-Prior to Helene I had expected both campaigns to release their September fundraising totals, as that’s what they had done on the first of September and August, but with people’s attentions rightly focused on recovery, those numbers won’t be released before the debate
-Regardless of who wins, the absolutely biggest swing would be be a single point, and that’s only in a catastrophic performance by one or the other. VP debates simply don’t move the needle. Without a catastrophic performance by either candidate, this won’t show up on polls at all.
-Stylistically I think Vance comes out swinging hard with some of them landing, while Walz mostly deflects and gets a few folksy 1-liner jabs in
-I think Vance wins this debate by a decent margin. He’s got that debate lawyer schtick down pretty well, and the majority of Walz’ debate experience has taken place standing in the dirt at an event called FarmFest. Being on a national stage is a different animal.
-Both sides will claim victory regardless, and the electorate won’t care, because the VPs don’t define this election, and the polls won’t move.
-Harris will repeat her call to debate Trump on the 23rd, and Trump will again decline
I know there's an advantage in lowering expectations. But I'm actually hopeful that Walz parries Vance's wit and aggressive attacks with his own Midwestern-dad charm.
Vance has a more difficult task. While he'll score some with attacks on Harris, he must also parrot Trump's insanity, and will have to defend a lot of his own gaffes and whoppers.
With Vance's vulnerabilities and Trump's high disapproval ratings, Walz will have easier targets.
The big question: Will there be factchecking? That could make all the difference. Clearly, Vance is a good debater -- if he's allowed to lie without penalty. That's what he did to Ryan.
We saw how much that factchecking hurt Trump in the debate with Harris, although she would have knocked him out without it. In this matchup, Walz may need the factchecking to exert a cost on Vance's lying. Does anyone know whether NBC has tipped its hand on that?
Yeah. I saw that right after I posted. The polls I've seen find that an overwhelming majority of viewers and voters want factchecking. Plus, it's basic journalism.
But MAGA whined and worked the refs. And in the alternative reality that is TV executive decision-making, abdicating their responsibility won out over protecting our democracy.
I think you should be careful what you wish for. If the fact-checking is allowed to continue, it won't be done like it was on ABC last month where only Trump gets called out. The network bosses will demand symmetry, meaning every fact check done on one candidate will require a fact check done on the other side no matter how petty or frivolous. It would become an arms race with the liars gaming the system. I'd prefer to just let the candidates do the fact checking.
I don't think you'll find many here who agree with your characterization that only Trump was called out. Only Trump was lying. Silence is complicity, especially when you're allegedly a journalist.
My characterization isn't in reference to who was or wasn't lying in the last debate. It's in reference to how the fact-checkers can be expected to respond moving forward that's amenable to ongoing participation by both parties. Even if Trump was the only one lying in the ABC debate, if only one side is being fact-checked, only one side will continue to agree to do the debates. The host networks are then left with two options: fact-check both sides equally whether it's warranted or not....or leave the fact-checking to the candidates themselves. I prefer the latter.
Even if they forego fact-checking, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality! For example:
"Senator Vance, do you regret claiming that Haitians living in Springfield, immigrants who are there legally, were eating people’s pets – their cats and dogs – a claim that has been proven to be false?"
I am quite optimistic about tonight’s debate. I was encouraged to read that Pet Buttigieg was helping prepare; Buttigieg is one of the country’s best political communicators.
Tim Walz will come armed with memorable, devastating one-liners. If he keeps his head cool, he’ll ridicule Vance’s weirdness, and glue Vance-Trump to Project 2025. He’ll emphasize how un-American, undemocratic and damaging Project 2025 would be for America.
Equally devastating, Walz may highlight some of Vance’s most absurd lies. "They’re eating your pets!"
Even more devastating, I’m hoping Walz quotes the "old" JD Vance comparing Donald Trump to Hitler!
On a positive note, Walz can talk about his own record in Minnesota, presenting the great progressive policies he implemented as "good common sense". He can underscore the results. And he can talk credibly about the Harris-Walz proposals for "an opportunity economy".
PS. On the downside, it looks like CBS and its moderators are absolving themselves of any responsibility for fact-checking. However, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality!
Imo JD Vance is an unlikable asshole that comes across as such(polling indicates that Vance is the most unpopular VP choice in our lifetime); but, I agree with you that unless JD Vance actually eats a cat\dog on the stage tonight, that this debate will mean absolutely nothing in so far as the top of the ticket race
I think I remember correctly that Nate Silver determined that Bush I's choice of Quayle cost him about 2 points in the 1988 election, and his loss of the VP debate was definitely part of that. That was the biggest effect of a running mate on a vote share of a candidate that he found.
