I must be the only person in the US that thought Walz was the more persuasive. Yes, Vance is slick. Vance is fast on his feet. Vance is articulate. Vance is what you'd expect from a lawyer. . .Yale trained at that. So if you score on "parry & thrust", OK give it to Vance. BUT, what the pundits fail to consider is that I don't care how artful you are at lying to me. . . you're still lying to me. . . and I don't need Walz wasting time telling me that. It's insulting that the "intelligentsia" seem to think we do.
Have you ever considered that Vance isn't lying? Have you ever scrutinized how Kamala became the nominee without input from voters? On one hand everyone talks about how Trump tried to execute a coup, however they never considered how dangerous Kamala becoming the nominee without any primary voting for her is. Many people make the assumption that Kamala is good because Trump is just so bad. I don't think either candidate is good. Seriously, I do not. What is sad to me is that so many people Stan for Kamala without once considering what happened behind the scenes for the President to step down. Never once thinking about how undemocratic the whole nomination process was and the potential ramifications for the future.
FWIW, I don’t like Harris either. And the pivot to Harris was goofy, but is not any different than Trump’s assault on the RNC. All pols stretch and twist the “truth” to suit their pitch, but nothing approaching Trump and by extension Vance. It’s a matter of common sense. If you’re claiming I have none, so be it. OBTW, if Harris does win and dies in office then I think the most qualified person of the four will be the succeeding Pres.
If you thought through this a little more logically, without emotion, you might understand how Vance came to his decision on how to answer that question. It was a calculated move that isn't as simplistic as people make it out to be. Think through the election through its endgame and then consider how people might reflect on his answer six months later.
@@arthurnemirovskiy7909 And that is what you're supposed to believe. Assume for a moment that these people are smarter and more clever than you believe them to be. At that point you may be able to figure out what he was really doing with that answer. These aren't just some third political operatives cobbled together like the first campaign. To assume so is arrogant and foolish.
@@arthurnemirovskiy7909 I don't need to tell you now. Others will figure it out in March. The goal of a debate isn't to win it. The goal of a debate is to move your campaign into a more advantageous position to win.
I’m a Canadian. I cannot vote in the election, but the consequences of the election will have a profound affect on my country and my life. So, I listened to the debate with real concern about the future that is being envisioned. Following the debate the question everyone is asking is, “Who won the debate?” I am very concerned that most commentators are judging the debate as if this were a high school student exercise. This event is not about who was the most glib! It is about the content of what the next administration will provide for the people of the United States (and for the rest of the world). It was clear to me that Walz was struggling because he was not a practiced debater, and he wanted to speak the truth and express a vision that he and his President are likely to become accountable for delivering. It quickly became clear that Vance was not constrained by the truth, or even the necessity to answer the question that was put to him. I think that to award a victory to Vance because he talked smoothy means that the pundits were not attending to the substance of what was said. The question by Walz in the last round, “Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election” was unanswered because it was a solid knockout punch.
If Vance was playing to "win" the debate, he would have agreed with your sentiments. He was not. Vance is playing to win this election. And that is entirely different. Imagine the election being over in six months and how people might reflect back on that answer and how it impacted the end result. That is the question. And that is how you win an election. He's not playing for your castle. He playing to take the king.
People kept on saying basically how civil it was and that they agreed upon a lot when they expected the usual nastiness. It was great they both focused on the policies. Who knew that all you needed to do was put two middle-aged Midwestern dads on the same stage together to be able to have a nice debate. Midwestern nice is real, haha.
The low expectations for Trump/Vance is always a guarantee that they'll do well in debates....as long as you don't do something insane like yelling out that they're eating the dogs.
It wasn't an insane comment. It was carefully scripted by the campaign to be dropped into the middle of the debate at a good time. That's the problem with most people. They think that this current version of Trump is the same as before. It's a very different campaign run by serious people making serious decisions that are somewhat scripted to seem insane. If you look back to that debate, what is the one thing people remember? Precisely. It's the pets. And that squarely puts the focus on the border and immigration.
