This is what I saw and heard: a highly educated professional willing to say anything his boss told him to say (JD) vs an honest man just believing in helping the average family in this country. Yes, JD can deliver in high performance scenarios, but he takes Groucho's maxim to a new level "those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have some others..."
looked like a loser who did not prep for a top job. I don't want a human, I want the best of the best. Harris and Vance are both better than their counterparts.
So the person who is a smoother liar is the winner? No way…Vance lied and smirked the whole time. Walz actually answered most of the questions. Vance didn’t answer or lied. This debate did not sway any voters. I disagree that Walz flat out lost. He did just fine.
Katy is rather shallow....very superficial in terms of her obsession with visuals....she didn't mention anything about the substance of their arguments. All about superficial who looked "cooler."
CNN post debate poll measuring movement between unlikability and likability showed Walz as the winner with a bigger net gain and movement from net positive to greater net positive. Vance went from badly net negative to slightly net negative, a big gain but starting from the 3rd circle of hell does leave more room for upward mobility.
I agree... they are both very superficial. Scaramucci ran with grifter Trump for years and was finance co-chair for the awful Mitt Romney ( who refuses to endorse Kamala Harris)
What the heck was Scaramucci on about with the "Yale debate" comment, and the question about whether Vance is too young? This passage sounded like it was more about coining a phrase, or creating a meme, than actually making a point.
Walz lies about everything though lol. Lies about military record, lies about being there for Tianamman square, lies about his wife having IVF. He lies about big things, he lies about small things, he lies about things he doesn't need to lie about. If you see in him someone who is sincere, you're either so bought in as a partisan that you can't see the wood for the trees or you're a bit stupid.
What were you watching? Why so blind, credit where credit due, jd Vance got a chance for USA public to see him for who he is, and not who democrats like to portray him.
Albert the dems don’t have to portray anything. He’s smart enough to know what a slimeball trump is, as he’s said it private, but saw a chance for power and took it, thinking he could ride trump coattail to power after his term. He won the debate by being smoother whereas walz was clearly more nervous especially at the start. Good thing no one cares about the vp debate really. The right will play this up of though course since trump shit the bed in the debate that mattered
So I guess nobody actually listened to JD? He said Trump saved the ACA. He said you ramp up manufacturing and oil production to combat climate change. He refused to say Trump lost. He waffled on every answer, even the ones about immigration. Walz wasnt perfect, but JD was tossing up word salads left and right.
Winning a debate is a separate question from what is true. Debaters draw straws as to which side they argue. Vance won the debate, Walz won the veracity, integrity and humanity awards.
@Gottenhimfella that makes no sense, a debate requires putting together coherent arguments to convince those watching that you make more sense than the other side. JD did not do that. He baked in incoherent arguments within his word salads.
Vance was proficient, fluent, slick, and evasive. How many questions did he avoid? He was too cowardly to admit that Trump LOST in 2020, lied, and incited a riot! He made me cringe throughout, while Walz had me holding my breath, crossing my fingers, and hoping. Vance came across as a diletantte, an expert in gaslighting, and dishonest. Walz came across as compassionate, flawed, and human.
Funny how the script flips, when the shoe is on the other foot. What Vance did is essentially what is evaluated as “Hillary won! Obama won! Kamala won!” when the Left declares “winner” of the debates. *ALL* it MEANS is “slick and evasive”. It’s a who can fleece the public better debate. Not a who told the truth debate.
@@courtneyc3850 Because verbal debates aren't about accuracy. They're about image. And winning isn't whether people already voting for you agree with you. Its about who comes off better prepared in the minds of the undecided voters.
Walz came across a relatable human, empathic and like all of us occasionally flawed, Vance came across as a car salesman just professionally selling something, as voters we are not scoring a University debate, we are looking for a connection, I felt connected with Walz, totally disconnected from Vance.
The other thing to remember is that the edge will always go to the younger, more telegenic candidate. Vance was smoother and amiable, but he had his youthful presence versus an old looking Walz going for him.
@@KGold53 Aha yes people can be gullible to that superficial stuff, I'm an oldie and had to do many forensic interviews in my time and can see through the Vance's of the world
Only journalists would think Vance won. Slick, smooth and evasive doesn’t mean he won the debate. You’re looking at it through media eyes not the publics.
Vance had spin, not substance, evasive, insincere, glib, but will it persuade those who are uninformed? Can he be trusted? The flip from "Never Trump" to running mate answers that for me. Served his own quest for power. Unprincipled.