An aside: The current incarnation of Nate Silver is a subsidiary of Peter Thiel, Inc. Which helps explain some of Silver’s really weird modelling, "probability" results, and narrative.
Damn right, it’s terrible. And as you may recall, Peter Thiel was the billionaire who bankrolled JD Vance’s successful senate campaign. Thiel must have been ecstatic when Trump chose him as his VP.
I'm very curious how this goes tonight. Vance is that Ted Cruz-type debater where he's got that debate competition type style, but when it came to political debates anyone that didn't exist in that world just saw a smug prick. And I imagine when Tim Walz was a teacher, he was the type of teacher that probably liked to foster debate among students. And two 16 year olds yelling at each other is probably more similar to a political debate than a debate competition debate.
Walz has apparently told Harris'team up front before his pick that he was a "bad debator" and Vance is not Trump when it comes to presentation but if Walz can focus on being approachable and down to earth, aka "likeable" he will win against Vance's smug and condescending demeanor I think.
So Rachel Maddow tied Vance to folks who want to overthrow the US Govt and close universities last night. She played clips of him on some youtube far-right talk show. She seemed to think that would come up tonight. Considering MSNBC's ties to the Biden admin, I wonder if she has inside knowledge on that. I could imagine some very stinging jabs based on what Maddow played Vance saying. But I'm not sure they'll really come up. Did any of you see it? Thoughts?
PS: I don't usually watch TV "news," but my 80 yr old Mom nagged me enough by text that I watched the midnight rerun before going to bed. I think watching MSNBC is bad for Mom's heart/soul but at least she's engaged and lives in a swing state!
The thing is, would viewers believe Vance had said such terrible things or was serious about them? Ever since Reagan at least, Americans have tended to dismiss Republican extremism as not possibly what they really plan on doing.
Predictions for tonight:
-Prior to Helene I had expected both campaigns to release their September fundraising totals, as that’s what they had done on the first of September and August, but with people’s attentions rightly focused on recovery, those numbers won’t be released before the debate
-Regardless of who wins, the absolutely biggest swing would be be a single point, and that’s only in a catastrophic performance by one or the other. VP debates simply don’t move the needle. Without a catastrophic performance by either candidate, this won’t show up on polls at all.
-Stylistically I think Vance comes out swinging hard with some of them landing, while Walz mostly deflects and gets a few folksy 1-liner jabs in
-I think Vance wins this debate by a decent margin. He’s got that debate lawyer schtick down pretty well, and the majority of Walz’ debate experience has taken place standing in the dirt at an event called FarmFest. Being on a national stage is a different animal.
-Both sides will claim victory regardless, and the electorate won’t care, because the VPs don’t define this election, and the polls won’t move.
-Harris will repeat her call to debate Trump on the 23rd, and Trump will again decline
I think Vance is just not likable and so the debate will at best be a draw for him.
I know there's an advantage in lowering expectations. But I'm actually hopeful that Walz parries Vance's wit and aggressive attacks with his own Midwestern-dad charm.
Vance has a more difficult task. While he'll score some with attacks on Harris, he must also parrot Trump's insanity, and will have to defend a lot of his own gaffes and whoppers.
With Vance's vulnerabilities and Trump's high disapproval ratings, Walz will have easier targets.
The big question: Will there be factchecking? That could make all the difference. Clearly, Vance is a good debater -- if he's allowed to lie without penalty. That's what he did to Ryan.
We saw how much that factchecking hurt Trump in the debate with Harris, although she would have knocked him out without it. In this matchup, Walz may need the factchecking to exert a cost on Vance's lying. Does anyone know whether NBC has tipped its hand on that?
They stated no fact checking except by the candidates themselves. https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10
Absolutely disgusting lack of journalism.
The biggest impact on the lack of fact checking is Walz will have spend time rebutting the lies and not focus on his message.
Yeah. I saw that right after I posted. The polls I've seen find that an overwhelming majority of viewers and voters want factchecking. Plus, it's basic journalism.
But MAGA whined and worked the refs. And in the alternative reality that is TV executive decision-making, abdicating their responsibility won out over protecting our democracy.
Shame on the CBS weasels.