@@KK-pm7ud That's a bit of a stretch to think he had a plan to scream about eating dogs. the plan was to focus on immigration, which has been since 2016, but what the focus and take away is that the performance was unhinged and that Harris performed significantly better.....which is rarely the case in presidential debates.
@@aaronhall5715 If you watch that segment over again it's pretty clear they planted the phrase in there. If someone keeps getting 'lucky' in a major league sport or skill based endeavor, at some point you have to ask yourself whether it is truly luck or if it's actually skill and you're missing something. Bury your head in the sand as much as you like. It doesn't change what happened.
@@KK-pm7ud I think you give him and his team far too much credit to think that they planned on him saying that exact phase. watch his rallies when he goes off script. I don't think he keeps getting "lucky" so much as he knows what red meat his followers like and what gets attention.
@@aaronhall5715 What you are saying is the exact kind of things that were said when he won the first time. It should be worrying to you that people are saying these things again.
“Walz is likable, and Vance is intelligent.” I completely agree that Vance is intelligent, but it’s tragic to see someone with such talent and intellect devoted solely to the relentless pursuit of power, regardless of the cost. He seems to lack any moral or ethical compass. How can someone go from condemning Trump as ‘America’s Hitler’ and ‘opium’ to becoming one of his most fervent, fanatical supporters? It’s truly appalling.
"Vance is the circus clown behind the elephant scooping up Trump's shit". I'm sorry, but can we just stop for a minute and appreciate this piece of poetry. 🙌
You are misunderstanding what she means. Everyone is well aware Kellyanne is a partisan pundit but Kellyanne is still smart and aware of bad politics. She has been calling out the republicans abortion strategy and messaging for awhile despite agreeing with their abortion politics.
First of all nobody mistakes if they were in china during the T incident. That’s like saying “I was in NY during the Tower Collapse” but traveled 8 weeks latter. If you were there, you were there and you don’t slip. Both of those historical incidents are bookmarks in history and there is no slipping. Waltz has a history of embellishing. Military service, military rank, son saw a school a shooting (actually he was in a rec center and incident was a personal dispute in parking lot between 2 people with a history). So I just ask, don’t cover for the lies and minimize them for either of the candidates
What I say about my stories: When I’m telling stories, I frequently embellish and exaggerate. It makes my stories more interesting, entertaining and frequently humorous. My stories are based, sometimes loosely, on fact but sometimes, especially when the actual truth really doesn’t matter, I stretch things. I know people who won’t stretch the truth at all and, their stories just aren’t as good as mine. So, while truth really does matter on important things like who won the election, who really pays for tariffs, who really supports policies that help families and people like most of those watching this debate, VP Harris and Tim Walz are telling the truth. These other guys lie and then they lie again about important things.
This is the first pundit assessment that rings true for me, in terms of my own perceptions of the debate, the two guys and the moderators. Not that I listen only to pundits I agree with. But your discussion helped me clarify for myself my particular viewpoints. Vance's pink tie provoked a lot speculation on my part! Now that Jack Smith's 165 page indictment has been made public, I'd be interested in hearing your take on its impact on the election. Does it sideline Israel, the hurricane, etc.?
As a European I find it amazing that everyone is so comfortable with the 'we won't fact check ' approach. What is the point of moderators if they're not there to hold the debaters to account. Also if you don't want me to fact check your response that says a lot about the credibility of your answer, no?
If you end every sentence about people politically opposed to you with “there was a lot of lying” while you also call Gretchen Witmer and mayor Pete as talent, don’t call yourself a moderate because you don’t know what that is. Edit: Also, the moderators literally broke the rules, and the fact that you didn’t bring up Tim Walz lying in the same breath speaks volumes.
The most patient women on earth. Putting up with Jessie alone, then there's the supposed judge. That show is crap disinfo. Thanks for calling em out...but move on. Please you're integrity is superior.
Scott: "On a balanced scorecard, you'd have to give the debate to him [Vance]" I've heard a lot of pundits say that sort of thing. But I think the debates aren't an academic exercise being judged by a forensics panel, the debate is just another political campaign event. And the target audience is that sliver of undecided voters, who are going to judge based on who they trust more. We've all got our blind spots but I'm pretty sure Walz crossed the finish line as the guy you trust.
