you expand on this? What happened?
Before he was picked, I never once saw footage of Walz looking anything but friendly and engaging or if serious, resolute. He photographs well, if you do an image search the results will be cooked but you’ll see a wealth of positive images whereas searches for certain other Democratic politicians pulls up a ton of very similar portrait photos.
Personally, I never associated Walz with his own administration other than as a figurehead. He’s a coach, not a player. That could be the problem here. Coach Harris drafted Coach Walz and then told him to play linebacker and do some head hunting. Not working well imo.
Walz did a lot of pressers during early COVID and in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. He always sounded confident and prepared, with a bit of the benevolent schoolteacher vibe. Energetic, yes, but not ruffled and manic like he was on Tuesday night. I’ve never seen him this way, but for much of the luckless audience this was their first look at him.
I think, if you’ll pardon the passive construction, Walz was overprepared.
I am basing this on the responses here, but I would make it not just over prepared but badly prepared. As in the prep team focused on making him the line backer, rather than helping him craft good responses that he can use easily and confidently as himself.
He looks wide-eyed at times, yes. If I had to give a reason, he’s absolutely NOT relaxed. When he’s looking into the set camera, it’s not like staring at a phone while recording for TikTok. He’s lost the folksy vibe completely.
He looks like he’s on something. Ritalin?
Adrenaline.
(For some reason my hamfisted typing made that more like adrenochrome! I nearly kept it like that).
I don’t think the Dems are crazy enough to teach an old dog new kicks, are they? He was very starey-eyed but I put it down to poor training in camera rapport.
Vance’s little glances back to the viewer at home while Walz was speaking were masterful – hey buddy, what do you think?
ten drugs out of thousands is lame lame lame.
And there was a 2 whatever year wait until they did this. While Democrats crowed about passing this, people died. died. waiting for these few drugs to get negotiated. Democrats sicken me.
> ten drugs out of thousands is lame lame lame.
I’m so old I remember when a candidate actually ran on single payer.
There still are a few, if that’s the issue that floats all your boats. . . .
Exactly! Who needs health care!!/s
About single payer. Out of boredom (I am not even an American) I watched the first republican debate in 2016. Great entertainment because of DJT. The presenter wanted to put him in the tank right away by saying he wasn´t a republican but had declared himself a Democrat before and that he had formerly endorsed single payer. DJT didn´t deny that at all but said “the time wasn´t right yet”. That is when I thought that DJT might win. Not because of exactly that but because he had an instant grasp on reality. The American system is insanely expensive, very poor on outcome and costs business. Just compare the health care costs of a canadian GM worker in Winston and that of his US counterpart in Detroit.
Hilariously, on the drug pricing, this is where Waltz could lean in hard to antitrust action under the Biden administration; let’s watch and see that he does not.
Obama care is still doing disastrously, by the way. Trump and Republicans simply failed to repeal it, ha. But an entertaining way to salvage it.
Wow. People. Are. Covered. Wow. Covered! Still going bankrupt. Still can’t afford drugs. But have high deductible junk insurance. Wow, John McCain, our national hero. I guarantee you that Harris was not doing any negotiations about drug pricing. Fantasy. Insurance companies still pick who they insure, just differently.
What a broken country, that anyone is at risk because of “preexisting” conditions, such as being human.
The individual mandate is hellacious. Forcing people to buy high deductible junk insurance is evil. Waltz is a clown. The ACA certainly does not work. And Harris did not negotiate anything.
LOL, so national paid leave, but nothing about national health care.
Why should employers have to pay for anything for paid leave? Why doesn’t the federal government do that? That’s lame too.
This whole debate is one neoliberal against another. This country is really sickening.
child care:
to TW: how long should employers pay for stay-home to care for children
TW: negotiable, but some level of mandatory family/medical leave is good for employees
pivots to DT the friend of the very wealthy.
need to improve supply of child care (better pay for the care-givers)
to JV: national paid family leave?
JV: there should be a bipartisan solution on this.
should have a family-care model that supports the preferences of different kinds of families.
JV speaking in favor of flexible forms of child care. TW wants to reduce barriers to new care enterprise formation.
—
cost of child care:
JV: tariff income will allow to reduce taxes on workers and US corporations.
JV says more money must be spent on child care. But also that high current cost is due to supply shortage.
I must turn this off! Four hours sleep left….
But Walz: too much gesticulation, too much hunching, too much schtick. He’s like a Borscht Belt entertainer or a car salesman. Physically, he’s trying to build the wrong rapport with the audience, be their lovable schlemiel rather than their leader. Elect me, I’m a beta!