I think you should be careful what you wish for. If the fact-checking is allowed to continue, it won't be done like it was on ABC last month where only Trump gets called out. The network bosses will demand symmetry, meaning every fact check done on one candidate will require a fact check done on the other side no matter how petty or frivolous. It would become an arms race with the liars gaming the system. I'd prefer to just let the candidates do the fact checking.
I don't think you'll find many here who agree with your characterization that only Trump was called out. Only Trump was lying. Silence is complicity, especially when you're allegedly a journalist.
My characterization isn't in reference to who was or wasn't lying in the last debate. It's in reference to how the fact-checkers can be expected to respond moving forward that's amenable to ongoing participation by both parties. Even if Trump was the only one lying in the ABC debate, if only one side is being fact-checked, only one side will continue to agree to do the debates. The host networks are then left with two options: fact-check both sides equally whether it's warranted or not....or leave the fact-checking to the candidates themselves. I prefer the latter.
Even if they forego fact-checking, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality! For example:
"Senator Vance, do you regret claiming that Haitians living in Springfield, immigrants who are there legally, were eating people’s pets – their cats and dogs – a claim that has been proven to be false?"
I am quite optimistic about tonight’s debate. I was encouraged to read that Pet Buttigieg was helping prepare; Buttigieg is one of the country’s best political communicators.
Tim Walz will come armed with memorable, devastating one-liners. If he keeps his head cool, he’ll ridicule Vance’s weirdness, and glue Vance-Trump to Project 2025. He’ll emphasize how un-American, undemocratic and damaging Project 2025 would be for America.
Equally devastating, Walz may highlight some of Vance’s most absurd lies. "They’re eating your pets!"
Even more devastating, I’m hoping Walz quotes the "old" JD Vance comparing Donald Trump to Hitler!
On a positive note, Walz can talk about his own record in Minnesota, presenting the great progressive policies he implemented as "good common sense". He can underscore the results. And he can talk credibly about the Harris-Walz proposals for "an opportunity economy".
PS. On the downside, it looks like CBS and its moderators are absolving themselves of any responsibility for fact-checking. However, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality!
Imo JD Vance is an unlikable asshole that comes across as such(polling indicates that Vance is the most unpopular VP choice in our lifetime); but, I agree with you that unless JD Vance actually eats a cat\dog on the stage tonight, that this debate will mean absolutely nothing in so far as the top of the ticket race
I think I remember correctly that Nate Silver determined that Bush I's choice of Quayle cost him about 2 points in the 1988 election, and his loss of the VP debate was definitely part of that. That was the biggest effect of a running mate on a vote share of a candidate that he found.
An aside: The current incarnation of Nate Silver is a subsidiary of Peter Thiel, Inc. Which helps explain some of Silver’s really weird modelling, "probability" results, and narrative.
I didn't know that. Wow, that's really terrible!
Check out Polymarkets.
Damn right, it’s terrible. And as you may recall, Peter Thiel was the billionaire who bankrolled JD Vance’s successful senate campaign. Thiel must have been ecstatic when Trump chose him as his VP.
I'm very curious how this goes tonight. Vance is that Ted Cruz-type debater where he's got that debate competition type style, but when it came to political debates anyone that didn't exist in that world just saw a smug prick. And I imagine when Tim Walz was a teacher, he was the type of teacher that probably liked to foster debate among students. And two 16 year olds yelling at each other is probably more similar to a political debate than a debate competition debate.
This is how I feel. If this were an actual debate competition then I think Vance would win, but that isn't the point of this debate.
Ultimately I don't think either one will say or do anything that will make any kind of difference in the election.
Walz has apparently told Harris'team up front before his pick that he was a "bad debator" and Vance is not Trump when it comes to presentation but if Walz can focus on being approachable and down to earth, aka "likeable" he will win against Vance's smug and condescending demeanor I think.
So Rachel Maddow tied Vance to folks who want to overthrow the US Govt and close universities last night. She played clips of him on some youtube far-right talk show. She seemed to think that would come up tonight. Considering MSNBC's ties to the Biden admin, I wonder if she has inside knowledge on that. I could imagine some very stinging jabs based on what Maddow played Vance saying. But I'm not sure they'll really come up. Did any of you see it? Thoughts?
PS: I don't usually watch TV "news," but my 80 yr old Mom nagged me enough by text that I watched the midnight rerun before going to bed. I think watching MSNBC is bad for Mom's heart/soul but at least she's engaged and lives in a swing state!
The thing is, would viewers believe Vance had said such terrible things or was serious about them? Ever since Reagan at least, Americans have tended to dismiss Republican extremism as not possibly what they really plan on doing.