Walz Vance debate
-
Axios: Vance was too normal and nice - and it rattled Walz
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/03/jd-vance-vp-debate-nice
Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) went into the vice-presidential debate with a plan to surprise Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz by being shockingly ... super-duper nice.
Why it matters: It worked. The result was a refreshingly substantive, even cheery debate — a flashback to a less polarized America, and a preview of what's possible if the nation's current rage subsides. But it was a premeditated political maneuver to rattle Walz.
Walz was girded for war against Vance, who has spent the past 10 weeks defending past controversial remarks.Instead, Vance greeted Walz with a big smile, and the two shook hands warmly right off the bat. It set a very different tone than the icy encounter between the top-of-the-ticket nominees, Vice President Harris and former President Trump, when they debated last month.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Redefining Masculinity!
-
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Mik said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
You think there is NO correlation? You think these 5-6 folks would've literally died without the Jan 6 event? That is the true question.
Again, correlation does not equal causation. Heart attacks are not caused by a singular event but by a long period of declining cardiovascular health that culminates in blockage. Suicides are not either and are not uncommon among LEOs. Both are a culmination of events.
In short, those deaths were likely to happen soon anyway. January 6 did not cause any otherwise healthy person to have a heart attack or commit suicide by itself.
We'll never know, but I would wager a good amount of money those 3 cops would still be alive today (over 3 years later). For the heart attacks, those were probably inevitable but also possibly triggered by the mayhem. We'll never know. We do know there were hundreds of injuries and at least 1 death (but likely up to 5) that were caused by this event. If only it could have been prevented... but yeah, we should focus on the future. I would imagine (or hope) when Trump loses in November he'll concede, albeit with lots of excuses and others to blame.
You know, your lower anterior descending artery really doesn't care what another person thinks, one way or another..
-
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
How often does a VEEP debate change anything?
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
It is generally agreed that VP Harris won her debate and it seems that Sen Vance won his debate.
Probably, there is still a net increase for VP Harris. For example, maybe she gains 0.5% after her debate and loses 0.2% after the VP debate, as that is not as "important"
-
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
I only bring this all up because it still hurts my brain how folks are minimizing or finding excuses for what happened that day.
You blatantly maximize what happened that day, and accuse anybody who doesn't do so of minimizing. I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I'd prefer to keep to some actual facts, rather than rhetorical "facts".
I know a cop that works there, it is VERY abnormal to have 3 officers die within days of an event... so the likelihood January 6th caused at least 4 deaths IMO is north of 90%, not to mention injuries to law enforcement.
You keep doing this, pulling numbers out of your butt that can't be proven or disproven. I get that you're motivated to maximize the tragedy of January 6. So is Walz. This conversation started with me questioning whether his "140 officers beaten that day" was a lie. Which it was.
As far as I'm aware, the official statistic is there "were at least 140 officers who were physically injured that day" and the DOJ says that number underestimates the actual number of officers who were physically injured, and of course doesn't count those who experienced trauma. Further, the FBI reviewed 2,300 hours (yes, hours) of body cam footage and documented approximately 1,000 events of "instances of assault against members of law enforcement who were trying to protect the building". And yes, 3 officers who were assaulted died within what, 72 hours, from stroke/suicides.
Certainly I can see in a courtroom a good lawyer arguing that "beaten" and "physically injured" aren't the exact same thing, and also that there is reasonable doubt that the 3 officers who died as a result of the assault.
But in plain language, Walz's summary that "140 officers were beaten that day, some who later died" I think more than passes the sniff test of being an accurate summary of what happened.
Perhaps he should've said "That day there were approximately 1,000 assaults on capitol police, at least 140 officers who reported injuries, and 3 officers who likely died within days as a result." But again, I think his summary phrase above reflects the truth.
Further, Walz made that summary phrase as part of a larger point... that a President's words do matter, and his refusal to accept his election loss and his stirring up of his supporters ultimately caused the death and injuries witnessed.
-
We know exactly where the 140 number comes from. It is the number of officers who self-reported any injury whatsoever, from friendly fire pepper spray to whatever was the worst physical injury an officer suffered that day. (According to my quick google, this was a concussion suffered when an officer was pushed to the ground.) The difference between "beaten" and "self reported any injury whatsoever" is not remotely a pedantic nit-pick.
You think there were 1000 separate physical assaults on the officers that day, 1000 separate beatings, and nobody drew their weapons and fired at the rioters, except the guy who shot Babbit, who never touched anybody. That is quite remarkable. The easiest explanation for this is that someone responsible for counting had a very, very broad definition of an assault.
-
Have you seen body cam footage before? Even if someone being arrested for DUI or something, if they turn around and stomp on the cop's foot, or spit in their face, or shove the cop... that is assault. That's where the 1,000 number comes from, which is criminally accurate I'd imagine.