I genuinely believe that Walz had several good answers and several knockout blows. I have even heard several pundits using the same knockouts afterwards. So it says something. His debate was good. All those pundits are from Ivy league and they expect certain things. After the debate, having heard the questions and the answers, it is easy to edit and say Walz should have said this or that.
Reddit is also a notorious political echo-chamber. 🤡 Literally nothing but Marxists and Democrat-voters on political subreddits. You’d have to be BEYOND brainwashed to think Reddit would give an even remotely fair assessment when it comes to politics.
Vance over did it trying to be liked, and low performance on important issues. Waltz had a short period of feeling uncomfortable but made up for it. My vote goes to Walz!
@sodiumlights- the fact that you justify such behaviour shows why the Anglosphere is fucked- thinking of excuses to give the powerful for such deplorable behaviour than holding them accountable. If you lied to your manager the way vance did, you'd be sacked. If his boss fires him, good. Shame you're not in favour of making him immediately face consequences for inciting terrorist attacks against Haitian migrants because you treat politicians as if they're above the law and must vote them out first.
@@billcoleman4258 ... none about Project 2024 because it does not exists. But many know about Project 2025 because the Heritage Foundation, a republican think thank, made the 900+ pages publicaly available over the internet. They are recruiting thousands ofnew civil servants for the jobs available once Trump fire all the existing federal civil servant.
Truth is subjective. Everyone watching this is bias in favor of Walz. Our truth is not the same as the people who favor Trump/Vance. Truth is a useless metric in judging a debate performance. Facts aren't even useful.
Can you believe if Trump win the election, we’ll have TWO liars in the Whitehouse. I don’t know how to teach my grand children “Honesty” morally and dangerous problems.
Vance is MUCH more dangerous; he is more intelligent and a much more polished slimy liar than Trump. Given the state Trump is in he could become President.... then what Vance will appear?
I think Vance will eventually turn on trump in a spectacular way. The reason I say that is because I’m not sure anyone on earth actually knows who the real JD Vance is. He’s shown at least 3 completely different personalities… yikes
Walz was good on policy. He was nervous at first. He could have been better at holding Vance to account. But he got better as the debate progressed. At the end of the debate I felt there was no winner or loser but some good discussion about policies.
Walz and his authenticity won that debate - this so called lying smoothness of Vance doesn’t win a debate but seems to make all these pundits happy - common sense is not so common again these days lol
Walz was genuine and human. Normal. Accessible. This is not a college debate competition. Who TF cares who “won?” Vance gave me the creeps. We knew he would be slick. I’m from Ohio. Peter Thiel got Vance elected. #VoteBlueUpAndDownTheBallot I did.
I have very conservative friends in Ohio. They're in their 80s and have probably never voted for a democrat. They don't like Vance, they think he's fake and weird. Vance lied and did't answer questions esp the one about 2020 election. He's a cold, calculating snake.
@@petercooper9277 Believe whatever you want, MAGAT. Winning a debate is up to the voters. Vance lied from go to whoa, cupcake. Today’s document dump proves that. I know, you’ll scream ELECTION INTERFERENCE, like your cult leader. The last minute of the debate is what people are talking about.
@@petercooper9277FO we weren’t watching the Chump Show and partner that’s for sure, both liars and nothing but conmen, you stick with your loser😂😂😂, we will carry on for the WIN! No response necessary, it would make me 🤮 🤮 🤢
Sorry to hear this analysis ..I'm in Ireland and wasn't watching but was listening as I woke up at 2.30am. From my listening , I felt that Walz was more honest and winning on these points ..I missed the TKO moment .
If there has to be a "winner" OK it was Vance on his stunning ability to be slippery and fake. But Walz didn't do any harm to Harris, and helped her quite a bit.
I don’t think there is anything slick about crying like a baby “I wasn’t supposed to be fact checked” it’s a meme all over social media. He needs to be out of the political arena like the Chump, Cruz, Hawley, Scott, Lake, MTG, Gaetz, Jordan,Johnson and more, LIARS!
