Mehdi Hasan and I discuss our thoughts about the VP debate and give our feedback and critique on the lack of moderation and how Walz could have attacked Trump -Vance and made a better case.
Agreed - and I went to the high school where Walz taught Vance and the moderators threw up plenty of softballs and Walz just let them go. To Vance's claims of Dem censorship, Walz might have asked which party is trying to ban books. Why not say (well, he did, once), that Trump left a cratered economy and the Biden/Harris policies have resulted in the best recovery in the world? And why not push back on moderators with, "you've taken a false framing of this issue. Here's the truth about it......"
Walz did well, though, in talking about Minnesota's great record on stuff - like fewest teen pregnancies, housing innovation, feeding kids and so forth.....
In my view Walz was solid and focussed and the clear winner of this debate. Without being confrontational he steadily countered most every lie that came out of Vance’s mouth. He showed humanity and diplomacy and strength. He showed he puts policy that helps people before partisanship and that supporting what is good for people as he has done in Minnesota helps the economy. I’d like to see him and Kamala come out for a viable sustainable two state solution if Biden isn’t able to and also set up a Department of Peace. They’re good people at heart unlike Trump who is a sick Machiavellian monster and I feel if the right voices step up to the plate they will listen.
JD sucked and Walz managed to out-suck him. Who knew that Insane Clown was actually the savior of Obamacare? Insurrection? What insurrection? I could go on and on. Suffice to say ... Again (and again) Democrats have a will to lose.
C’mon guys. You know that AIPAC is making US policy in the Middle East, not our elected officials. The Dems are learning this lesson in the most painful way as they lost key primaries that should have been easily won.
THIS IS THE REASON why no one is taking a stand or even speaking A SINGLE word about the plight of the Palestinian people.
You can’t govern. You can’t make policy IF YOU LOSE. You are both smart. You should know that. Because it is that simple.
I suspect it was Insane Clown's threat that Kamala and Democrats had better tone down her rhetoric that was responsible for a used car balloon with Tim Walz's face that showed up in Tim Walz's place. I can't imagine anyone with any sense thinking this weak shit would win over white voters or any voters.
I thought Walz opened up looking a bit scared and got better over time to finish strong. I'd have liked a slightly less wide eyed look throughout, but don't think he would have gained much by being angrier or by appearing nastier. The "damning non-answer" reply worked partly because it stood out from the general tone. His finishing statement was much more emotionally appealing than Vance's although both were acceptable, and left the policy statements to the earlier portions rather than attempt summaries.
In contrast, Vance came across as a used car salesman. He managed to be much more likeable than I'd have liked, but he so clearly avoided answering several questions that it tainted his smoothness with a suspicious slickness that made him seem less trustworthy than Walz... and that is me admitting I wouldn't trust him as far as I could scoot him, so just attempting to view him through others' eyes and watching a few audience "takes" after the "debate".
I do wish Democrat debate prep teams would draw up a list of "debate" tactics used by the far right and train candidates on them, along with the most effective responses and a few good lines. For example when Vance mischaracterized the law in Minnesota as pertaining to the doctors' responsibility toward any potentially still living fetus following a medically necessary late term abortion, Walz said Vance had it wrong. Vance asked what it did say (which is to imply that Walz is wrong, and imply both that Walz doesn't know what "his" law says and that he Should know) and repeated himself as if it were reasonable to demand the wording of a specific line or lines of one law out of who knows how many laws, all probably fairly lengthy. It's a sub category of "if you're explaining you're losing" and relies on the artifice of pre-selected expertise. I may know nothing about the bible, the constitution or Tolstoy's War and Peace but if I come prepared with one verse by number or one obscure memorized line out the constitution or the novel, and demand you supply context or response, I can look knowledgeable and make you look ignorant, and you don't dare to make something up because you Know you'll be fact checked. Several times Vance broke into a gish gallop which Walz handled pretty well by addressing just a selected point, but I'd prefer he'd have roped in more by saying "several of those points were not true, for example" before he did. I heard Vance use several other fallacies and blends of fallacies which could have simply been called out in plain terms. He also used non-sequiturs such as when he stated he knows some women wish to end their pregnancies because they fear the consequences, and "Republicans need to do a better job of making women trust" them. There is quite a bit of slippage between there being negative social, economic and physical consequences to women and the "cure" being brain washing women to trust their "protectors". No mention of social, economic, medical care or child care or adult educational support for women sufficient to overcome all the negatives of an unplanned pregnancy but you are supposed to assume that's logically in between there - except that it isn't. For anyone alert to it, his deliberately sloppy moments stood out against his generally tighter speech.
