• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vice presidential debate moderated by CBS, Oct. 1, 2024

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Paratus said:
Not sure I agree. MAGA will mostly be behind Vance. Most Dems won’t be swayed by Vance’s arguments. What fraction of the so called. “Undecided voters” will grade the performance and the substance and be swayed? I don’t know.
Click to expand...

If they are undecided it’s unlikely they would be watching the debate. Undecided are low information voters who get their news from social media.
 
Paratus said:
Not sure I agree. MAGA will mostly be behind Vance. Most Dems won’t be swayed by Vance’s arguments. What fraction of the so called. “Undecided voters” will grade the performance and the substance and be swayed? I don’t know.
Click to expand...

Think we can pretty much call the debate a wash or Walz being better.

The really good thing is he didn't crumble even though he looked older. He was really energetic at defending himself and knew when to inject "knucklehead" humor to brush off the media attack.

Seems way more genuine and likeable than Vance who just basically seems like Trump's valet/ spokesperson at this time.
 
I think, for me personally, the debate winner is clear, walz. My requirements are substance and presentation. Vance performed well or better than walz during the first half even though he was lacking actual substance. But walz showed up in the second half and brought a really good policy discussion to the table.

If I was a low information voter it would probably be a wash.
 
I also thought the moderation was really good and they did a good job of keeping everyone on point. However their guests were a much higher caliber than whatever Trump can deliver.
 
Pundit brought up a good point. Vance didn’t do a bad job. The orange monkey won’t want him to be the last word. So who knows if there will be another debate.
 
eelw said:
Pundit brought up a good point. Vance didn’t do a bad job. The orange monkey won’t want him to be the last word. So who knows if there will be another debate.
Click to expand...
Trump won't risk another debate. He's scared. He was thrashed. He never even glanced at Kamala after she came over and shook his hand. He'd much rather say shit about her than confront her in a moderated debate. He likes the prize fighter analogy, nurses the illusion that he pummeled her and refuses a rematch. Bullshit artist. He can't handle information, he's just that stupid. I wonder if he would score 100 on an IQ test. I really doubt it.
 
Muse said:
Trump won't risk another debate. He's scared. He was thrashed. He never even glanced at Kamala after she came over and shook his hand. He'd much rather say shit about her than confront her in a moderated debate. He likes the prize fighter analogy, nurses the illusion that he pummeled her and refuses a rematch. Bullshit artist. He can't handle information, he's just that stupid. I wonder if he would score 100 on an IQ test. I really doubt it.
Click to expand...
No his ego will take over. Their camp has enough to praise Vance from this performance. Once it goes on for too long, he’ll put his foot in his mouth to take back the spotlight.
 
eelw said:
No his ego will take over. Their camp has enough to praise Vance from this performance. Once it goes on for too long, he’ll put his foot in his mouth to take back the spotlight.
Click to expand...
You may well be right. If it does happen it will be a mistake on his part. He'll lose badly... again, but worse.
 
iRONic said:
I'll clarify that my no moderation statement was strictly because of no live fact checking.

The network is bullshit! Leaving both mics live during the whole affair is just inviting a shit show. And they know it…
Click to expand...

It's the ratings they're after. They want scandal, they want spit flying in the air everywhere, they want bulging eyeballs with daggers flying out of them, they want things to be said that should never see the light of day.

This is an entertainment event as far as the network bean counters are concerned and they want live action, cameras cutting each other off by the seconds and not deadbeats sneering and wagging their fingers at each other.
 
I can't quite decide if both sides think a draw was acceptable considering the pluses and minuses both debaters brought to the show. I know for certain though that the Republicans believe a draw is a solid victory for them considering their whole campaign is based on a web of interconnected lies and disinformation starting with The Big Lie itself and going off a cliff from thereon in.

As well, coming away with a draw gives them a lot of elbow room to rewrite the whole debate as an indisputable over the top victory for Vance as a means to make potential voters forget about the constant flow of smoothly delivered lies and dodging self-incriminating answers that Vance perpetrated throughout the show.
 
Funny, I read two accounts of the debate via yahoo. One starting off implying it was pretty uneventful, but then went on to talk at length about Walz's "gaffes" and in effect implied it was a win for Vance (while taking pains to point out he came across as perfectly normal and pleasant, and in no way weird, no, not weird at all). The other started off saying it was pretty much a wash but then went on to emphasise Vance's final 'weird' remarks.

The first was from The Telegraph (that is absolutely rabid and unashamed about its right-wing pro-Trump bias) the latter from the Independent (that I see as centrist, but many probably see as left leaning).

uk.yahoo.com

Who won the Vance v Walz debate? Our experts are unanimous

If viewers of Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate were expecting fireworks, they were sorely disappointed.
uk.yahoo.com uk.yahoo.com

uk.yahoo.com

It took nearly 90 minutes, but Tim Walz made clear exactly why Donald Trump chose JD Vance

ANALYSIS: There may not have been a knockout blow in the vice presidential debate, but Vance’s answer to the last question couldn’t have been more revealing, writes Andrew Feinberg
uk.yahoo.com uk.yahoo.com

Judging from that and what's been said here, I'm assuming it was indeed pretty much a wash.
 
Most of the panels I've seen of people who watched it favored Walz and the polls look like a wash. First rule is do no harm and he accomplished that. The Jan 6 and Trump losing the election stuff is probably the most meaningful in terms of any useful material that emerged for either side.

Still funny that even though Vance's approval rose in the post debate polls still underwater in all of them and Walz became even more likable per the same people.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Seems like a wash.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1841328957783699695

Harris’ 60 minutes interview coming shortly.
Click to expand...
And Trump refuses to do his (they are "traditional"), because he can't. He would be incoherent because he can't be coherent. He can't think straight, he can't process complex information. He can't even answer a direct question. He's a hot fucking mess. He makes sweeping assertions that can't be substantiated. Claims the wars going on now would never happen if he were president, claims he can stop those wars instantly the moment he gets sworn in as president again, with no further details.
 
eelw said:
Idiotic the R pundit thinking Walz tiananmen Square gaff was worse than the Vance 2020 non answer
Click to expand...
Priebus (ABC coverage)? I fast forwarded through his remarks after the first ~7 seconds. I don't need that bullshit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top