I disagree. Walz was nervous at first and unfortunately avoided answering the opening question, as he also unfortunately did re: Tianaman Square. That said, Vance constantly referred to the “Harris” administration. There is no Harris administration. She’s the VP. As VP, the last four years have been Biden’s policies, not hers. As for facts, Trump inherited a growing economy/stock market and all he had to do is not fuck it up, which he didn’t. However, HE FUCKING BLEW COVID!!! The luckiest moment for DJT’s political career was losing the 2020 election. Had he won, the onus of inflation/gas prices, etc would have been his to bear. All in all , a civilized debate. Too bad Vance wasn’t more grounded in reality.
Well MAGA doesn't know what the VP actually does, so those attack lines might have worked for some viewers. My favourite part was when Vance refused to state that Trump lost the last election and deflected to concocted notions (without examples) of censorship. But in doing so, he self-censored himself over fear of reprisal from Trump. You can't even write the irony.
Sorry but most of this comment is not based on facts, if you want to defend someone’s record then do your research and it is a much different picture than you laid out about Trump, ,good try, it was slick though, you almost sound unmaga like!
Love the Dead Zone! I'm a huge Christopher Walken fan. We love, trust and RESPECT Governor Tim Walz. I have zero doubt about his abilities and his strength. He is brilliant. I love you two. 💙💙💙💙💙
I'm my view, the winner of any debate is the person that actually answers more questions. Not the person that just looks good and smooth. This is why American politics is so screwed. Experts praise appearance rather than substance
Why can’t you do some research, I learned all about the Harris Policies and the Project 2025, if you check these 2 things out you will never need fact checking on the Chump and his minion, the Project will scare the hell out of you! JD Vance wrote the forward! I can give you a hint, it is not about regular Americans winning , it is about a whole new world for regular Americans and if your not white or a Christian nationalist, then I’d hurry up and become one!
I'm sorry but you're being insane, Anthony. You're not approaching this from someone who is a normal American voter taking this all in, you're approaching this as a political insider. JD Vance came off as robotic and like a snake while Walz came off as someone you can sit down with. Yes, Walz had a couple of slip ups, but they weren't breathtaking and made him seem like an actual human.
@@billcoleman4258 As an American I wasn’t looking for the most polished I wanted to hear about polices and Walz gave policy so I will be voting for Kamala and him because I want someone relatable.
Yes, Walz appeared to be nervous. jumpy and occasionally trip on his word. But he came across to me as a guy who understood policy and govern (by how he answered some of the question). He appeared to me a guy who knew what he was talking about. And what he said was relatable. He might not slick debater, but he made me believe that we can trust him, because he has lot of experience on solving issue in his state (as an example). Vance is smooth and slick. But he came across as this typical slick politician who is so good with words. He doesn't come across to me as a guy who rolls the sleeve and put his word in reality. It's like just a smooth talking, lofty promise and even his lie come across smooth like a butter. Walz showed up as what we've been seeing him, real and legit. JD showed up as shape shifter. He came across as fake.
Looking in from the UK, i do not think JDV 'won'. I'm a professional Automotive Engineer, so I'll put this in car terms: JDV was like a Corvette with a 1 litre bike engine under the hood, all show and no go! Whereas Walz was like that sleeper Volvo at the lights. Doesn't look much but with a big V8 and Bilstein suspension, it's got it where it matters. Walz was the one with the substance. It was his first time out, after all.
Vance won the award for ‘smooth operator.’ He is a blatant two-faced liar. He is smooth, but empty, weak, soulless. Walz spoke to policy and he did so authentically and honestly. Walz won because lying is disqualifying.
In the debate I was watching Tim W accepted he had misspoken about the time of the visit to Hong Kong. He also admitted he sometimes gets a bit carried away. I love your podcasts but I honestly feel I was watching a different debate to the one you saw. I felt Vance was on the defensive a lot of the time and was checkmated a few times by Waltz. Sure Waltz was nervous at the start but he got over that after one or two questions. I think people will forgive a little nervousness in such an unnatural situation. He beat Vance hands down on passion and commitment. Vance was good on presentation but ultimately he was trying to defend the indefensible and boy it showed.
Walz won by being human and truly genuine and showing he is for the american people…and calling out JDs non stop lies!!!! Vance is such a turn off with his lying and smirking!
At best it was a tie. One person lied. In a debate you lose if you present false facts. Waltz had less acting skills but spoke truth. Waltz was caring, kind and spoke his own truth
You can't fixate on Walz's poor answer on Tiananmen Square (a meaningless story where Walz probably misspoke) while simultaneously ignoring Vance's complete non-answer on whether or not he thinks Trump lost in 2020 (a very REAL story that had massive consequences for the health of your democracy). Some really poor takes in this pod I think 😩
This probably matters more than you think because it is about narrative. The Democrats have this long running narrative that Trump has bad character and is a braggart and liar. Now the Republicans can make Walz out as someone who's just as bad. It allows people to be confused, agnostic, or partisan when looking at the narratives.
