You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
38 points
*

What specifically do you feel Walz didn’t do as well as Vance?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-73 points
*

Convince people. The quick polls are already in.

Walz is fine though. I don’t remember any mistake honestly. But the numbers are in already. We can say solidly that JD Vance did better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points
*

Are you really referencing a poll of 22 people lmao

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Are you really denying the poll which has now been replicated on CNN and CBS instant polls?

JD Vance won the debate in every reputable flash poll I’ve read this morning. For fucks sake you dumbass, open your eyes and recognize the political challenge before us.

You’d rather muse on irrelevant technicalities than see the actual polls from the electorate. Small polls are in fact statistically sound btw if handled correctly, and the methodology of focusing on undecided voters is the key here. The election is close and we need every vote we can get to stop Trump, and you are blinding yourself to the truth of the situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Newsweek is reporting the opposite, with Walz getting a boost and not Vance.

https://lemmy.world/post/20422964

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

You didn’t even read the article.

A flash poll conducted by CNN and SSRS after the debate among 574 registered voters who watched the showdown found that 51 percent of respondents said that Vance came out on top, compared to 49 percent who said the same of Walz. The margin of error was +/- 5.3 points.

A CBS News flash poll performed in conjunction with YouGov also showed Vance winning by a slim margin, with 42 percent of 1,630 respondents saying they thought the Ohio senator won the debate, to Walz’s 41 percent. The margin of error was +/- 2.7 points. Seventeen percent of respondents said the debate was a draw.

What you, and your system of copera is doing, is muddying the waters and ignoring JD Vance performance.

Trump dies in a few years, he’s a 78-year-old sickly man. JD Vance is the guy we will likely have to deal with the rest of our lives politically speaking. He’s young and clearly taking charge of the ideology. This is a long term problem (even if Trump is the bigger problem).

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Ah yes, “the numbers”. Are those the same numbers that say Trump has the bigliest rallies? Are they the BEST NUMBERS OF ALL TIME?

Yeah, you might be an idiot if it belive any of that. That’s your right, though. It’s a free country, for now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They are the hardest, longest and girthiest of numbers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-31 points
*

This is a fucking Washington Post screenshot.

Holy shit man. Pull your head out of your own ass. Walz did fine, its not a big deal. But JD Vance outperformed. If you don’t see it then you’re fucking blind and you’re ignoring even left-leaning papers like the WashPo.

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points

22 people is hardly a survey for a national election, and is a total nonanswer. I’m asking you what you think Vance did better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Also, what is the source of that image?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-46 points
*

Image, body language. Looking at the camera with the “Marine Stare” to show off with body language his disdain for a particular topic or response from Walz (while Walz’s body language was not nearly as effective at showing JD Vance’s weird shit).

If you’re not aware of what “Republicans see as weird”, well… guess what?? JD Vance is, and he’s able to rally people with just a glance. It was clearly effective. Though perhaps in a “deeper” political look / visual communication cue rather than actual talking.

JD Vance is the complete package. Walz is well spoken but not quite as emoted and not as good of a reaction to JD Vance.


Don’t get me wrong, JD Vance is fucking nuts. But if you’re not seeing JD Vance’s good performance here, you’re at risk at underestimating the scope of the problem here.


EDIT: Like… base things. The things people care about. Like, “Who looked more like a soldier” (especially on the meta-topic of JD Vance service record vs Tim Walz’s service record), JD Vance looked more like a soldier. Base things that appeal to the ID and not logic. JD Vance is spot on on these issues.

I don’t think it matters because Donald Trump is the actual topic of discussion. But JD Vance’s performance is better than you’d think within a Republican mindset.

Its fine because Walz didn’t need to win this debate. Walz just needed to punt and he’s accomplished that. JD Vance isn’t going to turn all of Trump’s ills away with one good debate performance either (especially since Walz wasn’t crushed or defeated).

Walz needed to introduce his personality to the country. And Walz did that. Good. Take the W for what it is, but don’t overplay your hand here. This isn’t like the Harris v Trump debate where Harris crushed Trump. This is actually slight win to JD Vance IMO but Walz is good enough to not damage Harris’s campaign kinda debate.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments