Vaenyr
Ancient Mariner
Obviously I also think that the VP debate won't meaningfully affect anything. Trump supporters will be happy with Vance; the anti-Trump voters won't suddenly change their stance on Vance.
While I get that optics-wise Vance appeared to have done well, I think he floundered quite a bit when talking about anything of substance. He dodged multiple questions, contradicted himself in the timespan of 2 minutes and brazenly lied a bunch of times. Walz' Tiananmen Square answer was weirdly weak, but I think getting the month wrong by two months for something that happened 35 years ago isn't this huge gotcha, especially when the majority of things that were fact checked were claims by Vance, some of which were lies that he's told repeatedly. I also don't think the "Harris was VP for 4 years, why didn't she do stuff?" is a good line of attack, because you can easily flip it over. Trump was president for 4 years, yet didn't deliver on his promises. Not sure how wise it is for the GOP to pursue this line, but it wouldn't be the first time that they'd chase something, only for it to blow up in their faces.
I also think we shouldn't underestimate Walz' capabilities. His record as governor is quite impressive, while the same cannot be said about Vance's record as senator. Obviously not a 1:1 comparison and we can argue how much of an impact the VP has at the end of the day, but talking purely about optics Walz can point to things he got done, things that are popular with the general public, and promise the electorate "we can do this for all of America".
While I get that optics-wise Vance appeared to have done well, I think he floundered quite a bit when talking about anything of substance. He dodged multiple questions, contradicted himself in the timespan of 2 minutes and brazenly lied a bunch of times. Walz' Tiananmen Square answer was weirdly weak, but I think getting the month wrong by two months for something that happened 35 years ago isn't this huge gotcha, especially when the majority of things that were fact checked were claims by Vance, some of which were lies that he's told repeatedly. I also don't think the "Harris was VP for 4 years, why didn't she do stuff?" is a good line of attack, because you can easily flip it over. Trump was president for 4 years, yet didn't deliver on his promises. Not sure how wise it is for the GOP to pursue this line, but it wouldn't be the first time that they'd chase something, only for it to blow up in their faces.
I also think we shouldn't underestimate Walz' capabilities. His record as governor is quite impressive, while the same cannot be said about Vance's record as senator. Obviously not a 1:1 comparison and we can argue how much of an impact the VP has at the end of the day, but talking purely about optics Walz can point to things he got done, things that are popular with the general public, and promise the electorate "we can do this for all of America".