Vance only won the debate if you grade on slickness, but if you grade on the truth, Walz blew Vance away because every other word out of Vance's mouth was a lie. Walz wasn't as slick in presentation, but he had the right answers, AND they were true.
I really have no clue what the pundits saw. Every moment I remember of the debate minus 2, is Walz making good substantive points and Vance drawing a blank and/or changing his position. 1. School shootings 2. Housing prices 3. Jan 6/accepting results of election 4. Roe 5. Calling Trump Americas Hitler and more…
Thank you! This bothers me as well. Often I am anxious to hear Anthony complete his thought, and he can’t because she keeps cutting him off. This is the same thing Bill Maher does , interrupts constantly and despite agreeing with his views - I just can’t watch him any more.
I think it was pretty much a wash. And basically the VP debate doesn't matter much. When it comes down to it, we know that Walz can run things and run them well. Vance - you've got nothing. I don't think he knows what he thinks, he thinks what his wealthy donor tells him to think. Period. The only original thoughts he has, are his rather despicable feelings on women. He is just horribly unlikable and terribly untrustworthy. I've said it from the beginning and I have not changed my mind. He gives me serious serial killer vibes. I am a woman, so there is a good foundation for that.
During the debate, there was a moment where they were talking about immigration so Jd Vance said, “ Kamala is not doing the job that American people give to her” I think that was a moment to attack him and ask him if he recognized that Trump lost the election.
2 minutes in and Katy K summed it up perfectly, Vance not the rotweiller and Walz not the confident coach. But in saying this it is interesting that we give Trump so many concessions when it comes to smooth speech (or severe lack of) yet we hold everyone else to a higher account.
The majority of your audience have never been on or even seen an Ivy League college debate. We’re not looking for technical wins or losses. We care about substance and sincerely. So for us regular people. Vance may have won the technical debate award but Walz won the Night & the hearts of the majority of Americans who were watching
Although I didn't watch the complete debate, I only watched the after reviews, it was very clear to me that Vance has his eyes on the oval office and is aligning himself to get there by whatever means possible. He's just in it for himself, doesn't give two s***s about Trump or anyone else. He seems like he will say whatever, to whomever necessary to get to where he's going.... definitely a "yes" man for sure.
As a person who interviews people all the time for a job, I look past nerves as long as they know what they are saying. I think sometimes we can say there was no clear winner here.
Bullshit. JD Vance was the clear winner. The overwhelming majority of both Republican voters AND Independent voters say that JD Vance won. Literal debate experts also said that JD Vance was the clear winner.
I am not a US citizen, so I can hopefully be dispassionate. Sorry, Katty and Anthony, you were watching a different debate to the one I watched. Vance lied and dodged, and anybody who is not MAGA will know that.
Vance was inexpressibly inauthentic. The best, most moving part for me, was when @TimWalz talked about changing his mind about guns after speaking to the Sandy Hook parents.
American voters are not looking for the best debater. Walz was more deft in turning the debate towards substantive issues and demonstrating how he will use empathy as a guiding principle. American voters are looking for the most honest serious person who will advance the values and programs that they think are important. Walz did that. Enough said.
The objectivity, the insight...This podcast is just awesome. If you guys continue to stay in the middle, put your biases aside and actually speak to the issues, you have struck gold here. Please keep up the good work.
@@daydays12 Nobody...absolutely nobody can 100% put aside their preferences in these conversations. But unlike a lot of the media outlets out there, there is a more concerted effort on their part, in my opinion, to see things from the other side of the equation. That is all one can ask for from a journalist or a political analyst. Speak truth to facts. Their views and personal preferences may seep through from time to time but always they should always try to share their objective view after reviewing all the facts and that they do well
@@josephswanzy3539 You are kind to them and I am rather a tad unfair..that unfairness perhaps being based on Scaramucci previously being a Fox and Trump man. I just hope that Mr Scaramucci was being cynical when he called Vance's 'polished' snake oil salesman lying professional.