These tactics are used because they are hard to effectively counter. Many are designed to be baffling and some are designed to lead the audience to judge wins and losses based on false cues, but some tend to leave audiences able to sense something unfair or "wrong" in them. Walz' core sense of home truths and logic led him to do fine. Proper training might have improved his performance some, but the emotional load of being faced with some of these tricks can be much more overwhelming than observers realize. He did fine. Both sides will crow about "winning" and the debate probably won't have moved the needle much, and if it did it will probably have moved it a bit toward the Democrat candidates.
I have long since been saying that Democrats have a will to lose. The first impeachment where Republicans designated screamer Gym Rat Jordan demanded to know where's the crime and all Democrats could do was wax nostalgic for the Federalist Papers and 1789. The second impeachment where Mitch The Talking Corpse outfoxed Schumer to give them a month cooling off period before the Senate trial. Biden being Bipartisan Biden for the first 2 years not lifting a finger to fight for the John Lewis and For The People voting rights bills. Merrick Garland scared shitless of prosecuting Insane Clown and only too happy to hand it off to Jack Smith and let the swat teams show up at his house. Fani Willis's weak self defense, paid cash etc. when all she had to do was state that every penny paid to Wade was legitimate which was never in dispute. Pitiful. We deserve everything that is coming to us if Insane Clown wins.
I was up and down for the whole debate. Vancypants was slick like an oily used car salesman. Governor Walz was too nice.
Agreed - and I went to the high school where Walz taught Vance and the moderators threw up plenty of softballs and Walz just let them go. To Vance's claims of Dem censorship, Walz might have asked which party is trying to ban books. Why not say (well, he did, once), that Trump left a cratered economy and the Biden/Harris policies have resulted in the best recovery in the world? And why not push back on moderators with, "you've taken a false framing of this issue. Here's the truth about it......"
Walz did well, though, in talking about Minnesota's great record on stuff - like fewest teen pregnancies, housing innovation, feeding kids and so forth.....
In my view Walz was solid and focussed and the clear winner of this debate. Without being confrontational he steadily countered most every lie that came out of Vance’s mouth. He showed humanity and diplomacy and strength. He showed he puts policy that helps people before partisanship and that supporting what is good for people as he has done in Minnesota helps the economy. I’d like to see him and Kamala come out for a viable sustainable two state solution if Biden isn’t able to and also set up a Department of Peace. They’re good people at heart unlike Trump who is a sick Machiavellian monster and I feel if the right voices step up to the plate they will listen.
JD sucked and Walz managed to out-suck him. Who knew that Insane Clown was actually the savior of Obamacare? Insurrection? What insurrection? I could go on and on. Suffice to say ... Again (and again) Democrats have a will to lose.
IMO
Thought it was almost boring, a waste of time, but Tim Walz closing was worth the wait!!
Did not like the sequence of questions.
Jdvance came across like a slithering snake & Walz - as a truthful gentleman, a human being. I like the way he paced the debate & imo WON the debate.
C’mon guys. You know that AIPAC is making US policy in the Middle East, not our elected officials. The Dems are learning this lesson in the most painful way as they lost key primaries that should have been easily won.
THIS IS THE REASON why no one is taking a stand or even speaking A SINGLE word about the plight of the Palestinian people.
You can’t govern. You can’t make policy IF YOU LOSE. You are both smart. You should know that. Because it is that simple.
