Let the debate begin?

[catherine]

I do like the fact checks. The NYT usually does a pretty good bipartisan job of that. I think I'd only do the QR thing if I really doubted the veracity of a claim on either side.

[iris lilies]

Yes, the bomb threats and stuff are just so over the top.

I just ran across an old article that said there were 5 U.S. bomb threats a day in the 1970’s.

[early morning]

Five bomb threats a day - in the whole country? In this instance, we're talking at least 5 a day in ONE CITY. And a fairly small city, at that. Not sure what you're saying, really - that the bomb threats Springfield Ohio had to deal with weren't over the top? Just looking for clarification here....

[iris lilies]

Five bomb threats a day - in the whole country? In this instance, we're talking at least 5 a day in ONE CITY. And a fairly small city, at that. Not sure what you're saying, really - that the bomb threats Springfield Ohio had to deal with weren't over the top? Just looking for clarification here....

Five bomb threat a day and one small city is a lot, you are right

[Tybee]

I have absolutely no idea how many there were in the 1970's but I do recall a stretch of the spring in ninth grade when we had 1-2 a week.

[Rogar]

I managed to watch the whole thing. Vance is a slick talker and probably made a good impression based on that. I think his sort of friendly behavior was orchestrated to contrast with Trump and prove the GOP is human. He did it well, but was probably an act to some degree. The fact checkers I've seen give Vance more demerits that Waltz, but he did not go off the rails like Trump tends to do. Many of his arguments circled back to immigration as the root cause of all evil.

Waltz did adequately, but was probably outdone by Vance by what I'd guess as public perception. It's easy to look good in a debate if the truth isn't too important. The critical point for me was he pinned Vance down to climate change denial and the big election lie. He could have done better, but adequate.

They are saying the debate doesn't really matter in terms of votes, but maybe just a small amount can make a difference. With Trump's age it's not too much of a stretch to imagine Vance as a GOP leader.

My take.

[catherine]

I watched the whole thing, too. Right away, I saw that Waltz was not comfortable up there, at least for the first couple of questions. He looked nervous, and he frequently paused momentarily as if he were searching for the right word.. OTOH, Vance was the debate club king. He was very polished in terms of delivery.

However, Walz got increasing comfortable, but still did less well than Vance in terms of debate "points"--Pundits are saying that he really came into his own with the direct question: Do you think Trump lost the 2020 election? and when Vance danced around it, Waltz said, "Well, that's a damning non-answer." If he had started the debate with that posture, I think the debate performance between the two would have been much more even, or Walz could have won it, given the number of lies and mischaracterizations Vance was spewing.

That's my take.

On a related note, while I was watching, I recalled that both of these men are "one heartbeat away" from being President (depending upon who wins, of course). I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with either one being President--neither has enough experience or authority. But I imagine J.D. Vance is more vulnerable to actually being in that position than Walz is.

[iris lilies]

I did not watch these debates, any of them, but for the bits highly publicized after the fact. I expected both of these guys to do well .

My general impression about Vance is that he would be an OK candidate if he were not under the mantle of Trump. I don’t know how much of his ridiculous utterings (as represented by headline news) is really Vance or just a VP candidate being attack Dog, or—-headline news. I think that’s their job, the VPs. The thing is, with Trump in the lead role, no one needs an attack dog.


I think I would like a Vance/DeSantis ticket Very much.

Dave Ramsey has an interview out with President Trump. Dave was adamant they would not sling mud at the other candidates as he wants to talk about policy issues especially the economy. So I will probably listen to that. Ramsey has not interviewed Kamala Harris because the Harris campaign has ot agreed to an interview.

[Tybee]

Dave was adamant they would not sling mud at the other candidates as he wants to talk about policy issues especially the economy. So I will probably listen to that. Ramsey has not interviewed Kamala Harris because the Harris campaign has agreed to an interview.

Can you clarify, confused here:
Do you mean Dave would not sling mud or Donald Trump would not sling mud? Did you mean Ramsey has not interviewed KH because the Harris campaign has not agreed?

[LDAHL]

Five bomb threats a day - in the whole country? In this instance, we're talking at least 5 a day in ONE CITY. And a fairly small city, at that. Not sure what you're saying, really - that the bomb threats Springfield Ohio had to deal with weren't over the top? Just looking for clarification here....

Not five bomb threats. Five actual bombings.

https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/

It’s one reason I have trouble taking all those “most divisive times ever” claims seriously. I just compare the bombers of the seventies with the internet trolls of the 2020s.