I realise that Anthony has to be a little sensationalist in his position to add drama here but I didn’t see Walz as being all that bad. He isn’t as polished as Vance but I was impressed by his articulacy and grasp of key data and facts. I’m pleased that the debate didn’t deteriorate into too much mudslinging and although not scintillating it really brought into focus a lot of domestic topics and the logic behind decision making in policy such as the economy, housing and health care.
I didn't see the debate but I fear you are right. Mr Walz appears to have been too gentlemanly.... Vance is certainly not a gentleman and should have been treated as the weirdo Mr Walz said he was.
Vance was a non debater. He didn’t answer so many questions. Walt went out as himself and showed his empathy and humanity. Your comments here suggest you were watching a different debate.
Walz favorability jumped up to +31 while Vance settled in at -3 following the debate. Vance stated he has never supported a nation wide abortion ban, despite there being audio and written confirmation of such support as well as a ban on travelling across state lines to receive the care needed. Just more lies
Vance is a liar and snake. False prevado can make anyone look good. Walz is real human and can't fake true emotions. At least Walz isn't a liar. Walz doesn't need fan fair. True hearted ppl don't need to lie for a 34x felon and rapist.
I disagree. Vance did not answer many questions, smooth but manipulative and lying,…he also looked robotic, and was trying too hard to be “nice”. Tim came across as more human. That is a win for me. Americans like authenticity. They love ordinary people who can do great things…love your program. ❤
This is what I saw and heard: a highly educated professional willing to say anything his boss told him to say (JD) vs an honest man just believing in helping the average family in this country. Yes, JD can deliver in high performance scenarios, but he takes Groucho's maxim to a new level "those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have some others..."
Yes.
Whatever you think of Walz, honest is not the word
I saw the same thing…what Americans hate, the smooth, manipulative salesman.
I like this. Good mention of Groucho
I actually liked that Waltz was not performative. He seemed sincere and human.
Yeah. Reminded me of Bush.
looked like a loser who did not prep for a top job.
I don't want a human, I want the best of the best.
Harris and Vance are both better than their counterparts.
@@ajasenI agree that Vance was better than the former president Trump who took all the bate and got triggered so easily.
Phenomenal
Walz wiped the floor with Vance when he asked the question about the 2020 election.
All that matters is if the audience at large felt that way. Other than that one moment, Vance was unfortunately much smoother in the debate.
So the person who is a smoother liar is the winner? No way…Vance lied and smirked the whole time. Walz actually answered most of the questions. Vance didn’t answer or lied. This debate did not sway any voters. I disagree that Walz flat out lost. He did just fine.
Katy is rather shallow....very superficial in terms of her obsession with visuals....she didn't mention anything about the substance of their arguments. All about superficial who looked "cooler."
Thanks for that.
@@Pdmc-vu5gjsadly this is how many of the voters are these days easily swayed by the visuals. She’s channelling them.
I agree. This debate didn’t sway anyone. I thought Walz was much better than the professional pundits think.
CNN post debate poll measuring movement between unlikability and likability showed Walz as the winner with a bigger net gain and movement from net positive to greater net positive. Vance went from badly net negative to slightly net negative, a big gain but starting from the 3rd circle of hell does leave more room for upward mobility.
You two are easily impressed. Vance is the same guy. Nothing changed, except he pretended to be nice and affable. Walz does not have to pretend.
I agree... they are both very superficial. Scaramucci ran with grifter Trump for years and was finance co-chair for the awful Mitt Romney ( who refuses to endorse Kamala Harris)
Well said.
Walz is a REAL person. Not a career Lying politician puppet@@mm5478
Unfortunately those 2 are 2 stupid hacks for different reasons though...
What the heck was Scaramucci on about with the "Yale debate" comment, and the question about whether Vance is too young? This passage sounded like it was more about coining a phrase, or creating a meme, than actually making a point.
Walz looked sincere and purposeful. JD lied smoothly therefore won the debate. I just think Walz is the real deal.
Yes, vance was disingenuous... smarmy
"JD you ain't one of me boy."
Agreed. Tim Walz is sincere and truthful. Difficult to handle a smooth liar like Vance.
Walz looked like a deer in the headlights.
Walz lies about everything though lol. Lies about military record, lies about being there for Tianamman square, lies about his wife having IVF. He lies about big things, he lies about small things, he lies about things he doesn't need to lie about.
If you see in him someone who is sincere, you're either so bought in as a partisan that you can't see the wood for the trees or you're a bit stupid.
Walz won on honesty and policy JD came off like a lying slimeball.
