A well deserved bow. That's the "debate" my wife and I watched. During it my wife, an honest-to-God San Francisco hippie, kept saying "please don't let me like him". His act was good. But by the time he got to abortion she was "fuck that guy". Eventually, the content matters when it touches something you know about. Vance may be a better salesman than Trump, but he can't deliver what Trump does, and that's why Trump owns the Republican party base.. So far, nobody can duplicate that, but they'll keep trying because they have nothing else.
Walz attended what was supposed to be a debate, but it was actually just J.D. Vance performing a well rehearsed speech in 2 minute increments. But you're right, it isn't going to change anything.
I don't think his objective was to gaslight the audience, but to push the average "normalcy" score of their tag team up--in which he fairly succeeded, sounding even civil and emphatetic. Unfortunately Walz struggled to find his foot from the beginning--and his China trip conundrum was straight embarassing. Luckily he found the non-answer before the end, otherwise it'd be a disaster.
I'd love to agree but I don't think the talking heads are calling it a draw either.
Of course the fact that JD was lying his ass off the nearly the whole time is just part of the background radiation, and him "exceeding expectations" is what mattered ... somehow.
What I really do not understand why Harris/Walz do not attack Trump/Vance on economics and why they let the illusion stand that a grifter (a really good target, by the way, all that grifting) like Trump is a good businessman who is good for the economy. They play to their strengths, but they do not undermine Trump's strengths such as they exist in a large part of the US population.
Why do they not for instance counter a simplistic 'you get higher wages' with an equally simplistic 'yes, but what use is a bit of extra wage when you have to pay for so much more that in the end you're left with less'?
This is a larger-scale rhetorical trap that they've been stuck in all year.
The economy is, by all the standard indicators, doing pretty great. They managed a post-COVID recovery without falling into recession. Unemployment is low, inflation has dropped, wages are higher, etc.
But people do not believe that the economy is doing well. And, when asked *why* people don't believe that, Biden/Harris/Walz do not want to say "because all the hear from the news media is how terrible everything is." That sounds like sour grapes whining, even if it is true.
So instead they try to make clear that they understand there's still work to do. Housing costs are too high, inflation was out of control for awhile etc. But that answer accepts the premise that the economy is bad.
I'd *personally* like them to assert that its good, explain why, then pivot to "we still have work to do." But it's a complicated trap because the best explanation for why people don't believe the economic indicators is an explanation that sounds like loser-talk.
True. But there is enough fodder for a different approach. Not saying the economy is doing well but attacking the tax cuts on their effect on debt, on how normal people did not get that $4000/year, that companies gave the money to shareholders, etc. Maybe not go for 'the economy is good' but for 'the economy is not bad but good, but not for you. how come?' And how is more Trump going to make it even worse. They kind of do that, but there is much room for attacking Trump on economic policy. But maybe there is no good way.
A well deserved bow. That's the "debate" my wife and I watched. During it my wife, an honest-to-God San Francisco hippie, kept saying "please don't let me like him". His act was good. But by the time he got to abortion she was "fuck that guy". Eventually, the content matters when it touches something you know about. Vance may be a better salesman than Trump, but he can't deliver what Trump does, and that's why Trump owns the Republican party base.. So far, nobody can duplicate that, but they'll keep trying because they have nothing else.
Walz attended what was supposed to be a debate, but it was actually just J.D. Vance performing a well rehearsed speech in 2 minute increments. But you're right, it isn't going to change anything.
Had the same expectations. My friends and I remind each other:
We're not in the intended audience >
and know too much about what they're doing >
To be useful predictors.
Now WE can predict, and will. Usefully? Well...
I don't think his objective was to gaslight the audience, but to push the average "normalcy" score of their tag team up--in which he fairly succeeded, sounding even civil and emphatetic. Unfortunately Walz struggled to find his foot from the beginning--and his China trip conundrum was straight embarassing. Luckily he found the non-answer before the end, otherwise it'd be a disaster.
I'd love to agree but I don't think the talking heads are calling it a draw either.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/opinion/vance-walz-debate-scorecard.html
Love that screenshot; hope it lives long and prospers 🖖
Of course the fact that JD was lying his ass off the nearly the whole time is just part of the background radiation, and him "exceeding expectations" is what mattered ... somehow.
Wow some people are cheap dates.
What I really do not understand why Harris/Walz do not attack Trump/Vance on economics and why they let the illusion stand that a grifter (a really good target, by the way, all that grifting) like Trump is a good businessman who is good for the economy. They play to their strengths, but they do not undermine Trump's strengths such as they exist in a large part of the US population.
Why do they not for instance counter a simplistic 'you get higher wages' with an equally simplistic 'yes, but what use is a bit of extra wage when you have to pay for so much more that in the end you're left with less'?
This is a larger-scale rhetorical trap that they've been stuck in all year.
The economy is, by all the standard indicators, doing pretty great. They managed a post-COVID recovery without falling into recession. Unemployment is low, inflation has dropped, wages are higher, etc.
But people do not believe that the economy is doing well. And, when asked *why* people don't believe that, Biden/Harris/Walz do not want to say "because all the hear from the news media is how terrible everything is." That sounds like sour grapes whining, even if it is true.
So instead they try to make clear that they understand there's still work to do. Housing costs are too high, inflation was out of control for awhile etc. But that answer accepts the premise that the economy is bad.
I'd *personally* like them to assert that its good, explain why, then pivot to "we still have work to do." But it's a complicated trap because the best explanation for why people don't believe the economic indicators is an explanation that sounds like loser-talk.
True. But there is enough fodder for a different approach. Not saying the economy is doing well but attacking the tax cuts on their effect on debt, on how normal people did not get that $4000/year, that companies gave the money to shareholders, etc. Maybe not go for 'the economy is good' but for 'the economy is not bad but good, but not for you. how come?' And how is more Trump going to make it even worse. They kind of do that, but there is much room for attacking Trump on economic policy. But maybe there is no good way.