Another take on J.D,’s and Tim’s debate last night. Tim came off the line rather slow last night. This is like the gearing in some automobiles where you are slow off the line and gain greater speed as you go along. It was pretty clear Tim owned J.D. at the end. Will it change votes, probably not. “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse. Walz versus Vance Governor Walz seemed nervous starting out but closed strong. He scored points when J.D. Vance refused to disavow family separation and pretended that his ticket would support shaking hands and “coming back together” if they lost the election. But Vance was slick, rehearsed and had a good presentation. He had obviously been coached to
Topics:
Angry Bear considers the following as important: politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications
Joel Eissenberg writes Will DOGE be an exercise in futility?
Bill Haskell writes The spider’s web called Healthcare Insurance
Bill Haskell writes Funding Public Goods Problematic??? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire
Another take on J.D,’s and Tim’s debate last night. Tim came off the line rather slow last night. This is like the gearing in some automobiles where you are slow off the line and gain greater speed as you go along. It was pretty clear Tim owned J.D. at the end.
Will it change votes, probably not. “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse. Walz versus Vance
Governor Walz seemed nervous starting out but closed strong. He scored points when J.D. Vance refused to disavow family separation and pretended that his ticket would support shaking hands and “coming back together” if they lost the election. But Vance was slick, rehearsed and had a good presentation. He had obviously been coached to highlight areas of agreement with Walz so he could appear reasonable, and the absence of all but the most basic fact-checking during the debate meant he was able to get away with attractive but untrue claims about issues like never calling for a national abortion ban and support for the Affordable Care Act.
Vance’s views on abortion can be found in this issue (above). “J.D. Vance Wants Police to Track People Who Have Abortions,” The Lever.
J.D. Vance did all he could to pretend January 6 never happened and that Donald Trump was a normal political candidate. If only voters would forget the 2020 election, Vance might get away with it.
Walz asked J.D. (alias Vance) if Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance responded,
“Tim, I’m focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?” Walz responded perfectly:
“That’s a damning non-answer.”
J.D. said they want to win women’s trust and that voters want Trump to restore common sense. He sounded good saying it, but there wasn’t a lot there for voters who are interested in more than surface level appeal.
At the end of the debate, the issue is:
Will it move the needle in any way?
The answer is, not likely. The kind of folks who self-selected to watch it are largely already decided. This was the kind of traditional debate that is more likely to lock voters into their preconceived picks than to change their minds. Perhaps the awkward, painful minute where Vance tried to mansplain the moderators, repeatedly talking over them as they tried to limit him to the time he was allotted by the rules, might have some impact. What mattered so much to J.D. Vance? He wanted to lie some more about immigrants in Ohio.
Even if no minds are changed, the debate was still illuminating. J.D. Vance is as uncommitted to the truth as Donald Trump is.
The election is in thirty-four days. Make sure you’ve got plans to vote.
Another place where I subscribe and am able to submit a recital from it.