2024 U.S. Presidential election

Furniture said:
The two low points for me were firstly listening to Don Jnr on CNN blaming MSM for the assassination attempts on his father and then Scott Jennings view point on Walz. That did it for me. No more CNN, which is a shame because I do enjoy so many of their anchors. My principles won’t allow me anymore to watch a network that gives a platform to people like that.
Click to expand...
I watched a lot of CNN last night but as soon as I saw DJTJ on screen I grabbed my remote and shut it off as soon as possible. He is too much for me to take.
 
The debate went about how I expected: Walz struggled (debate is not his forte), Vance was more polished. Vance was clearly winning (not by a lot, but clearly ahead) up until the last topic. Then he fumbled it at the end to make it essentially a tie. Post-debate polling seems to support the idea that it was a tie or slight Vance win.

Both guys saw their favorability rise dramatically from pre- to post-debate polling. Walz got a de facto win in that he didn't hurt the Harris campaign with any major gaffes. Vance got a win in that he made a name for himself on the national stage, and made the GOP ticket seem less crazy.

Overall though, I doubt this debate moves the needle at all overall in the 2024 election.
 
ArkieDukie said:
Question. Did Trump and Netanyahu plan this during one of their meetings? I would not put it past Trump at all to meddle in the war for political gain.
Click to expand...
Counter point: Many Americans want less involvement in foreign entanglements especially ones that do not affect them directly (with due respect to our Jewish friends and posters). Outside of the Evangelicals looking for an Ends Time scenario, seeing Trump and BiBi together is going to turn off people and energize people in swing states that don't like the Biden/Harris response in Gaza. It's probably as wash vote wise.
 
I only caught towards the end, but it was certainly obvious how much more respectful this debate was than the Presidential ones have been as of late. Even a lot of agreement on issues! Particularly on childcare topic which I caught. It's also clear to me that Vance doesn't actually believe some of the stuff he said about Jan 6 & the 2020 election, but he simply has to say it to be aligned to Trump. He tried to mostly deflect/change the subject without saying anything contradictory to Trump's viewpoint. This also aligns with what I've heard from someone who is an acquaintance of Vance from school -- "really smart guy, has large political aspirations that forms a lot of his talking points because he knows he has to 'play the game' to get ahead in the political arena."

I thought Walz did a good job on the 2020 election / Jan 6 issue which is where he did get more animated.

Overall, not likely to move the needle much, but the "presidential-ness" of Trump vs. Vance to me is ... pretty stark. And it's the VP that seems much more presidential to me, but I guess a lot of people these days are seeking more brashness.
 
I watched portions of the debate. I have seen enough of Vance's interviews that I knew he would be polished and smooth. I was a bit surprised that Vance wasn't more of a bully. It's a shame to be surprised, but it seemed relatively civil. As many mentioned, Walz seemed nervous at first and then found his stride. One thing that I did see that I thought Walz handled poorly was the Tiananmen square issue. He's already received flak for saying he was in a combat zone, he should have known that was coming. Something like, "I was in that area a lot around the time of the events of Tiananmen Square. I was not at Tiananmen Square that particular day but the protests weren't a singular event. It was a movement and I was certainly there during the movement and understand what that movement meant and am proud to have seen what I've seen. Where I was 30 years ago, is less important than where Donald Trump was on January 6th when he led a bloody attack on our democracy." or something like that.
 
nmduke2001 said:
I watched portions of the debate. I have seen enough of Vance's interviews that I knew he would be polished and smooth. I was a bit surprised that Vance wasn't more of a bully. It's a shame to be surprised, but it seemed relatively civil. As many mentioned, Walz seemed nervous at first and then found his stride. One thing that I did see that I thought Walz handled poorly was the Tiananmen square issue. He's already received flak for saying he was in a combat zone, he should have known that was coming. Something like, "I was in that area a lot around the time of the events of Tiananmen Square. I was not at Tiananmen Square that particular day but the protests weren't a singular event. It was a movement and I was certainly there during the movement and understand what that movement meant and am proud to have seen what I've seen. Where I was 30 years ago, is less important than where Donald Trump was on January 6th when he led a bloody attack on our democracy." or something like that.
Click to expand...
I agree. He seemed to not be prepared to answer questions about the Tiananmen Square topic. He became visibly flustered, talked about his record. Then when they asked him again he just gave an "oops" non-answer.
 
Furniture said:
The two low points for me were firstly listening to Don Jnr on CNN blaming MSM for the assassination attempts on his father and then Scott Jennings view point on Walz. That did it for me. No more CNN, which is a shame because I do enjoy so many of their anchors. My principles won’t allow me anymore to watch a network that gives a platform to people like that.
Click to expand...
Some. Things. Can't. Be. Both-sidesed. I am trying not to post here anymore because pretending this isn't an election where one side wants a dictatorship is too much of a lie for me.
 
