You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
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
-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
-21 points

I know you’re getting downvoted, but I appreciate this analysis. I have autism and don’t pick up on body language

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

JD Vance did full 100% politician stance the entire time so I don’t think there’s anything to take from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Well, you don’t wanna listen to dragontamer then. The scenes they’re describing happened only in their head.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Because the point of an election is to determine who has the best body language. You heard it here first folks

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points
*

Harris’s body language was far superior to Trump’s. And is part of why she crushed him so completely.

EDIT: Body language is incredibly important to QAnon btw, because QAnon believes that JD Vance is not free to speak his mind. So these nods and looks JD Vance are doing are non-verbal acknowledgements that also plays to the whole “Q” and “Deep State” shit. Yadda-yadda.

I’m not sure if you’re recognizing the threat this body language actually is, or the role its playing in this debate. Tim Walz certainly looks completely ignorant to it all (or at least, doesn’t want to deal with it). This is JD Vance literally leaning into Q-shit and rallying it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

You jest but half a country are below average intelligence. It’s not outlandish to think that many individuals in that half aren’t really following what is being said or understand it. What they can follow is the visuals. How they look, how they stand, how they move; how they “read”. And a non-trivial number of above average people still judge books by their covers.

I think the point the person above was trying to make is that Vance won the area the majority of people can evaluate and the importance of visuals.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Trump looks like he’s about to fall forward at all times, and his blank, geriatric, demented stare is honestly a spectical at this point, paired with his constant word salad.

I guess that means Kamala wins, folks. Wrap it up, everyone. It’s over. Let’s go home and move on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

You all don’t seem to understand how stupid people vote. Or what’s important to them or most importantly HOW FUCKING MANY OF THEM YHERE ARE.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 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

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

That’s so damn horny 😄

Are you a couch?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Are you a couch?

This was the exact thought running thru my head as i forced myself through that disgusting fan fiction.

permalink
report
parent
reply

JD looked and talked like an alien making his first contact with humans. He lacks any charisma, and you can tell he doesn’t actually believe anything he says. And because of that, the moderators asked many times about his stance on almost everything being 180 degrees from when he started the Trump audition.

Also I don’t think Republican = MAGA cult anymore. I also feel 99% of these “undecided” voters at this point are going to vote Trump, and are just reaching for something that they can say is the reason other than racism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-23 points
*

and you can tell he doesn’t actually believe anything he says.

100% agree on this point.

But that’s also not JD Vance’s goal here. JD Vance’s goal is to sanewash Trump. And he accomplished that.

JD looked and talked like an alien making his first contact with humans

I kinda-sorta see where you’re coming from here.

Alas: this is the marine stare. A lot of marines I know do this. I think people in the know are in the know and see JD Vance’s mannerism here as charismatic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Also, what is the source of that image?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

From the fonts I’d guess NYT

Edit: other comments are saying Washington Post

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Oh, my first impression was it might be WSJ. Which if those other two are supposedly centrist, but almost always side with the right, then WSJ’s op-ed portion is almost cartoonishly right-wing.

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