I suspect it was Insane Clown's threat that Kamala and Democrats had better tone down her rhetoric that was responsible for a used car balloon with Tim Walz's face that showed up in Tim Walz's place. I can't imagine anyone with any sense thinking this weak shit would win over white voters or any voters.
Again (and again) Democrats have a will to lose.
I thought Walz opened up looking a bit scared and got better over time to finish strong. I'd have liked a slightly less wide eyed look throughout, but don't think he would have gained much by being angrier or by appearing nastier. The "damning non-answer" reply worked partly because it stood out from the general tone. His finishing statement was much more emotionally appealing than Vance's although both were acceptable, and left the policy statements to the earlier portions rather than attempt summaries.
In contrast, Vance came across as a used car salesman. He managed to be much more likeable than I'd have liked, but he so clearly avoided answering several questions that it tainted his smoothness with a suspicious slickness that made him seem less trustworthy than Walz... and that is me admitting I wouldn't trust him as far as I could scoot him, so just attempting to view him through others' eyes and watching a few audience "takes" after the "debate".
I do wish Democrat debate prep teams would draw up a list of "debate" tactics used by the far right and train candidates on them, along with the most effective responses and a few good lines. For example when Vance mischaracterized the law in Minnesota as pertaining to the doctors' responsibility toward any potentially still living fetus following a medically necessary late term abortion, Walz said Vance had it wrong. Vance asked what it did say (which is to imply that Walz is wrong, and imply both that Walz doesn't know what "his" law says and that he Should know) and repeated himself as if it were reasonable to demand the wording of a specific line or lines of one law out of who knows how many laws, all probably fairly lengthy. It's a sub category of "if you're explaining you're losing" and relies on the artifice of pre-selected expertise. I may know nothing about the bible, the constitution or Tolstoy's War and Peace but if I come prepared with one verse by number or one obscure memorized line out the constitution or the novel, and demand you supply context or response, I can look knowledgeable and make you look ignorant, and you don't dare to make something up because you Know you'll be fact checked. Several times Vance broke into a gish gallop which Walz handled pretty well by addressing just a selected point, but I'd prefer he'd have roped in more by saying "several of those points were not true, for example" before he did. I heard Vance use several other fallacies and blends of fallacies which could have simply been called out in plain terms. He also used non-sequiturs such as when he stated he knows some women wish to end their pregnancies because they fear the consequences, and "Republicans need to do a better job of making women trust" them. There is quite a bit of slippage between there being negative social, economic and physical consequences to women and the "cure" being brain washing women to trust their "protectors". No mention of social, economic, medical care or child care or adult educational support for women sufficient to overcome all the negatives of an unplanned pregnancy but you are supposed to assume that's logically in between there - except that it isn't. For anyone alert to it, his deliberately sloppy moments stood out against his generally tighter speech.
These tactics are used because they are hard to effectively counter. Many are designed to be baffling and some are designed to lead the audience to judge wins and losses based on false cues, but some tend to leave audiences able to sense something unfair or "wrong" in them. Walz' core sense of home truths and logic led him to do fine. Proper training might have improved his performance some, but the emotional load of being faced with some of these tricks can be much more overwhelming than observers realize. He did fine. Both sides will crow about "winning" and the debate probably won't have moved the needle much, and if it did it will probably have moved it a bit toward the Democrat candidates.
I have long since been saying that Democrats have a will to lose. The first impeachment where Republicans designated screamer Gym Rat Jordan demanded to know where's the crime and all Democrats could do was wax nostalgic for the Federalist Papers and 1789. The second impeachment where Mitch The Talking Corpse outfoxed Schumer to give them a month cooling off period before the Senate trial. Biden being Bipartisan Biden for the first 2 years not lifting a finger to fight for the John Lewis and For The People voting rights bills. Merrick Garland scared shitless of prosecuting Insane Clown and only too happy to hand it off to Jack Smith and let the swat teams show up at his house. Fani Willis's weak self defense, paid cash etc. when all she had to do was state that every penny paid to Wade was legitimate which was never in dispute. Pitiful. We deserve everything that is coming to us if Insane Clown wins.