Fuck the centrist media that considers that debate a flub - he did excellent.
He certainly seemed awkward in the first couple minutes, but I’m not sure what the big deal would be outside of that.
That thing about when he was in China was a shitshow from top to bottom. I had never even heard of the "controversy" so it was probably some bullshit the moderators threw in to appease the conspiracy lunatics and appear balanced. Then his answer was a bunch of nothing and flailing around. I don't think he even answered it. The closest he got was "that's what I said" and didn't address the accuracy of the statement or an explanation in his answer. And then he stopped with a few seconds left in his allotted time and froze up and stammered for the rest of it.
Tim Walz is, by all appearances, a stand up guy and smart as a tack. But that isn't really what drives these debates. If they were won and lost on the merits, no Republican would have been elected in my lifetime. But they're not about substance and by pretty much every measure that answer and interaction was a doozy of a loser.
But that was the only answer that he flubbed like that, so the night wasn't a total disaster for Walz. It just wasn't a win.
He did answer it, literally said he misspoke but he was there during the summer (iirc).
Yeah it really threw him off.
Itbwould have been cleaner if he said something along the lines of "I was there that summer and witnessed the people. History in the making. It was a few months after the march. I took my class's blah blah blah."
A "real politician" would have set the record straight without using a negative word like "I was wrong/incorrect"
His answer was a lot more genuine toe because of that. He over-explained due to nervousness and then said "I misspoke"
I'd say he came in just under on that.
Exactly. The whole exchange seems like it caught him on the back foot and wasn't something he was prepped for so he felt he had to explain the entire situation and got lost in his story and never put a bow on it. When the moderator pressed him after he had finished he followed up with basically "I misspoke, I apologize, shit happens".
Meanwhile Vance refused to give a solid answer on who won in 2020, but people say he took the debate.
Vice Presidental debate:
"Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?"
"We're focused on the future..."
"That's a damning non answer."
Presidential debate:
"They're eating the dogs!!"
The icebreaker question being "How can we fix the middle east" was fucking crazy and they both fumbled with it.
"I don't know that we can. But the first step is to stop pouring proverbial kerosene on the fire."
I doubt anyone could give an adequately comprehensive answer to "how do we fix the middle east" in the time allowed.
It's a problem that's been going on since before either of them was born.
Hey Walz tell us about this thing from 35 years ago. What were you thinking! Vance, can you tell us about last month?
And didn't lie constantly.
They both seemed to be trying to appeal to undecided "independents" who are actually just lite conservatives. I think Vance performed slightly worse but still benefitted more because he was better able to appeal to that demo and Walz humanized him instead of staying on the attack.
He was slicker and that will always work on conservatives. If it was text based there would be no doubt Walz won.
On the other hand, the lower the expectations are kept, the better he will look if he slam dunks on Fox, which I think he likely will.
This take is the mirror image of thinking Trump is a good public speaker. Walz did quite poorly; he’s never been good on a political debate stage. He salvaged it with a few timely punches and by being relatable and likable.
Good. Dems should engage hostile media more, Pete Buttigieg gives masterclasses on how to do it. Not everyone can be that good but shining a light in the darkness is important. Ignoring it just lets it fester.
Nothing could top John Stewart on The No Spin Zone.
*Jon
But yes, he was amazing on that show.
Walz has been going on Fox News as a progressive for the better part of a decade. This isn’t new for him. He does a good job on there, too.
the Democratic vice presidential nominee’s first solo on-air conversation since becoming Kamala Harris’ running mate.
Pretty sure he's had plenty of solo conversations before this.
Honestly, if they can't even get the basics right in the first paragraph I'm not going to continue reading.
Yes, before this:
since becoming Kamala Harris’ running mate.
Nah I've seen him interviewed on news channels a couple times since then. Not a full on sit down face to face long format interview, but still a solo on-air appearance.
The main one I'm thinking of was when Taylor Swift said something nice about him, the reporter told him first in the middle of the interview.
thank you for the 12-ft link
Could they not have found a pun for fox?
I mean, Foxes Den doesn't exactly sound intimidating. Actually foxes by and large are lovely creatures and that awful network doesn't deserve that name.
Faux news?
Something something fox hole
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.