![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacI didn't watch this debate either. Same reasons: too nervous, didn't want to hear 45 minutes of the other guy blithering.
From what I've read, Vance delivered himself, in his smoother and slicker way than his boss, of lie after disingenuous non-truth after lie. There's been a lot of discussion of CBS having put fact-checks under QR codes, but not a single person I've read seems to have gone and looked at any of them. The one time the moderators tried to correct him, he objected that there wasn't supposed to be any live on-air fact-checking. Which is as much as to say, "Hey! I was supposed to be able to lie with impunity!"
Walz apparently challenged almost none of this, but stuck to his pre-set talking points. This is what most candidates do at debates. Unless you're extremely skilled at impromptu debating - the recent presidential candidate who's by far the best at this is Chris Christie - there's no time to think on your feet. Best to answer any question by finding the most relevant memorized nugget in your banks and deliver that.
Besides, Harris didn't respond to most of Trump's imbecilities either, except to laugh at them. The danger of fact-checking a lie-spewing opponent is that you spend all your time doing that, letting them set the agenda and never having time to expound your own.
Several liberal commentators have said that, although Vance was smoother, Walz won the debate in terms of giving better arguments. But will they be perceived as better? If not, he can't be said to have won.
Walz could have been less nervous, and folksier, as he is in speeches. But at least it wasn't a disaster.
From what I've read, Vance delivered himself, in his smoother and slicker way than his boss, of lie after disingenuous non-truth after lie. There's been a lot of discussion of CBS having put fact-checks under QR codes, but not a single person I've read seems to have gone and looked at any of them. The one time the moderators tried to correct him, he objected that there wasn't supposed to be any live on-air fact-checking. Which is as much as to say, "Hey! I was supposed to be able to lie with impunity!"
Walz apparently challenged almost none of this, but stuck to his pre-set talking points. This is what most candidates do at debates. Unless you're extremely skilled at impromptu debating - the recent presidential candidate who's by far the best at this is Chris Christie - there's no time to think on your feet. Best to answer any question by finding the most relevant memorized nugget in your banks and deliver that.
Besides, Harris didn't respond to most of Trump's imbecilities either, except to laugh at them. The danger of fact-checking a lie-spewing opponent is that you spend all your time doing that, letting them set the agenda and never having time to expound your own.
Several liberal commentators have said that, although Vance was smoother, Walz won the debate in terms of giving better arguments. But will they be perceived as better? If not, he can't be said to have won.
Walz could have been less nervous, and folksier, as he is in speeches. But at least it wasn't a disaster.
no subject
Date: 2024-10-03 04:29 am (UTC)