The decisions have been made. Vance dominated the debateDemocrats are literally imploding.https://www.newsweek.com/who-won-vice-presidential-debate-vp-vance-walz-1961789Who Won the VP Debate, Vance or Walz? Darvio Morrow —JD VanceOhio Senator JD Vance emerged as the victor in a refreshing debate that was heavy on substance and light on bombastic behavior. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz came across as likable but ill prepared to go up against a skilled debater. Vance was able to beat back the caricature of himself presented by the media, Democrats and his own earlier missteps. But most importantly, both candidates behaved like adults and gave the country a much needed break from vitriol. Both were willing to agree with each other at times and they gave each other the benefit of the doubt. Both were more substantive and presidential than the top of their respective tickets in the previous debate. Civility ruled the day tonight, and that's good for the entire country.Bethany Mandel—JD VanceJD Vance's performance at the Vice Presidential debate is exactly why he was chosen as Donald Trump's running mate. He is the wonky and shrewd version of the former President; able to cooly deploy arguments with facts, accompanied by just the right amount of emotion. Sophie Vershobow, a liberal writer fumed during the debate on X, "Trump says crazy things in a crazy way and Vance says crazy things in a normal way." Vance is an effective communicator for Trump's messages and speaks to normal Americans in their language, and his opposition finds that terrifying.
David Faris—JD VanceJD Vance was an effective messenger for the narrative that Trump was incapable of delivering—that Republicans will take us back to 2019. Unflappable and often craven, Vance was relentlessly on message. Tim Walz came off as authentic—often authentically flummoxed—and relatable. He spoke movingly about reproductive rights and pinned the Dobbs decision and other disasters on Trump. But overall, he left too many opportunities to corner Vance on the table. Republicans must be wondering what the outlook of this race might be had they nominated a younger, saner person, like Vance, capable of making sense for 90 consecutive minutesDoug Gordon—Tim WalzTim Walz, who is clearly more comfortable at a state fair then in a debate setting, more than held his own against a flood of lies and misinformation from JD Vance. The debate was substantive but likely will not do much to change the trajectory of this race. Vice Presidential debates rarely matter much, and I doubt tonight will be the exception to that rule. With the Harris/Walz ticket leading in the key metrics that matter at this stage—money, momentum and organization—tonight served its purpose for Democrats. Continued the momentum. A win for Walz and Democrats.Aron Solomon —JD VanceIn tonight's surprisingly stellar battle of presidential proxies, we learned a few key things. The first is that JD Vance excelled at the intersection of polished and prepared rather than at his usual intersection of unctuous and snake-like. All of that said, the winner in what should be a unanimous decision was JD Vance. He debated like a well-trained Yale Law grad rather than his opponent, who, absent one very timely fact check on abortion, doesn't appear to be as deeply steeped in the art of debate. Will tonight actually matter over the next 34 days? Doubtful, but a win is a win, so kudos to JD Vance for claiming the victor's podium tonight.
Matt Robison—JD VanceVance won. He pulled off a deft trifecta that practically deserves an EGOT. He successfully sane-washed former President Trump's most inane ideas (Trump's tariff plan would actually blow inflation through the roof) and the threat he poses. He successfully and repeatedly tied Vice President Kamala Harris to President Biden. And he shook the etch-a-sketch on his own woeful public image with Yale Law School polish on his answers, re-spinning his personal story, and offering humanizing warmth (a far cry from his childless cat lady persona). Vice Presidential debates rarely matter. This one may … for 2028: because if Trump loses, Vance has now positioned himself as the MAGA heir apparent.Michael Tracey—TieApproximately five minutes were spent in tonight's debate on the conflagration exploding in the Middle East, and the most JD Vance could muster is that it would be exclusively "up to Israel" to determine how they'd go after "the bad guys"—even if that would consist of launching a preemptive strike against Iran. The fallacy, of course, is that any such Israeli operation could only be conducted with the military, diplomatic, and intelligence backing of the U.S. Thus Vance was effectively calling for the current "blank check" pro-Israel policy to continue without interruption. Tim Walz likewise kicked off the evening by reciting even blander pro-Israel talking points, appearing to briefly struggle with his recollection of the cliches that had undoubtedly been drilled into his head by Democratic handlers. Blessedly, therefore, both candidates became certified losers within the first five minutes. Walz also bizarrely managed to make the case that his youthful excursions to China somehow equipped him to take a more hardline stance against Xi Jinping—apparently impermissible was any admission that the insights Young Tim gleaned might have inclined him to pursue less bellicose relations with a burgeoning superpower. Oh well.