I 'm glad to hear that. As I live in Europe I didn't see the debate. What you say reassures me.
What were you watching? Why so blind, credit where credit due, jd Vance got a chance for USA public to see him for who he is, and not who democrats like to portray him.
Sounds like sour grapes.
Albert the dems don’t have to portray anything. He’s smart enough to know what a slimeball trump is, as he’s said it private, but saw a chance for power and took it, thinking he could ride trump coattail to power after his term. He won the debate by being smoother whereas walz was clearly more nervous especially at the start. Good thing no one cares about the vp debate really. The right will play this up of though course since trump shit the bed in the debate that mattered
I was hoping that would come across! Missed it as was asleep in the UK. Thanks.
Vance won the debate
Waltz won my heart
And my vote
But Vance lied about almost every point-that’s not a win in my eyes
@@bonnietrottier3187 agreed. But it was up to waltz to make it obvious to the undecideds. Not sure he succeeded. Believe me. Waltz is my guy.
That is good 🙂 Thank you.
Beautifully said. ❤
Let's hope the majority of the Electoral College feels the same.
So I guess nobody actually listened to JD? He said Trump saved the ACA. He said you ramp up manufacturing and oil production to combat climate change. He refused to say Trump lost. He waffled on every answer, even the ones about immigration.
Walz wasnt perfect, but JD was tossing up word salads left and right.
honesty is not important any more. I wonder what the British commentators is saying lol.
Winning a debate is a separate question from what is true.
Debaters draw straws as to which side they argue.
Vance won the debate, Walz won the veracity, integrity and humanity awards.
Vance was in his glory because the debate was pretty much fact checking free.
@Gottenhimfella that makes no sense, a debate requires putting together coherent arguments to convince those watching that you make more sense than the other side. JD did not do that. He baked in incoherent arguments within his word salads.
Vance is a bluster - trite mouth m, who kneels in front of Peter- to mouth his little peter & get a paid boy , to play with his Peter !
Vance was proficient, fluent, slick, and evasive. How many questions did he avoid? He was too cowardly to admit that Trump LOST in 2020, lied, and incited a riot! He made me cringe throughout, while Walz had me holding my breath, crossing my fingers, and hoping. Vance came across as a diletantte, an expert in gaslighting, and dishonest. Walz came across as compassionate, flawed, and human.
Funny how the script flips, when the shoe is on the other foot. What Vance did is essentially what is evaluated as “Hillary won! Obama won! Kamala won!” when the Left declares “winner” of the debates. *ALL* it MEANS is “slick and evasive”. It’s a who can fleece the public better debate. Not a who told the truth debate.
Vance also told lie after lie-and when he wasn’t lying he was evading. And someone needs to tell him VPs don’t issue executive orders.
@@dig435agreed. It’s so frustrating watching pundits say Vance won when lying about facts should be disqualifying.
@@courtneyc3850 Because verbal debates aren't about accuracy. They're about image. And winning isn't whether people already voting for you agree with you. Its about who comes off better prepared in the minds of the undecided voters.
For someone who might take over the Presidency yes I want someone who can firmly redirect and spin things to his advantage.
Walz came across a relatable human, empathic and like all of us occasionally flawed, Vance came across as a car salesman just professionally selling something, as voters we are not scoring a University debate, we are looking for a connection, I felt connected with Walz, totally disconnected from Vance.
The other thing to remember is that the edge will always go to the younger, more telegenic candidate. Vance was smoother and amiable, but he had his youthful presence versus an old looking Walz going for him.
@@KGold53 I agree with some of what you say but disagree that he came over as more amiable, he seemed inconsistent and fake given his recorded past
@@mindofown I didn’t mean *more* amiable. I meant simply that he was amiable. So that helped the optics with him.
@@KGold53 Aha yes people can be gullible to that superficial stuff, I'm an oldie and had to do many forensic interviews in my time and can see through the Vance's of the world
Thank you. You reassure me.
Only journalists would think Vance won. Slick, smooth and evasive doesn’t mean he won the debate. You’re looking at it through media eyes not the publics.
Exactly! Thank you for saying this 👏🏻
💯
Kay and Scaramucci are not journalists. They are now "infotainment". Not listening to them any more.
@@hawsrulebegin7768 exactly!!
Vance had spin, not substance, evasive, insincere, glib, but will it persuade those who are uninformed? Can he be trusted? The flip from "Never Trump" to running mate answers that for me. Served his own quest for power. Unprincipled.
