I think we agree? What I mean is that JD Vance's "standout moments" hurt him and reinforced the perception that he is callous, and to borrow Walz's phrasing, weird. Walz didn't have many particularly quotable moments, but he held his ground and could tout Minnesota as a poster child for good healthcare, while Vance had to slither around defending a policy that damns women in red states to death and disability. Nothing Walz said will end up on a bumper sticker, but he forced Vance to calmly tout the policy while shrugging off the very real colateral damage (just like Vance did for gun control a few weeks ago).
I maintain that Walz won easily by any reasonable definition of a debate, although you'e right. No quotable zingers except maybe the part about a damning non-answer, which in my view takes the cake.
I think we agree? What I mean is that JD Vance's "standout moments" hurt him and reinforced the perception that he is callous, and to borrow Walz's phrasing, weird. Walz didn't have many particularly quotable moments, but he held his ground and could tout Minnesota as a poster child for good healthcare, while Vance had to slither around defending a policy that damns women in red states to death and disability. Nothing Walz said will end up on a bumper sticker, but he forced Vance to calmly tout the policy while shrugging off the very real colateral damage (just like Vance did for gun control a few weeks ago).
I maintain that Walz won easily by any reasonable definition of a debate, although you'e right. No quotable zingers except maybe the part about a damning non-answer, which in my view takes the cake.