Please go watch some basic footage of Jan 6 and tell me there aren't dozens if not 100+ more cops that were being assaulted, like... not in the nice assault way either. Again and I'll stop repeating it, I think Walz's summary was realistic. If you don't then that's ok, too. I thought his larger point is accurate as well... President's words matter and what we saw that day was a result of election denialism and stirring up his supporters.
-
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
Axios: Vance was too normal and nice - and it rattled Walz
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/03/jd-vance-vp-debate-nice
Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) went into the vice-presidential debate with a plan to surprise Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz by being shockingly ... super-duper nice.
Why it matters: It worked. The result was a refreshingly substantive, even cheery debate — a flashback to a less polarized America, and a preview of what's possible if the nation's current rage subsides. But it was a premeditated political maneuver to rattle Walz.
Walz was girded for war against Vance, who has spent the past 10 weeks defending past controversial remarks.Instead, Vance greeted Walz with a big smile, and the two shook hands warmly right off the bat. It set a very different tone than the icy encounter between the top-of-the-ticket nominees, Vice President Harris and former President Trump, when they debated last month.
Yes. Trump would have a lock if only he could manage to do the same. Like be presidential.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Walz Vance debate:
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
How often does a VEEP debate change anything?
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
It is generally agreed that VP Harris won her debate and it seems that Sen Vance won his debate.
Probably, there is still a net increase for VP Harris. For example, maybe she gains 0.5% after her debate and loses 0.2% after the VP debate, as that is not as "important"
I think it had a little bigger effect than most VP debates. Here’s why.
-
I don’t think there are really many undecideds (if any) in the traditional sense. I doubt there is anybody out there debating between the two platforms… “I like Trump on this, Harris on that, oh, who should I choose?!” I think that most of the undecideds are people that begrudgingly know who they will vote for but are undecided on whether they are motivated enough to actually go vote next month. This will help motivate the Trump/Vance hesitant voters. The Harris/Walz hesitant voters were probably unaffected by Walz’s performance.
-
It’s another part of a really bad week. The polls were all starting to stall, then you had Hellene, the piss poor Federal Govt response, and Mayorkas going to Congress saying FEMA was broke after paying for migrants in hotels. Then the whole Israel/Iran thing, and Doug’s penchant for smacking the ho’s coming out? It was definitely a 4 boxes of wine type of week, even without Double T’s big fail.
-
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Walz Vance debate:
This will help motivate the Trump/Vance hesitant voters. The Harris/Walz hesitant voters were probably unaffected by Walz’s performance.
I think that's perfectly accurate.
-
@LuFins-Dad I am not sure. Is there anybody who remembers the president debate? If they do, they probably remember the "they're eating the dogs" line.
I dont think that there was the same type of line in the VP debate.
And I wonder what the viewers/isteners were for the debate. PRobably somewhat small.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Walz Vance debate:
@LuFins-Dad I am not sure. Is there anybody who remembers the president debate? If they do, they probably remember the "they're eating the dogs" line.
I dont think that there was the same type of line in the VP debate.
And I wonder what the viewers/isteners were for the debate. PRobably somewhat small.
Small viewership is fine. The election isn’t going to be decided by millions and millions of people in California and Texas. It’s going to be decided by 100K in PA, 50K in Arizona, 50K in NC,etc…
Altogether, I’d say it will be decided by under 500K voters spread out between 7 states. And I think that 5-6% of “undecided” (again, I don’t think they are undecided about who, I think they are undecided over whether) probably paid some attention to the debate.
We’re not going to see a massive swing in the polls. Maybe Harris/TT drop .25%. Maybe Trump/Vance move up .4%. In this election? That’s huge. We won’t be able to gauge for another week, and even then it will be difficult to guess whether any changes were caused by the debate, or this thoroughly bad week.
Me/rry/Christmas
-
Good points, but then people cannot discount the fact that voter registration increased by 2MM (or something like that) after Taylor Swift encouraged people to vote (and then endorsed Harris). Taylor Swift fans are not concentrated in one state - I would guess that they are pretty evenly spreadout and most(?) of the younger newly registered voters that do end up voting will probably vote for VP Harris.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Walz Vance debate:
Good points, but then people cannot discount the fact that voter registration increased by 2MM (or something like that) after Taylor Swift encouraged people to vote (and then endorsed Harris). Taylor Swift fans are not concentrated in one state - I would guess that they are pretty evenly spreadout and most(?) of the younger newly registered voters that do end up voting will probably vote for VP Harris.
Nope. They increased by 400,000. Not 2,000,000. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-voter-registration-site-harris-endorsement-1235102031/
The 2,000,000 number is actually the number of Spotify listeners Swift lost after endorsing Harris - https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-slump-taylor-swift-loses-151349819.html
Interesting, no? Republicans buy sneakers, too.
Beyond that, the majority of those new voter registrations are going to be distributed throughout the most populous states. California, likely accounted for 20% of them.
At any rate, Republicans have actually made significant gains on new voter registrations over the last few years. Yes, Dems had more registered new voters in August, post convention, but the overall numbers have heavily been in Republican favor, especially in swing states.