What do the Dems spend all that money on election consultants for, to get this kind of performance? Is this *after* coaching?
I would argue that IS the point. Don’t forget who the base of the DNC actually is, they’re the kind of people who would get screaming mad if a white man running in the secondary spot of VP was to start to alpha on “Black” woman Kamala. He needs to know his place and his role, he’s the VP damn it.
Can you imagine how this debate had gone if Trump had picked Candace Owens as VP?
Catching up but more than once it seems like the question took longer to ask than the candidate was given to respond. ???
LOL that’s hilarious.
Vance: We need to induce people to provide an essential service.
That’s an implicit admission that people should be paid for their labor, and that childcare labor is essential labor.
The “pay for” stuff always disgusting. It gets paid for the same way bombs for Israel gets paid for. By writing checks. Done.
Walz just told one helluva lot of whoppers about J6 and other hyped accusations.
The media HAS to factcheck the 140 cops injured on J6, don’t they?
Excellent answer from Vance on First Amendment (nice pivot on “our democracy”).
J6: 140 police officers were beaten at the Capitol, some with the American flag, several were killed. Really?!
Walz asks Vance to agree that Trump lost 2020. Vance evades.
As an auld schul leftist protester j6 is a loser and the dems should drop it…
no well trained (we all were) left protester would’ve made those mistakes…
sit in front of the doors, keep your mouth shut and be polite if you have to be anything.
A peaceful transfer of power, followed by endless investigations and two meaningless impeachments. Democrats talking about the purity of democracy is rich.
Nice retort on the 500k of Russian Facebook ads.
“This was a threat to our Democracy in a way we have not seen.” says Waltz. “I don’t run Facebook.” But Facebook answered to Biden’s administration.
I’m mostly bored by Waltz Democracy speech. Democrats don’t exactly believe in Democracy.
So far I am seeing no-one mention their appearances; maybe it is too obvious to mention? Vance is very handsome. Walz is dreadful looking. People are very biased in favor of attractive people. Life is not fair in that way. It was clever of Trump to chose a handsome man who can debate.
Also, TW looked almost creepy at times when he scribbled his little notes. On the other hand, I thought it was very effective when JDV would glance at the camera. I find my found myself often watching JDV while TW was talking.
2020 election
to JV: you would not have certified the 2020 election. Would do again disagree with governors’ certifications in 2024
JV: we need to focus on the economy.
the true threat to democracy is censorship, Harris’ views on disinformation
Tulsi and RFK endorsed us!
KH an industrial-scale censorer
A friendly moment between JV and TW
TW: reviews the Jan 6 receipts. DJT threatening to imprison opponents. (A risky rhetorical move in view of the lawfare)
Appeals for a peaceful acceptance of the results of the coming election.
JV: Reminds of HRC “Putin changed the outcome” rhetoric
TW: DT unable to acknowledge loss of the 2020 election
TW/JV: Each criticizes the other for dodging charges agaist the other’s running mate.
TW: Where is the firewall with DT? Will you keep your oath of office even if the president (DT) does not keep his.
————–
COmmercial break
This has been surprisingly civil. There is no hostility between the two.
“HUgging the enemy” they seem to want to acknowledge the points of agreement.
I’m not sure that there is as much substance as I would like, but maybe there just isn’t enough time in this format for actual answers.
I do think that Vance is wrong about solving climate problem through reshoring. US manufacturing has become less carbon intensive because the innately carbon intensive industries were offshored.
I would not be surprised if Walz has zero knowledge of what really happened on January 6. So happy to hear this being brought up on a national stage.
If I ever give a speech anywhere, at some point I’m going to yell FIRE! Just once.
Firewall? What firewalls? Biden-Harris has wiped their boots on the Constitution.
In the battle of looking at each other Vance looks smart and Walz looks hopped up.
From the rules:
It’s 10:40pm, wtf
So it isn’t just me; I was done with this 30 minutes ago. Ugh. And it is still going. It is past time for me to bang my head against the wall repeatedly.
not that I’m cynical, but
the ratings must be good
“A broad coalition from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney”
OOOOF
more like…
THUNK.
It was worse than that! He said a broad coalition from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney to TAYLOR SWIFT!.
Yeah, that’s what the Undecideds care about – celebrity opinions.
What an own goal.
Is Madonna still around?
Walz closing: Clearly canned, full of slogans the staff wrote (none of which were integrated into the debate beforehand).
