465
Tim Walz gets bigger polling boost than JD Vance after VP debate
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
465 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3440 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He didn't do himself any favors when he refused to admit the 2020 election wasn't stolen and acted like the slippery weasel he is when questioned on abortion.
But obviously he did, enough people saw that and said "Yeah, That's my guy" that his net favorability rating is up 19 points. It's still negative, but the fact it went up at all is troubling.
I don’t like him at all, but he was articulate and not at all unhinged. He also hammered on the magic words that T somehow failed on: she’s been in office, where are her changes? (Yes, the VP job is a minimal role unless you’re Dick Cheney, but it works as effective perception management on most people.)
Walz looked like he was sweating into his suit when the debate started, but then warmed up.
The ending on Vance’s refusal to admit Trump lost in 2020, or to answer the question on whether or not he’d certify was really damning.
I get what you mean here, but it's also what makes Vance and whatever else comes after Trump so dangerous: the bar has been lowered so far that people now view "able to form coherent sentences" as "not at all unhinged."
The man stood there and repeated the bald faced lie about Haitian migrants' legal status and then had a temper tantrum that the rules said he wasn't supposed to be fact-checked.
The substance of what he was saying was absolutely unhinged. But the Overton window has shifted so far that, because his delivery was neatly packaged, it doesn't look that bad compared to what we've gotten used to.
Yeah, my father in law made some comment about "this debate is so much better than the last one" and I'm like...yeah, the word salad is replaced with Coherent English lies, but that's not a great step up.
Yes he did. But he sold it to people who don’t know better. This is probably why no fact checking was in the rules.
(Which, how is that even allowed to be a thing?)
He also, and this reads to your point, sells it to “non elites” (the non-degreed) with his dismissal of Wharton college economists. He acknowledges their PhDs, then says they lack common sense and wisdom, which has been a key byline for the Republican Party as a whole, echoing back years.
PhDs are snobby fucks who lack common sense. Listen to me instead.
The book smarts vs common sense, like they’re mutually exclusive is a very common, much repeated sentiment among working class Midwesterners. I was so mad that he got that right, not in the sense that it is correct, but that it will swing people his way.
People love to assume something like book smarts vs common sense or brains vs brawn is a scale where going higher on one means going lower on the other
Fair, but I'm not very worried about it. He's still in the negatives, and as news comes out about exactly how dishonest he was throughout, I think his negatives will tick back up.