Even if the 2024 vice presidential debate turns out to be the last general election presidential debate in history, that wouldn’t be a bad ending. This was a civil, policy-focused debate in which Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance went to extraordinary lengths to agree with much of what the other was saying. emphasized. After the debate, the candidates spent time chatting with each other and introducing each other’s wives. It was as if Donald Trump had never stepped down the political escalator.
But he did. And however important this undercard debate ends up being, I have a hot guess, it will be the single most instrumental in destroying the notion of political debate as a moderate exchange of ideas. It may end up benefiting the politician, Mr. Trump.
It’s not that Waltz was terrible. he was fine. But Vance was in control for much of the evening, and while nimble and sophisticated in his talking points, he was unable to present his case against the second Trump administration in a way that didn’t scare children. I was able to do it.
for most of the night.
Walz’s main failure was not that he got lost in his train of thought here and there, or that he became visibly agitated or nervous at the beginning of the debate. It was a missed opportunity to allow Vance to present the Trump campaign and its aspirations for the country as common sense for your family.
Mr. Vance repeatedly put Mr. Walz on the defensive on issues important to Democrats.
Most Americans believe climate change is a big problem. Although it’s not their top priority, Republican politicians’ belief that human-caused climate change may not exist is considered bizarre – to use a term coined by Waltz. Vance was asked early in the debate how the Trump administration would reduce the effects of climate change. Mr Vance said people were understandably concerned about “unusual weather patterns”, but argued that bringing up carbon emissions as a cause of climate change was just “for the sake of argument”. If this so-called thing is happening, he said, there needs to be a plan to re-land more manufacturing from China with clean energy production in the United States.
“And unfortunately, Kamala Harris has done just the opposite,” he said.
Waltz’s reaction to this may have been as follows. “What the heck are you talking about?” As you said “for argument’s sake”, do you think climate change is happening or don’t you? By the way, that’s the economy that President Biden has enacted. How does Harris do the opposite of re-supporting domestic production, even though it was a central, if not central, objective of the policy? Instead, Walz looked at a series of statistics and talked about the weatherization efforts being taken in Minnesota.
Another example: The Trump administration reached a legislative nadir when it tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. This was a hugely unpopular effort, but fortunately for Republicans, then-Sen. John McCain takes the back and shoots. Although Vance was fluent in some of his answers on health policy, he made an incredible claim that Trump “rescued” the ACA.
“You don’t have to agree with everything President Trump has said or done,” Vance said. Instead, he worked to ensure Americans had access to affordable care in a bipartisan manner. “interesting! During the tedious seven-month effort by President Trump and Congressional Republicans to repeal Obamacare, I was at the Capitol almost every day, and somehow I had no idea he was working on a bipartisan Obamacare rescue. I had missed it.
Waltz understood some of these points, but would have otherwise felt useful resentment. And as the back-and-forth about Obamacare continued, Vance was able to turn the tables on Walz, asking him, “Do you think individual mandates are a good idea?” “I think the idea is to have a big enough risk pool to cover everyone. I think that’s the only way insurance works,” Walz said, unsure of how to respond.
In episodes like this, Waltz spends most of his time calling out the statistics and pre-written lines he has on each subject, without listening to or counterpunching Vance’s answers. It looked like there was. Vance, who has spent far more time in front of reporters than Walz in recent months, has heard it all. When Walz mentioned twice early on the need to listen to “experts” in various fields, Vance didn’t miss a beat. He argued bitterly about how wrong the “experts” have been over the years, especially when it comes to manufacturing policy amid globalization.
“And for the first time in a generation, Donald Trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to bipartisan agreement, we’re not going to do it anymore,” Vance said. This is an interesting way of saying that Trump has always governed by doing what he thought was good for him, but it’s the right rhetorical approach for a presidential race decided in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Molly Olmstead
I went to a pro-Trump Christian revival rally. My perception of January 6th has completely changed.
read more
Mr. Vance published a paper expressing his thoughts on child support. Walz gave his paper’s presentation after saying, as he often did, that he didn’t think he and Vance were “that far apart.” Instead, besides pointing out that Ivanka Trump is interested in child care policy, Walz could also point out that Donald Trump has never thought about child care policy for a moment in his life. It could have been done.
Mr. Walz’s worst moment in the debate was not just a missed opportunity, but a real moment of turmoil — he was in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen protests. When asked about his repeated false statements over the years, he replied: I was actually in Nebraska at the time. Waltz gave a long-winded answer that avoided the question. Later, in a follow-up, he admitted he had made a “gaffe” on the subject, before repeating that he was “in Hong Kong and China during the pro-democracy movement.” It was one of the moments that highlighted the weaknesses in the Harris campaign’s strategy of regularly hiding key players from the scene rather than giving them a chance to practice at key locations.
But in the final minutes of the debate, Walz seemed to understand and was able to stage Vance’s worst moment of the night and create a crucial point for the Harris campaign to capitalize on.
A presidential election twist that is sure to infuriate Republicans I went to see J.D. Vance’s most controversial campaign yet canceled. What I saw was telling. Jack Smith seeks to provide the public with evidence against Trump I’m a psychoanalyst. I think I know what Tim Walz should do in tonight’s debate.
In this case, Walz noted that when asked about Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election, Vance calmly retorted, as usual, that it was all a big misunderstanding. . Waltz effectively pounced. Walz noted that the two may be “in agreement” on some other issues, but said, “This is an issue on which we are miles apart.” This was a threat to our democracy in a way we have never experienced. And it emerged because Donald Trump could not, and still does, say that he did not lose the election. I just want to ask, did he lose the 2020 election? ”
“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance said. “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their minds in response to the 2020 coronavirus situation?”
“That’s a complete non-answer,” Waltz retorted.
No matter how many people watched this debate, Vance may have improved his image. He may have been able to allay some of the fears about the second Trump administration. Waltz could have been on the back foot all night. But in the end, Waltz clip.
Need advice on surviving this historic and nerve-wracking presidential election? Slate wants to help. Submit your question to Wedge Issues here. It’s anonymous! No question is too stupid or too existential.