Nrrrrvous said:
I agree. He seemed to not be prepared to answer questions about the Tiananmen Square topic. He became visibly flustered, talked about his record. Then when they asked him again he just gave an "oops" non-answer.
Click to expand...
Yup, both candidates fell hard when they had a chance to walk back obviously wrong statements/positions.

I don't understand why it's so hard to say something along the lines of, "Yes, I was wrong."
 
Btw, I finished watching "From Russia with Lev" last night. It's a documentary about Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian born hustler that was the key figure in the "perfect phone" call between Trump and Zelensky. The whole thing is fascinating and disturbing. You'll see how Rudy G. and Trump listened to this guy who was making up most of his story as he went along and how Lev was tasked with crazy jobs involving really important people in Russia and Ukraine. Definitely worth a watch.

 
As others have noted, Vance is really good at this. Walz came out of the gate bumblin' and stumblin'. Sometimes he said things that didn't make sense, or used words that people don't normally use, like saying 'current' in place of 'present.' There were times when I didn't really understand what he was trying to say. I found it annoying that he started so many of his answers with 'Look.' I find that particular vocal mannerism off-putting and a little bit condescending. His constant use of 'folks' in place of 'people' is also annoying to me (i am aware that perhaps others might consider it endearing).

All this is to say that I could easily listen to Vance talk for an hour, but an hour of Walz might drive me batty.

But i'm voting for him, anyway. I think he is correct on more of the issues, so I don't really care about annoyances or his personality or his word choices. But there may be voters out there who are not issue driven.
 
I am with all of you that it was a tie or a slight Vance win and, most significantly, not a needle mover. That said, it was most assuredly a missed opportunity by Walz.

Vance has been Minister of Crazy Talk on the campaign trail (and throughout his career). Walz should have been ready for the Yale-educated and smooth JD that showed up and armed with a couple lines designed to remind America that Vance is the "childless cat lady" and "migrants eating cats and dogs" guy. Walz should have been incredulous when Vance spoke about giving states the option on abortion and reminded the country that Vance has repeatedly called for a nation-wide 100% ban on abortions. Other than January 6th (a little bit) Walz allowed Vance to "sane wash" the crazy and that was a badly missed opportunity.

But, in 24 hours I doubt it will even be a footnote on the campaign. VP debates just ain't important at all. The most lasting impact will be if Trump hates that Vance is getting decent headlines out of this and if Trump decides he needs to debate again to prove that he can do just as good a job as his VP.
 
rsvman said:
All this is to say that I could easily listen to Vance talk for an hour, but an hour of Walz might drive me batty.
Click to expand...
I could listen to Vance talk for an hour, too. He's very smooth. But how much of what he said do you remember? For me, literally the only things that stick out from the entire debate are Walz not being able to answer the Tienanmen Square question, and Vance not being able to answer the one about the 2020 election results. Of the two, I know which was more important, and I think a lot of other people do, too.

Oh, three things. I also remember Vance getting muted when disputing the moderator.
 
JasonEvans said:
But, in 24 hours I doubt it will even be a footnote on the campaign. VP debates just ain't important at all. The most lasting impact will be if Trump hates that Vance is getting decent headlines out of this and if Trump decides he needs to debate again to prove that he can do just as good a job as his VP.
Click to expand...
Yep their job was so no harm and they both did that.

In the circles I run, I will say I think Vance had the more important job given Trump’s age and attempted assassinations. There are a few folks that wanted to see if Vance would be a viable president when something happens to Trump.
 
rsvman said:
As others have noted, Vance is really good at this. Walz came out of the gate bumblin' and stumblin'. Sometimes he said things that didn't make sense, or used words that people don't normally use, like saying 'current' in place of 'present.' There were times when I didn't really understand what he was trying to say. I found it annoying that he started so many of his answers with 'Look.' I find that particular vocal mannerism off-putting and a little bit condescending. His constant use of 'folks' in place of 'people' is also annoying to me (i am aware that perhaps others might consider it endearing).

All this is to say that I could easily listen to Vance talk for an hour, but an hour of Walz might drive me batty.

But i'm voting for him, anyway. I think he is correct on more of the issues, so I don't really care about annoyances or his personality or his word choices. But there may be voters out there who are not issue driven.
Click to expand...
My take is significantly different especially when it comes to the bolded part. I don't particularly enjoy being lied to by anybody for a full hour. Sure Vance is polished as a speaker, he's got his narratives at the ready to present and has packaged responses. But who enjoys being at a car dealership even for an hour? His spiel was all pretty transparent, yet I'll admit I'm carrying my bias with me on this as well. The early note on "not listening to experts" sent me over and gave me the feeling of condescension. And when it comes to interacting directly with people we've already seen how extremely awkward this goes with Vance. That's out of his comfort zone.

Walz is clearly not a person polished in the ways of a televised debate. Yet despite this I thought he carried himself just fine, not perfect of course - which no reasonable person would expect anyways, but was totally fine. He was a voice of reason and backed up claims. I think many were looking for Walz to be some sort of attack dog in this forum and that just doesn't appear to be who he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top