I thought that weird JD Vance did better than I expected, even if almost his entire shtick consisted of three things: taking about himself and his family, blaming every possible problem on immigrants, and saying that we need to produce more energy.
Tim Walz is clearly not a good debater in that he sometimes spoke too fast and mixed up his words. He was at his best when he got passionate about a topic that he clearly cared about, such as child care, housing, health care, and reproductive rights.
All in all, it was a more even-tempered debate than the Harris-creepy Trump one.
There was no clear winner or loser.
I felt like Vance managed to be less creepy. And he’s a better presenter than Walz. Although he was kind of shackled by an apparent belief that we’re all idiots and willing to believe Trump saved the Affordable Care Act he was trying so hard to kill. And also by what I assume is a desire to avoid chants of “Hang JD Vance!” Because he made a pretty weak comeback when asked about the 2020 election. His schtick of everything being the fault of the policies of Kamala Harris required some torturous mental gymnastics to make sense. If I went by his statement tonight I’d have to say we’ve lived in different countries for the last 8+ years.
Walz was not the best debater but it was interesting when he agreed with Vance. He had the advantage of positions that did not require suspending reality to make sense. And he did nail some of them. I think he did a pretty reasonable job on guns and abortion which can be hard to meaningfully talk about when reduced to soundbites. I mean you’re usually talking with people who insist on gun rights but shirk gun responsibilities by not knowing basic gun safety rules. Or idiots who want to claim you’re killing babies while referencing a fetus that still resembles a tadpole more than an infant. I wish Walz had asked how legal immigrants like the Haitians of Springfield were both so poor they must scavenge for pets in dark alleyways while also being so rich they can buy a house immediately after arriving in a foreign land.
Walz stumbled over a lie about Tienneman Square while Vance wanted us to believe Trump was better at diplomacy and the economy. Good thing I wasn’t drinking while he said that last bit, it wouldn’t have been everywhere.
Vance is a debater. Walz is a motivational speaker. You’d think that this would give Vance the advantage in a debate, and in general it did… but he also couldn’t quite hide his creepiness when he went off script, and Walz managed to score a few major hits here in there. As usual, “winning” is mostly a matter of personal feels… and veep debates don’t really matter anyway. This was irrelevant and will be ultimately forgotten.