I am not so sure Vance won the debate, first of all, and commentators seem to be missing the good lines. So, for example, in his answer about his time in China, Walz fumbled a bit, yes, but then he turned that fumble into some very good info, info that no one is reporting on, including his taking all kinds of students to China and wishing that Donald Trump could have taken one of those trips, because if he had, he wouldn't be cozying up to Xi! That seemed like an excellent recovery to me, yet no one has reported on it that I have seen.
Second, Walz spoke with passion and with details about several specific programs in Minnesota. Those details and that passion mattered to me. So much for the media wanting specifics, I guess! I also thought he connected a couple of important dots in Harris's housing initiative: he was able to buy his first home because of a veteran-sponsored loan. Huh! Fancy that. A leg up . . .
And third, Walz was very good on gun violence. Sometimes, it's just the guns. And he tied it to a question about his changing his mind. The young people viewing the debate mocked Vance for saying stronger windows and better locks on doors would do the job!!
Finally, Walz communicated knowledge, competence, and sincerity. Along with a deep understanding of how government works. I agree, no real zingers, until the end. But I didn't want that from him. I wanted what he gave: a grasp of reality from a real human being who cares about his fellow human beings. He LIVES his faith, and it shows.
Yes! Plus his state’s early legislation codifying Women’s reproductive rights as in Rowe vs Wade.
Commentators were weirdly oblivious ignoring what many listeners heard. Also, other than new or young voters, I think alleged “GOP” fence sitters are just being coy, and most definitely not courageous.
I believe JD Vance clearly "performed" better, but it was transparently a performance, and that doesn't mean it lands better with the voters - especially since most will see it simply via clips.
He was an excellent actor. However, we're not casting someone in a play/movie, we're looking for a human person... Well I suppose at least some - and i HOPE most - of us are...
I am not so sure Vance won the debate, first of all, and commentators seem to be missing the good lines. So, for example, in his answer about his time in China, Walz fumbled a bit, yes, but then he turned that fumble into some very good info, info that no one is reporting on, including his taking all kinds of students to China and wishing that Donald Trump could have taken one of those trips, because if he had, he wouldn't be cozying up to Xi! That seemed like an excellent recovery to me, yet no one has reported on it that I have seen.
Second, Walz spoke with passion and with details about several specific programs in Minnesota. Those details and that passion mattered to me. So much for the media wanting specifics, I guess! I also thought he connected a couple of important dots in Harris's housing initiative: he was able to buy his first home because of a veteran-sponsored loan. Huh! Fancy that. A leg up . . .
And third, Walz was very good on gun violence. Sometimes, it's just the guns. And he tied it to a question about his changing his mind. The young people viewing the debate mocked Vance for saying stronger windows and better locks on doors would do the job!!
Finally, Walz communicated knowledge, competence, and sincerity. Along with a deep understanding of how government works. I agree, no real zingers, until the end. But I didn't want that from him. I wanted what he gave: a grasp of reality from a real human being who cares about his fellow human beings. He LIVES his faith, and it shows.
Yes! Plus his state’s early legislation codifying Women’s reproductive rights as in Rowe vs Wade.
Commentators were weirdly oblivious ignoring what many listeners heard. Also, other than new or young voters, I think alleged “GOP” fence sitters are just being coy, and most definitely not courageous.
I think this is a good take.
I believe JD Vance clearly "performed" better, but it was transparently a performance, and that doesn't mean it lands better with the voters - especially since most will see it simply via clips.
He was an excellent actor. However, we're not casting someone in a play/movie, we're looking for a human person... Well I suppose at least some - and i HOPE most - of us are...
Excellent analysis.