Patrick T. Brown—JD VanceJD Vance's entrance to the national stage this summer was a bit wrong-footed, with viral falsehoods and controversial comments helping paint the picture of a "weird" conservative firebrand. His performance on Tuesday's debate stage was a near-perfect reintroduction to the America people, showcasing his command of family policy, a strong answer on abortion and support for parents, and putting forward the strongest national case for the Trump agenda voters have heard to date. Walz started off nervously and never fully recovered, despite some friendly moderators. Republicans who want to see a positive, compelling vision for their party in a post-Trump era, whether that's in January 2025 or beyond, should feel confident about Vance's performance tonight.Arick Wierson—TieAfter a shaky start, Governor Tim Walz eventually found his footing, particularly as the conversation veered towards domestic issues which are in his wheelhouse. But there is no denying that JD Vance is a skilled debater who definitely won on style points. Around the 28-minute mark the Republican Vice Presidential candidate showed a soupçon of contempt for CBS debate female moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O'Donnell—playing into the narrative that Vance has a misogynistic view of women. But for Democrats who were hoping tonight's debate would finally convince undecided voters that JD Vance is a scary figure may walk away a smidge disappointed. Debate Verdict: Draw.
Eric Schmeltzer—Tim WalzListen, I won't try to spin you into thinking this debate will be consequential. It won't be. VP debates never are, except for Sarah Palin reinforcing everything dangerous about her being a heartbeat away from the presidency in 2008. JD Vance comported himself much better than Donald Trump did in his debate. Vance was polished and put on his best face, several times seeming deferential to Walz's character. This was strategic and fairly smart. Vance was expecting Walz to go after him on a personal level (i.e., "weird"). By being nice to Walz, it would make Walz look petty and childish if he went on a personal attack. That said, Vance also continually refused to defend Donald Trump's worst plans, ideas, and comments. His sidestep of those questions was wider than the Grand Canyon, and I believe voters noticed. Meanwhile, Tim Walz came off as unpolished, but oddly, that was a good counter to Vance's smooth presentation because it underscored Walz as a genuine, regular guy and not a slick politician. On the issues, Walz won, most notably on the issue of abortion, where he pummeled Vance, who seemed to keep apologizing for the horrible things he and Trump want to do to women. That was Vance's worst moment, and it was on an issue killing the Trump campaign. Overall, while Walz did win, it was a boring debate that likely won't change the trajectory of the election.
Jonathan Tobin—JD VanceFrom his opening gaffe in which he said "Israel" when he meant to refer to "Iran" and its terrorist proxies, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was a disaster. He improved a bit over the course of two hours, especially when the moderators served him softballs on topics like Jan. 6. But it's the low points that will be remembered. Most specifically, his convoluted and disingenuous explanation for his lie about claiming to be at the Tiananmen Square massacre which culminated in his admission that he is a "knucklehead." He had other gaffes including a puzzling answer about "becoming friends with school shooters," when he must have meant something else. While he seemed likable, Democrats had to be thinking about how their antisemitic left-wing pressure. But the main takeaway was the excellent performance of Sen. JD Vance on the stage. He was poised, polished, knowledgeable and, above all, empathetic. In this way, he debunked the Democratic/liberal media smears about him being "weird" or extreme. Instead, he illustrated how "common good' national conservatives can appeal to both working class voters and women. What made his performance even more remarkable was that he did so well despite the egregious bias of the two liberal CBS moderators, Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan. The questions were mostly composed of standard Democratic talking points while ignoring many important issues like China and Ukraine. They kept asking Walz if he wanted to rebut Vance but didn't offer Vance the same opportunity. Their low point was when they tried to fact check Vance on immigration and then turned off his mic when he fact-checked their fact-check. Vice presidential debates never decide the outcome of elections. But to the extent that this debate impacts any votes or continues the reversal of the momentum that Harris has had since the coup against Biden and then her defeat of Trump in their debate, there's no question that Vance won by a mile.