You can’t give the debate to Vance, Scott. Vance was 100% leaning on ‘whataboutism’. It was weak, unpresidential and it invalidated any of his strengths. Tim Walz gets credit for beating a Yale lawyer at his own game.
The moderators sucked. Margaret Brennan: Governor Walz, if you are the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran? You have two minutes." immediately after and with full knowledge that Iran just hit Israel with the world's largest missile attack. Preemptive? really? How does that work? One of the many things I hate about this war is the corruption of our shared language and the way we communicate.
Could argue it went to Vance for it "humanizing him" but Waltz came across even more relatable & likeable, it gave the Ticket that Great "Big Lie" Campaign Ad "Gotcha" moment, and it wasn't a Catastrophe so "it was a Wash" ..
1 thing I would demand on all future debate is please put the timer/clock on the podium so the candidates don't have to look like idiots staring off into space to find it
The impact of these polls is not so much who "wins" but especially in this era of social media who leaves the best hits to use in ads. Walz did that. Vance was a steady force but didn't say anything memorable.
Scott is too impressed with JD's slickness, but all my friends and I felt like he was just the creepy guy who could fake being nice for 90 min. His mask kept slipping though. Women see him. We all know this jerk. He absolutely didn't win the debate among normal (non-pundit) people.
Can somebody explain to me why people keep parroting each other and say Vance is very intelligent? How can you tell? Serious question. I've probably met many smart people, but how can you tell? Vocabulary?
You guys always remind me I’m just a commoner. I don’t know why I continue to listen to you. I guess I just aspire to be an elite like you. I feel like I’m always watching a train wreck, though cause I feel very talk down to because you obviously come from such a different world than I am at.
Vance has the demeanor and affect of a game-show host. He is a smooth and polished debater, but he didn't answer several important questions---so he lost unless all you care about is spectacle and optics and "who owned who". Walz was awkward at times and misspoke on occasion, but he's not an experienced debater as he professed---but at least he answered the questions and is a real person rather than an AI bot and Trump lapdog like Vance.
Nothing conveys strength or presidential less than complaining about being fact checked. Imagine Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, etc saying that nonsense.
Scott, I don’t understand why you’re glazing Bance so hard. He sat up there and lied through his teeth and Walz should’ve used that to his advantage but didn’t.
24:42 - no way! I disagree wholeheartedly. Niki Haley will have the advantage and “told you so…” I’d bet on Haley for ‘28 100% - if Trump looses next month 🤞
Hey Scott, ever wonder if these podcasts are so popular because censorship is a real problem? A lot of people have personal experience with context being censored. I don't know how you deny that. Its extremely anti-democratic, like a party that refused to allow the American people to choose their candidate.
Mark Cuban is right. You can’t cry censorship and that you are being silenced when the most popular podcasts and shows are all right leaning. Sounds like to me that’s the new mainstream?
@@ssshar2176 Maybe... I am not sure I buy that. When you lean far to the left, moderates with both left and right-leaning political views and guests from all over the spectrum seem like far right... i.e. Joe Rogan, All In, Theo Von, etc. I think these are all about civil discourse with a lack of censorship, you get all views. The alternative is heavily censored media with a single point of view (mostly on the left but of course fox news as well!)
We need a term embargo on the word "unpacked". Not everything is packed---sometimes it's just laying there out in the open. Also, sometimes all one needs is a medium or shallow dive, not a "deep dive".
This VP debate was about moving pieces on a chessboard. Vance did what he was supposed to do. If you're going to post mortem these debates, I hope you post mortem the election in March next year and reference these debates and other things that happened. Because these aren't just dumb people running the campaigns. They are shrewd operators making decisions on how to get their candidates elected. The two sides have different assumptions about where the electorate is and how they can play the chessboard in order to win. And some of those moves are obvious to me misunderstood by many of the pundits right now. The value is looking at all of these things in retrospect. From how Vance and Waltz were chosen. To how Biden was pushed aside for Kamala (we probably won't know what really happened here for years). To why each side decided to attack the campaigns the way they did, from the debates to the town halls to the social media strategies to the specific issues they focused to the other things they did that seemed innocuous at the time but were actually brilliant moves in retrospect. That would be a lot more useful to the world than heat checks pre and post debate.
