Tim Walz won the debate on speaking the truth. For the uninformed, JD Vance likely drew a draw. Vance lost the debate when he could not say Trump lost the 2020 election.
Au contrere, mon frère... IMO it was pretty much a draw. No clear winner. Based strictly on first impressions, very important in a TV debate, Vance had the better presentation of himself. Early on, Walz spent much of the time with his face clenched and a bit hunched over, as if he were concentrating too hard instead of relaxing and having fun with it. (Harris pulled this off extremely well.)
Later, Walz did loosen up quite a bit, but still. Regarding talking points, Vance is obviously a pathological liar, but he did it well. Walz held his own by directly addressing the viewing audience a few times, a good narrative tactic. Also, he admitted straight-up that he misspoke (i.e. exaggerated in what was, eh, essentially a lie) regarding carrying weapons in a war.
Partisans on each side can claim a victory and, as noted, I think no one took home the silver cup. But if I had to make a judgment call, I'd say Vance edged out a victory because of the way he presented himself.
p.s. Compared with the vitriol in this election cycle, the degree to which the two candidates treated each other with respect and even with glimmers of cordiality was striking. Kinda funny, that's what happens when two midwestern guys go toe-to-toe. To me it almost felt like satire -- like characters from Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon. Arguably, that was the real win in this debate.
Au contrere, mon frère... IMO it was pretty much a draw. No clear winner. Based strictly on first impressions, very important in a TV debate, Vance had the better presentation of himself. Early on, Walz spent much of the time with his face clenched and a bit hunched over, as if he were concentrating too hard instead of relaxing and having fun with it. (Harris pulled this off extremely well.)
Later, Walz did loosen up quite a bit, but still. Regarding talking points, Vance is obviously a pathological liar, but he did it well. Walz held his own by directly addressing the viewing audience a few times, a good narrative tactic. Also, he admitted straight-up that he misspoke (i.e. exaggerated in what was, eh, essentially a lie) regarding carrying weapons in a war.
Partisans on each side can claim a victory and, as noted, I think no one took home the silver cup. But if I had to make a judgment call, I'd say Vance edged out a victory because of the way he presented himself.
p.s. Compared with the vitriol in this election cycle, the degree to which the two candidates treated each other with respect and even with glimmers of cordiality was striking. Kinda funny, that's what happens when two midwestern guys go toe-to-toe. To me it almost felt like satire -- like characters from Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon. Arguably, that was the real win in this debate.