Vance's performance gave me the impression that he clearly is as slippery as a snake.
More like totally genuine and highly intelligent, democrats just jealous they don't have anyone of hi calibre
He's a skilled liar and racist!
Walz won because he’s more genuine, trustworthy and likeable!
And really elections are popularity contest.
What does it mean to win? Reddit clearly thinks the line about why Pence wasn't on that stage was a knockout blow.
the best line of the night
I genuinely believe that Walz had several good answers and several knockout blows. I have even heard several pundits using the same knockouts afterwards. So it says something. His debate was good. All those pundits are from Ivy league and they expect certain things. After the debate, having heard the questions and the answers, it is easy to edit and say Walz should have said this or that.
Reddit is also a notorious political echo-chamber. 🤡 Literally nothing but Marxists and Democrat-voters on political subreddits. You’d have to be BEYOND brainwashed to think Reddit would give an even remotely fair assessment when it comes to politics.
Vance over did it trying to be liked, and low performance on important issues.
Waltz had a short period of feeling uncomfortable but made up for it. My vote goes to Walz!
Walz prevails and the end of debate when Vance refused to answer that Trump lost to Biden.
That was huge
I believe people will identify more with Walz than Vance
WALZ KNOCKS OUT VANCE ON MINUTE 90 . VANCE STILL REFUSES TO ACCEPT THAT TRUMP LOST IN 2020
Probably a sackable offence by his boss.
I hear 👂 you and agree! 👍🏻
TKO!
@sodiumlights- the fact that you justify such behaviour shows why the Anglosphere is fucked- thinking of excuses to give the powerful for such deplorable behaviour than holding them accountable.
If you lied to your manager the way vance did, you'd be sacked. If his boss fires him, good. Shame you're not in favour of making him immediately face consequences for inciting terrorist attacks against Haitian migrants because you treat politicians as if they're above the law and must vote them out first.
Right?😅@@sodiumlights
Are you kidding me, Anthony? Vance's problem isn't that he's too young. It's his love affair with Project 2025
How many voters have the slightest idea about a single facet of Project 2024?
@@billcoleman4258 ... none about Project 2024 because it does not exists. But many know about Project 2025 because the Heritage Foundation, a republican think thank, made the 900+ pages publicaly available over the internet. They are recruiting thousands ofnew civil servants for the jobs available once Trump fire all the existing federal civil servant.
@@billcoleman4258 not NEARLY enough
@billcoleman4258 I would think too few. It is a long read that needs its time and focus. Though it should be required. reading.
Project 2025 and dump
Walz won because he told the truth. Vance lost, 53 lies by my count. So a trained lawyer can lie, but that doesn't make a win, or a winner.
Truth is subjective. Everyone watching this is bias in favor of Walz. Our truth is not the same as the people who favor Trump/Vance. Truth is a useless metric in judging a debate performance. Facts aren't even useful.
BRAVO, well said!
Can you believe if Trump win the election, we’ll have TWO liars in the Whitehouse. I don’t know how to teach my grand children “Honesty” morally and dangerous problems.
Vance is MUCH more dangerous; he is more intelligent and a much more polished slimy liar than Trump. Given the state Trump is in he could become President.... then what Vance will appear?
I think Vance will eventually turn on trump in a spectacular way. The reason I say that is because I’m not sure anyone on earth actually knows who the real JD Vance is. He’s shown at least 3 completely different personalities… yikes
Harry I’ll take Coach Waltz in flannel and jeans any day- honest & sincere over lies & phony
If Trump is reelected let's just say that Vance will have the Senate declare Trump competent and assumed the presidency I mean dictatorship
I agree trump might debate again
His goal is to get into office and follow through on Project 2025, do you think Peter Thiel has been paying him for nothing?
Walz was good on policy. He was nervous at first. He could have been better at holding Vance to account. But he got better as the debate progressed. At the end of the debate I felt there was no winner or loser but some good discussion about policies.
I agree it was a draw. I think that Walz's performance will benefit Harris more than Vance's will help Trump.
Vance was lying and Walz was very truthfful.
Too bad the presidential debate wasn’t the same
Vance was very disingenuous about Jan 6 th , about abortion , about immigration.
This is a total liar .
As we say in Italy : un truffatore
Like Trump in that regard.
