Morning after thoughts:

• Walz is not actually a bad debater. He’s not polished and practiced, but his command of policy and numbers means he still comes across as fairly confident. He knows what he knows, and that can stand in for polish.
• Vance didn’t do badly, but I genuinely can’t remember any of his answers, and that’s kind of weird. I think it’s because he answered like he’d been raised by a generative AI instead of human parents. Seriously, can anyone actually remember anything he said, without looking it up?
• Walz had more flubs. But he also got in a lot more hits. It remains to be seen which will stick in the minds of voters more, if either.
• The lack of Trump on the stage made this one a lot more mature. It’s amazing what a difference it makes when one of the debaters isn’t a demented man-baby.

The way I see it, Walz’s clearly superior command of policy details, and the way that fact-checkers are counting nearly everything Vance said as a lie, gives Walz the technical win, while Vance gets the nod for being more polished. In the end, I don’t think this debate will matter much to the election.

Those with an interest in history might remember that back during the 1988 election, Lloyd Bentsen absolutely demolished Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush’s pick for VP, in a debate. But it was forgotten in a matter of days - if not hours - and Bush went on to win handily.

I think this debate will likely be forgotten soon, too.

It was okay. Walz was the nice dad. Vance was the slimy, mudslinging worm he is, a true politician in every negative sense of the word.

Walz was too nice and charitable towards Vance and gave him credit on certain issues, and Vance didn’t return it in kind.

Vance lied through his teeth and wouldn’t answer a single goddamn question. Spent most of his time saying how terrible Kamala was and almost none about how Trump would be good for people.

I left thinking it was an okay performance from both, but I suspect people will remember Vance being a greasy little weasel and Walz being a nice dad. Overall, a net positive for Harris/Walz, but only a little.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Walz gave good answers about 90% of the time but definite dodged a few. Vance, otoh, made shit up constantly and harped on fear topics. Always about the border, blaming Harris for policy she wasn’t responsible for, and offering up an economy that the republicans have zero plans to create.

Walz was way too soft on Vance and let him control most of the debate. I’m tired of Dems positioning themselves as diet Republicans, then acting like they are nothing like while saying how much they agree with a guy like Vance on things lol. Vance also loudly saying you weren’t supposed to fact-check me was embarrassing. Walz laid out actual plans and policy but that is not going to reach that crowd they are targeting.

GOP was setting the bar low for Vance before the debate, and he easily cleared it, so with low expectations, the consensus will be that he was fantastic. Walz was no surprise, he was fine, so I think folks are going to call it a slight Vance win. It won’t matter, neither got hit hard enough, it won’t move anything.