Vance: Leads with energy for some reason…, We need change. We need a President who has done this before.
The thought occurs that, in terms of the quality of the rhetoric, the wrong people are at the tops of the tickets.
Closing statements:
TW: LOL: KDH coalition: Bernie sanders to dick cheney to taylor swift. They don’t agree with each other, but they’r optimistic
we know who DJT is. Believe him when he tells you who he is.
JV will stand with DT.
KH: politics of joy, solutios for middle class, centering you and the heart of that.
warm and fuzzy bafflegab.
JV: we didn’t talk about energy. Blames Harris (not JRB) for inflation.
Day 1 was 1400 days ago, KH policies have made US worse.
KH will not be change from the bad policies of the last 3.5 years.
————
high level view — they were trying to avoid attacking each other, focusing attacks instead on the top of the other side’s ticket.
Highly civil toward each other.
It’s the least disagreeable “debate” I have heard in a long as I can remember.
I remember Mondale laughing at Reagan’s corny jokes.
She is bring a politics of joy. Centering you! I can’t wait for that new day, we all get an opportunity to thrive. Well, that settles it.
Vance always pinning everything on Harris amusing, though. I didn’t realize the VP had so much power. I wonder if people actually buy that?
Wonderful that no one mentioned the ongoing global Pandemic that continues to kill 1,000 people every week, and had disabled several million people so far and counting.
I’m really pissed that they didn’t mention the war in the Ukraine!!!
If Harris refuses to differentiate herself from Biden, it’s fair to assume she shares all of his policies and to attack her for ‘their’ policies.
Taibbi-Kirn cut to Rachel Maddow when it was over and she’s bubbly and charming because there’s nothing for her to rip on, Vance disembowled Walz. To say otherwise would be to look stupid.
Prediction: this debate will barely be mentioned in the major media tomorrow or ever again.
Vance: More prepared, more concise, better debater, slicker pivots, more persuasive (and yes, much better visually). Trump made a wise choice. (That said, I’m finding it hard to believe that Shapiro, say, would have been better than Walz, who still got some punches in. Those J6 whoppers, though. How did Walz manage to get in his own way on that? All he had to say was that Trump lost, wouldn’t admit it, and then hammer Vance with that. That “our democracy” talking point is a hairball, and Vance hit it out of the park by pivoting to censorship and nailing it on RussiaGate’s Facebook ads). Should be interesting to see what the press says.
Now to go see if Bibi, Hochstein, and McGurk (sounds like a law firm) have blown up the world yet).
“Now to go see if Bibi, Hochstein, and McGurk (sounds like a law firm) have blown up the world yet).”
Most of the ME stuff happens while I’m asleep so I get to do this each morning as I make coffee. I noticed the last few days I’m girding myself for “Israel nukes Iran” headlines before I open my browser.
We joke here, but it’s starting to get to me.
A positive anecdote: I was part of a men’s group that had it’s first meeting last night. Nobody knew eachother beforehand. We had 2 Americans, a Brit, a Russian, a Persian, an Israeli and an Aussie. I was nervous when the Israeli guy arrived late and sat next to the Persian. The outcome: they acknowledged the situation was painful without rancour and proceeded to be supportive and kind to eachother throughout. Ditto the Russian and the AUKUS guys. Everyone just wanted peace, and to be able to live their life. We shared personal stuff and ended with big hugs.
It’s something I love about Da Nang: a large population of Russians, Ukrainians and Westerners, as well as Jews, Indians, and Muslims all live here peaceably and socialise etc. A people does not necessarily reflect it’s government.
I know several persians and none are murderous… go figure… I know one irani (“persian is a greek word!”) and not likely murderous either…:/.
None big fans of the ayatollah, yes to family left behind…
I’m intrigued by the history of iran so I probe…
they invented chess.
Chess is still called shakhmaty in Russian, from Farsi shah mat, so the Iranian roots are obvious here.
I imagine part of this is Walz was being prepped by people who “think” (we have to use that term loosely) that the Sanders, Cheney, Swift line was good. Everything likely went through some kind of Aaron Sorkin AI program. Walz probably couldn’t understand what anyone was talking about.
One of the people on Biden 2020 who was demoted told me years ago that the people of New Hampshire care more about the presidential primary than the Red Sox.
Wait, are you saying that the Red Sox don’t care about the presidential debate!!??