Literally who are these people and literally why should I give a shit about their opinion?
When reposting the article, it appears OP left out two of the opinions. Not sure if that was an accident or an intentional omission.>Daniel R. DePetris—Tie>On foreign policy issues, both candidates fell short of expectations. JD Vance claimed that Donald Trump delivered effective deterrence against Iran, yet conveniently failed to mention that Tehran struck two U.S. military bases in Iraq with ballistic missiles days after a U.S. drone killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Tim Walz blamed Donald Trump for having an affinity for dictators yet apparently fails to realize that interaction with unsavory people, moral scruples notwithstanding, is often a part of the job as commander in chief. On the most pressing issue of the day, the escalating violence in the Middle East, Vance and Walz chose to trumpet generalities over specific policies. Vance, for instance, needs to explain why he thinks it's wise for the U.S. to provide unconditional support to Israel if it decides to conduct a preemptive attack on Iran—particularly when tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region could receive the brunt of any Iranian retaliation that ensues. Similarly, Walz must explain what a potential Kamala Harris administration would do to put Iran's nuclear program back in a box and what tough but necessary concessions it's willing to offer to get there. I suppose we will all have to wait a little longer for actual plans.
>Udi Ofer—Tie>At a time when the world is on fire, we need American leadership that will help bring more security and human rights to the globe. Neither candidate offered a strong vision for America's place in the world. But when it came to domestic policies, this was a substantive and respectful debate, rejecting personal attacks. At times, Vance delivered his message better than Walz, but Vance also resorted again to fearmongering tactics, particularly when it came to immigrants, and he refused to accept the results of the 2020 elections. I agree more with Walz on the issues, but voters were offered clear policy choices and will choose the candidate who better reflects their policy preferences, so it's a tie in that sense. This was a better night for policy wonks.
>>1348569>Vance dominated the debate>Democrats are literally imploding.https://www.newsweek.com/who-won-vice-presidential-debate-vp-vance-walz-1961789>retarded opinionsNo, and nope.https://i.postimg.cc/SKbsQKfX/poll-after-walz-vance-debate.png>who hosted the debateCope, OP.>Who Won the VP Debate, Vance or Walz?Doesn't matter. Vance doesn't matter to Trump.In the only debate that mattered, Harris still destroyed Trump. I don't mind, and you don't matter.
>>1348585lmao Cope.
>>1348585Implode harder, demoshill. Hope you enjoy tent life, your not going to ever leave it, and no, I'm not going to spare any change for you when you ask me on the street
>>1348586>Vance fact checkedCope, Couchfucker
>>1348588What this the fact check the article mentioned where the fact check was wrong, and Vance corrected them, which embarrassed them so bad they quickly cut off his mic?
>>1348587https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vp-debate-moderators-fact-check-republican-reaction-00182132>Republicans are livid after the debate moderators fact-checked JD VanceGood. And it's not just Vance imploding harder as the insecure >>1348587 demonstrates. Even better.
>>1348590Why would Vance implode after winning a debate?
>>1348592>Vance winning a debate?ftfy
>>1348594Your post makes no sense shill.
>>1348597JD 'Weird' Vance shills make no sense
HURR, NOOOO FACT CHECK!JD, WE FACT CHECK! NONONO, WE MOVE ON, NO TIME TO ARGUE!Fucking bitches. What an absolute joke, AGAIN!
>>1348603>What an absolute joke, AGAIN!Yes. Like Trump in that debate, Vance is a joke in this one.
>>1348588He completely ripped apart that fact check. I don't know why you retards keep bringing it up.
>>1348569Vance has tone and delivery that trump lacks, but he's still spewing bullshit. Telling falsehoods with a confident tone is all most Americans need to hear in order to believe. Read the transcript of his responses, he's saying the same insane things trump does, but in a more refined way.
