Ask A Genius 1135: On the Walz-Vance Debate, bit late!
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/31
Rick Rosner: Now, let us talk about the debate briefly. Tonight was the VP debate between Walz and Vance. I watched the whole thing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Pause. How do you feel emotionally after watching the debate?
Rosner: My time could have been better. They were civil—it was almost soothing.
Jacobsen: Was it closer to a ’90s or early 2000s American debate?
Rosner: Yes, that is what I tweeted—it felt like a throwback, a flashback to pre-Trump times. However, if you look back at debates from that era, they still had zingers and moments of real anger. These guys were trying their best to be civil. Walz was nervous, especially at the beginning, but overall, they were nice to each other. They agreed and sympathized with each other, though they had definite positions.
Toward the end, Walz pressed Vance on whether he would have certified the 2020 election, and Vance could not say that he would have, which was Walz’s best moment of the night. Overall, it was civil. They shook hands and did not seem to hate each other. In doing so, Vance benefitted more because everyone already knows Walz is a great guy. Vance has low approval ratings because many think he is a weird prick.
Yes, going in, the expectations were low for Vance. He has done many debates—whether it is part of his time as a politician or something from college—but people who knew him expected him to be a slicker speaker, and he was. That earned him some points. On the other hand, Waltz points to his sincerity and experience.
According to the CNN post-debate flash poll, Vance won 51 to 49, but it is so close to a tie that I am not sure it will make much difference. The common wisdom, which CNN repeated repeatedly, is that VP debates typically move the needle less in elections. This debate, being so close, remains pretty much the same.
Neither of them made any huge gaffes. Walt had an awkward moment when he botched an answer about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre. Someone fact-checked him and found out he arrived in Hong Kong a month after the massacre. He fumbled and eventually said, “I misspoke,” but it was not a great answer.
He tried to explain it by saying, “I get excited when I talk, and I was there that summer,” but it was not a lot of a gotcha moment. Hardcore MAGA supporters tweeted about how it was a crushing mistake, but it was not. On the other hand, Vance had some baggage with his previous horrible tweets about Trump before he became pro-Trump, but they did not make a big deal out of that.
Honestly, I am glad I watched the debate—it gave me something to do while doing squats and sit-ups. However, CNN kept teasing their flash poll and made me wait an hour to see the results, so they stole an extra hour of my time after the debate.
Overall, it was kind of “meh”—a lukewarm bath. I did not hear much about the debate where I was, so it was not a huge deal. If something astonishing had happened, it could have made waves, but it didn’t.
Someone I follow on Twitter said Trump is the real loser of the debate because you have Harris. Then you have the two guys, and all of them are reasonable and can put sentences together. Vance got away with many misrepresentations—well, lies. They tried to fact-check him once, and he got annoyed because the rules prohibited the moderators from fact-checking. Still, all three candidates did a good job overall. The only one who has consistently sucked in debates, especially in the last two, has been Trump. Even in his debate with Biden—yes, Biden was old and stumbly—but Trump told dozens of lies.
The competence and reasonableness of the other three candidates highlight how out-of-control Trump is. However, nobody else will see it that way except for a couple of people on Twitter. That is the deal.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
In-Sight Publishing 