Look, I think Scott is actually a moderate on a lot of issues, but Israel isn’t one of them. He’s compared Hamas to imperial Japan and the Nazis numerous times. (If you know literally anything about history, is insane) It would be good for the podcast to have an opposing view. Get someone on that disagrees with you
He's not normalizing it. Google the percentage of CEOs and senior executives in organizations that are either psychopaths or sociopaths. There is research on this. To achieve great success it sometimes takes certain qualities. And some types of people excel at those things more than others on balance.
Vance has SAID he wants a National Abortion Ban. He wrote the intro to Project '25 Mandated Manifesto. He creepily dreams of Handmaid's tails of both sexes.
@TheProfGShow "The Idea that conservatives are being somehow censored is so ridiculous..." For an *Individual I try to not *infect (Yes INFLECT, that is the most accurate word to describe what I try not to do, gaining knowledge from you views, as well as notice often, when it's done to support a counter argument. That is a topic you might want to get more read up on... Look at the data... Maybe broaden you consideration of what "Censoring" (and the causal damages/ *intended or not, toward 'In-Kind Contribution later harvested) One Simple Lane, one example, GARM... I've watched congress address this... you cannot make that statement, truthfully, if you have all the data. Which makes that statement ill informed, or purposefully malicious. As I said, I value your intellect and more importantly, your articulation... But maybe look through the lens of Bipartisan on this topic. It's Clear sir... Respectfully... (your GUEST... Sorry to say, does this in Countless ways when on air... as a *VERY smart, but tinted lens view of what conservatism really is... or aims at.
2:50 - Walz could’ve been better. Vance sounded like a LLM android. Not quite like you two predicted last time. However, still not going to be any type of game changer.
Scott I am just a fan of yours, seriously. You are in many ways a hero to me. But your constant critique of Trump and Vance, and your praise for the Dems is really disappointing. The media did not "run with it" with regards to Vance's "weirdness". The created that narrative and you know it. And you're parroting this nonsense because you can't stand the idea of Trump winning. This is the thing that gets us TRUE moderates so miffed about the left. You can't stand orange man so much that you'll jump on what ever tactic necessary, repeat what ever lie, slander or worse, damaging propaganda, so long as it keeps Trump out. It's morally bankrupt behaviour. On the censorship of the right, dude, common. You have to be joking right? They literally de-platformed a sitting president. lol Before Musk bought X, there were so many voices on the right that were censored. Megan Kelly spoke to this in her interview with Bill Mayer. You know what else she talked about? The extent that Hillary went to discredit and deny that Trump won the election. She went on for MONTHS after the inauguration publicly stating that the there was election interference. And then she mustered the democrats to attack Trump with a bull shit Russian Collusion investigation. That was all driven by Hillary claiming Trump cheated in the elections. How do you not acknowledge this?
Seemed like a pretty clear win for Vance. The impact is debatable as most of the country has already picked a side, but advantage goes to Republicans here.
I was hoping to see an objective and unbiased review and recap here, but within the first 5 minutes Jessica made it very clear which side she's on. If that's your position, cool, but please don't label yourselves as moderates if you're not.
He's right, JD worked this like a talented defense attorney in a long continuous closing statement. I know we'd say Kamala is also an attorney but she anything she's just more of an interrogator didn't go to Yale law, and there is a risk in doing to much of it. Plus, I'm sure it's a risk for her to come off this way. There's a reason people don't like attorneys.
I know you folks are partisan. But boy, are you insane? How is it possible we can view the exact same thing and come out with diametrically opposite viewpoints?
Man. Gonna be wild to watch this channel when/if Trump wins. Because Tim looked overwhelmed to alot of plp in this debate. And using CNN on a favorability poll for Tim is like using a Foxnews poll for JD. Gotta find a way to remain non biased. Both of these candidates are awful.