Vance won hard, Tim was unable to portrait him as some weird guy like they have been doing for months, it was a big fail for democrats and saying otherwise is just complete delusion
lmao the cope from Kamalabro's. Walz was in such agreement with Vance that I think he will be voting Trump-Vance on Nov 4.
>>1348620I seriously think Vance had the best debate we have seen since Obama-Romney. He was able to explain some fairly complex ideas in a way that the everyman can understand. He was able to do something Republicans really struggle with - looking empathetic. He also managed, for the first time ever, to put a positive spin on the abortion issue.
Are right-wingers really trying to spin Vance bitching that he can't get away with baselessly incorrectly claiming the Haitian refugees are illegally residing in the country is actually him somehow owning the libs?
>>1348615https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vp-debate-moderators-fact-check-republican-reaction-00182132>Republicans are livid after the debate moderators fact-checked JD Vance>if 'he completely ripped apart that fact check', what have they got to be livid about?>Rightards' opinions are eternally wrong and don't have the right to be listened toIn Soviet CBS debate, fact check completely ripped up them. But you rightards keep thinking otherwise. But then, Vance shills can't think.
>>1348624You still lost.
>>1348624>>if 'he completely ripped apart that fact check', what have they got to be livid about?They did something they said they would not do. We can be happy with how Vance handled it while also being unhappy at the way the moderators conducted themselves.
>if 'he completely ripped apart that fact check', what have Republicans got to be livid about?You still lost, >>1348625
>>1348629>while also being unhappyVance whined like a bitch. He's a cuck. Like his wife who was sitting on that couch at that time.
>>1348633Walz lost and you're seething
>being unhappyhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/10/02/who-won-the-vp-debate-last-night-heres-what-snap-polls-and-betting-markets-say/>Walz ahead 3 out of 5 post-debate polls>Trump cultists' opinions proved wrongWalz won and you're seething >>1348636, because rightards' biased opinions don't have the right to be listened to.
>>1348638>muh snap polls If Walz won, you wouldn't be here seething xD
I thought Vance easily won this debate because he lied most of the time and wasn't called on it. He followed the rules of the debate and was the better performer. Walz was Jeb-tier at best, but was honest at least.That's always been our choice: smooth-talking psychopathic liars, or clumsy basically honest people. Some choice.
>>1348633Only straight up eunuch troons haven't slid their cock between a pair of firm yet soft sofa pillows.How did you get to be such a fag?
>>1348640>n... no he lied! >n... no Walz is j... just a knucklehead! lmao seethe
>>1348640Tim was so honest the moderators had to push him to actually answer the question of where he was during the Hong Kong protests, he's a fucking joke
>>1348646China protests*
>>1348636>>1348639>muh biased opinions>being unhappyLike Vance you're seething here in /news/ or you wouldn't be here if you were so secure about a so-called 'win'.>the chad hero doesn't look back at the villain-obliterating explosionThe fact you're here in /news/ along with all other rightards proves you're insecure.
>>1348651>Like Vance you're seething here in /news/ or you wouldn't be here if you were so secure about a so-called 'win'.lmao I came here to mock you, because I knew you fags would be having a complete meltdown. Enjoying every second of it.
>>1348646Kek good point
>>1348644not seething at all. just stating facts as you did. Vance can lie convincingly with a straight face and that is invaluable in politics. Walz is just some guy. The difference is that Walz will never be president but everyone assumes that Vance will take the job midway through Trump's term.
>the chad hero doesn't look back at the villain-obliterating explosion because he's secure>and >>1348656 looked backIt's not only JD 'Being Unhappy' Vance that is insecure.
>>1348661>Vance can lie convincinglylmao the cope. >>1348666You'd do a better job if you didnt sound so absolutely assblasted.
>>1348675are you wearing eyeliner right now?
>>1348675You'd do a better job of not being so absolutely assblasted if you weren't so insecure by being in /news/ now and in the future. The fact you need to be here proves your insecurity. The chad hero doesn't need to look back at the villain-obliterating explosion. So why do you need to be here if you're so secure about Vance's 'win'?
