Democrats thought Walz won; Republicans thought Vance won. Independents leaned towards Walz. But basically it was a draw— a dull, forgettable draw. Melanie Mason: “There was no decisive winner… according to a Politico/Focaldata snap poll of likely voters... The survey found that party identification strongly shaped the perceptions of people who watched the debate: Democrats overwhelmingly sided with Walz, while Republicans picked Vance as the winner. But Walz had a commanding advantage with independents, 58 percent of whom sided with the Minnesota governor while 42 percent gave Vance the edge.”
Vance’s most elucidating line of the night was when the moderators caught him in one of his blatant lies and he whined “Margaret, the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check!” I doubt the debate flipped even one voter. In fact, I doubt many people watched all the way through. Vance was a slicker, more polished version of Trump… a polite lying machine. He flopped badly when it came to substance.
Like most observers, the NY Times concluded he destroyed himself over the question of whether or not Trump lost the 2020 election and how he handled it. “Vance spent much of the night,” reported Shane Goldmacher and Reid Epstein, “offering explanations for Trump’s policies that sounded accessible. But in one of the debate’s final exchanges, Vance found himself without an explanation for Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election. Vance tried, making the eyebrow-raising argument that Trump ‘peacefully gave over power on January the 20th.’ ‘Did he lose the 2020 election?’ Walz questioned Vance. Vance dodged and pivoted. He argued that the Democrats were the real threat to democracy and claimed that Harris censored Americans, citing old Facebook policies. He had no answer to the question itself. The exchange showed both the limits and requirements of serving as Trump’s running mate. “That’s why Mike Pence isn’t on this stage,” Walz said. By the end of the evening, the Harris campaign said it was making an ad off the Jan. 6 moment.”
Will Saletan explained why it was the only question that mattered in the debate. What voters want to know— and are entitled to know— is “whether they would certify the results of the next presidential election. And on that subject, Vance gave a non-answer that instantly disqualifies him: He refused to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Certification of elections was a central factor in Vance’s audition to become Trump’s running mate. Other contenders for the job demonstrated, as Vance did, that they were sufficiently right-wing or loyal to MAGA. But, as Thomas Joscelyn has pointed out in The Bulwark, Vance stood out in one respect: He was the one who signaled most clearly that he was willing to push constitutional boundaries to do Trump’s bidding. In February, Vance went on ABC’s This Week and made it clear that unlike Mike Pence, he would have collaborated in Trump’s scheme to block the certification of electoral votes on January 6, 2021.
Q: Would you have certified the election results had you been vice president?
Vance: If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors. And I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there.
“Vance was given an opportunity to dispel concerns that he would use the vice presidency to overturn another election,” wrote Saletan. “He declined that opportunity. In fact, he refused to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election. To this day, Trump insists that the 2020 election was ‘rigged and stolen’ from him. Trump also claims that the ‘only way’ he can lose this year’s election is if Democrats ‘cheat like hell’ as they (according to him) always do. He’s preparing his supporters to rebel again if he loses. And if he wins, he’s laying the groundwork— this time, with a more amenable vice president— to overturn a loss for his party in 2028.”
And all this is because of Trump’s psychosis about losing. He can’t be seen as “a loser” and he’s willing to rip apart the country in service of that sick proposition.
“In a second Trump administration, Vance’s opinions about tariffs, abortion, health care, and other issues probably wouldn’t matter. Trump would make those calls. But when the time comes to certify an election, Vance’s opinions and decisions would be crucial. He believes that he and Trump could push constitutional boundaries to overturn the results. And on the debate stage, facing two audiences— the people of the United States on one hand, and Trump on the other— Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump lost. That moment tells you the most important thing about Vance: When democracy is in peril, he will bow to Trump, not to the people or the Constitution. He must never be given that chance.”
you're missing the whole and only point in this "debate".... ratings. How were the ratings? Did the networks make some money?
A lucid nazi won't lose any of his own. A lucid democrap that does not honestly appraise his party as utterly useless corrupt pussies won't lose any of his own. And neither will scare any of the nonparticipating third enough to make them show up. Voters don't change. VotING doesn't change. Parties don't change. and bibi is still ethnically cleansing gaza.
nothing changes except the networks' bottom lines.
The ad linked in this post is the kind of ad I wanted Dems to run all along. If nothing else, the opportunities offered by Vance's inability to acknowledge a self-evident truth about the 2020 election could matter down the stretch.