Walz was debate prep’d by Mayo Pete. Team Blue on twitter loves Pete and thinks that was a great idea because they think that in interviews and hearings Pete is well-informed, articulate, etc. Even assuming that’s true, that he did win all those rounds, it’s as himself, which is a totally different persona from Walz’s.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/walz-debate-prep-underway-pete-buttigieg-vance-stand/story?id=113872808
As a member of the silent majority of the Commentariat, I would like to thank you all for taking this on. In an act of trauma informed self protection, I declined to watch this media spectacle, preferring, instead to read the running commentary which provided a much needed buffer. Thanks for taking one for team Human.
Thanks to Lambert and to all those who also toughed it out. I couldn’t get past the competitive fellating of Israel but have read the comments with much interest and appreciation.
NY Times says that Walz’s son did witness a shooting. Also googled a shooting a year ago at the same high school Walz coached at in Mankato.
I was watching a Lavrov press conference at the UN – by the sound of things the debate would’ve been the better watch, although i think they really missed an opportunity by choosing to express their views in boring old words rather than interpretive full-body movements.
May I say again, let’s hear it for flyover country.
We need to talk about the first question of the debate, because there was a lot wrong with it.
But they said in the opening remarks that Iran had attacked Israel, so the preemptive framing of this question is completely wrong!! Given that Iran’s already attacked israel: Israel can’t do a preemptive strike!! So it’s a bogus question. But also, to correct the question to the actual existing conditions:
And quite obviously there’s only one answer to that question.
So the very first question was not only unfair by not being based in current reality but it’s also nonsensical to answer it in the negative if it is corrected for the current reality.
Fortunately the debate got
better after that
Iran(and proxies) Israel… seems a bit chicken and egg-y. One has to go back a long long time to discover who really starting throwing the rocks.
It’s a fluster-cluck— and the US arms and war industries are in tall cotton and high protein hay!
Why it almost seems that the Uniparty is doing its level best to fan conflagration everywhere, all at once! Will we have a fourth, domestic ‘skirmish’ at home- either election result driven, or using domestically-housed military to run around rounding up melanin-endowed ‘illegals’?
Thank Goodness its only a month out.
This perceived shortened election cycle has me thinking we need serious election reform
8 week cycle
publicly funded
no more private direct or shadow money
equal time policy pitch air-time, no more grainy black and white doom-voiced over dub versus happy smiley well-heeled comfortable ‘Americans’ vacuous divisive advertising
Dream on.
PS… was there a post ‘debate’ commentary anywhere hosted for Butch Ware to opine and react? I need to poke around and look..
Unremarked in real time last night, MMT briefly poked above the weeds in the moderator questions to both candidates about “how to pay for” the deficits implied by the respective proposed policies. IIRC, Walz dodged the question, and Vance offered the (to me incredible) claim that import tariffs would provide income sufficient to fund the policies. (Vance was poised and polished, but I think that at times his substance was insubstantial. The claim that reshoring of industry would reduce carbon emissions because US is a low-carbon intensity economy strikes me as hooey. We’re low-carbon-intensity because we previously offshored significant high-carbon parts of our economy. Reshoring would reduce emissions from seaborne transport of finished goods, but that doesn’t seem to be JV’s argument)
This may be a “I would like some of what you’re smoking” interpretation, but perhaps it’s a sign that people high in the D party are becoming less concerned about the magnitude of the deficit (and Rs, at least since D Cheney, seem to not worry either, at least when they are controlling the appropriations process). I’ve thought for a while that people at the top of both parties actually understand MMT, but conceal that because it is useful to deploy the “funding constraint” myth* when needed to criticize the other side or argue for austerity policies toward whatever agendas they want to defund (typically, general population well-being agendas).
( * this is not to deny that there are any constraints on monetary sovereigns; there clearly are real-economy constraints on actual productive capacity [think of, for example, “artillery ammunition for Ukraine”]. But funding is not the constraint; if a national economy is physically able to do something, the government, if it is a monetary sovereign, can afford to fund that something)
Agree. The deficit’s primary purpose seems to be ammunition with which to chastise the other side’s spending. I remember Obama ‘splaining “you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children”, and thinking, WTF is he talking about?? You can’t have net savings in the private sector and imports >> exports without a public deficit. His fear-mongering that somehow one’s children will be on the hook for current spending was hugely deceptive. It’s the onus of private debt that’s killing everyone.
I do think that most in gov power centers must understand how spending and taxes really work — I mean, how could they not (assuming they’re not just dim)?
A candidate for public office who made this the-government-is-not-a-household point crystal clear and explained in simple language what our real constraints are as a nation would get my vote.