>>1348678>So why do you need to be here if you're so secure about Vance's 'win'?To enjoy the meltdown xD
>>1348680>the chad hero doesn't need to look back at the villain-obliterating explosion because he's secureThanks for admitting you're insecure. In Soviet /news/, Chernobyl is you.
Why are Democrats imploding in this thread tho?
Why are Republicans so insecure, though?
>>1348680>>1348684>maybe if I say they're melting down they won't notice Vance lost the debateNo.
>>1348569No he didn't.
>>1348693Well maybe when you stop smoking fentanyl, move out of your tent and get a real job people may care about your opinion a little more
>>1348706No one knows what you're talking about but you.
>>1348686Wow, your post is the very definition of projection
>>1348684>>1348731Wow, your posts define Projection.
>>1348736>I know you are but what am iLeftist discourse has really gone into the shitter in the last few years. That's slang for the tpilet, ranjesh.
>>1348739I like how you imagine you're arguing with leftists.
yep, he's still projecting
>>1348736How much do you get paid to just repeat what someone says?
>>1348740lmaoFucking come on, buddy.
Who has the best eye game - Vance or Harris?Here's the tale of the tape:HarrisPros - doesn't use a lotCons - she's hideous and it doesn't helpVancePro - uses just enough without going overboardCons - borderline creepy/pedo
>>1348755Good post
not a shocker, walz is a chinese agent
>>1348569It was pretty funny watching walz beg for mercy on live TV with the moderators scrambling to debate in his place
>>1348742Are you paid to reply to posts in /news/? If not, you should reconsider your life. Same goes for the coping rightards ITT. 3 out of 5 polls prove your opinions wrong. 2020 proved your opinions more than wrong. Rightards whose opinions are eternally wrong are always reduced to coping.
>>1349024How much do you get paid to just repeat what someone says?
>>1348577Important people. Very, very important people. The best, many many people have said so.
>>1349088You clearly shill for free. You should reconsider your life. Why should I care about your opinions? They're always wrong, so that's one reason why I don't.
>>1348641Can sofas get pregnant?
>>1348778Downvoted
>>1348641>pillows>>1349096>Can sofas get pregnant?In Soviet America, pillows have already fucked Mike Lindell.
If your metric for winning is "how many shameless lies can someone tell in 90 minutes", then Vance is the reigning undisputed champion of winning debates. This dude seriously tried to claim Trump tried to save Obamacare when he was in office
>>1349107The metric used for "winning" in this scenario is popular opinion, not your opinion
>>1349153"Vance told lies" isn't an opinion. It's a fact.
>>1349188Are you having a melty over the fact Vance won the debate according to most people who watched it?
shills love to huff their own lies
>>1349299You're having a melty over the fact that others don't agree with your wrong opinions. You reek of insecurity.
>>1349310What is my "wrong opinion"? The fact that it's being reported that Vance won the debate? That's a fact
>>1349318>Many people are sayinglel
>>1349107Preach it. All the praise he’s getting is for him being a smooth talker, as if it just doesn’t fucking matter that most of what he said was complete bullshit.
>>1349322Honestly, the same exact shit happened with the Trump-Biden debate. People were acting like Trump was somehow a master orator who rhetorically dominated Biden, when in reality he just lied and said crazy shit (like post-birth abortions) just as much as he always does. He just looked comparatively better than the Alzheimer's patient he was up against, so he won by default, but it's not like he actually performed well.
>>1349107If you think about it, the metrics for winning are flipped for both sides. Vance spent a lot of time talking about policy and treating Walz like a human being. He kept himself composed, expertly dodged answering questions and let Walz finish sentences uninterrupted. This is the kind of shit Democrats look for in their politicians. Trump fans don't like any of that. They like funny nicknames and unhinged rants and calling your opponents satanic cat eaters. JD Vance may have performed better in terms of debate tactics but thinking this is going to appeal to Trump voters is like thinking a championship chess match will appeal to retarded toddlers. Besides, Trump incoherently rambled and didn't talk about a single policy during his debate with Harris and conservatives all claim he won. JD Vance could've walked on stage and spent 45 minutes aggressively shitting into his own cupped hand and MAGA sycophants would've called it a decisive victory. Not sure why we're even pretending like debate performances even matter to conservative maniacs.