👏🏻 bravo!🇮🇹🇺🇸🇩🇪
When it comes to substance Walz is on top. Vance is all rhetorical and evasive.
Dream on
Walz and his authenticity won that debate - this so called lying smoothness of Vance doesn’t win a debate but seems to make all these pundits happy - common sense is not so common again these days lol
Anyone who can NOT face the reality does NOT deserve the position one is applying for===="That is damning non-answer"--says it all. Tim Walz WON.
Vance deflected, obfuscated and gaslit his way through. So maybe he looked slick but didn’t answer most of the questions.
And no one likes a smarmy smartarse...
Walz was genuine and human. Normal. Accessible. This is not a college debate competition. Who TF cares who “won?” Vance gave me the creeps. We knew he would be slick. I’m from Ohio. Peter Thiel got Vance elected. #VoteBlueUpAndDownTheBallot I did.
TAMPON TIMMY got SLAUGHTERED😂😂what were you watching
I have very conservative friends in Ohio. They're in their 80s and have probably never voted for a democrat. They don't like Vance, they think he's fake and weird. Vance lied and did't answer questions esp the one about 2020 election. He's a cold, calculating snake.
@@petercooper9277 Believe whatever you want, MAGAT. Winning a debate is up to the voters. Vance lied from go to whoa, cupcake. Today’s document dump proves that. I know, you’ll scream ELECTION INTERFERENCE, like your cult leader. The last minute of the debate is what people are talking about.
He's a silly nutty professor
@@petercooper9277FO we weren’t watching the Chump Show and partner that’s for sure, both liars and nothing but conmen, you stick with your loser😂😂😂, we will carry on for the WIN! No response necessary, it would make me 🤮 🤮 🤢
The idea of Vance as next in line to be president is scary enough to care about the VP...i think
Don't be surprised if it's going to be Vance2028. If there's an election at all.
Sorry to hear this analysis ..I'm in Ireland and wasn't watching but was listening as I woke up at 2.30am. From my listening , I felt that Walz was more honest and winning on these points ..I missed the TKO moment .
Same for the UK. From my watching, Walz made several good answers and the TKO was the cherry on the cake.
Vance was the artful dodger. He never answered a question and just proved he's a LIAR.
He can’t beat Walz if he was constantly lying
It's simple Waltz was honest and Vance was lying
Tim Walz: “I was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests” (LIE!)
JD is a wolf in sheep clothing
for sure
And eyeliner
@@Contextualiser16-tn8nd😂😂😂.
Walz won. Just because you are a skilled liar does not negate the fact that you are lying. Walz answered more questions of substance than JD did.
If there has to be a "winner" OK it was Vance on his stunning ability to be slippery and fake. But Walz didn't do any harm to Harris, and helped her quite a bit.
You reassure me.
I don’t think there is anything slick about crying like a baby “I wasn’t supposed to be fact checked” it’s a meme all over social media. He needs to be out of the political arena like the Chump, Cruz, Hawley, Scott, Lake, MTG, Gaetz, Jordan,Johnson and more, LIARS!
I disagree. Walz was nervous at first and unfortunately avoided answering the opening question, as he also unfortunately did re: Tianaman Square. That said, Vance constantly referred to the “Harris” administration. There is no Harris administration. She’s the VP. As VP, the last four years have been Biden’s policies, not hers. As for facts, Trump inherited a growing economy/stock market and all he had to do is not fuck it up, which he didn’t. However, HE FUCKING BLEW COVID!!! The luckiest moment for DJT’s political career was losing the 2020 election. Had he won, the onus of inflation/gas prices, etc would have been his to bear. All in all , a civilized debate. Too bad Vance wasn’t more grounded in reality.
Of course, Trump fucked up the national debt, bigly.
Well MAGA doesn't know what the VP actually does, so those attack lines might have worked for some viewers.
My favourite part was when Vance refused to state that Trump lost the last election and deflected to concocted notions (without examples) of censorship. But in doing so, he self-censored himself over fear of reprisal from Trump. You can't even write the irony.
Sorry but most of this comment is not based on facts, if you want to defend someone’s record then do your research and it is a much different picture than you laid out about Trump, ,good try, it was slick though, you almost sound unmaga like!
Slick salesman versus real human.
It just proved to me that JD is an intelligent, gas lighting, super smooth, Fascist. A Victor Orban type. As to substance, Walz won, in my opinion.
Love the Dead Zone! I'm a huge Christopher Walken fan. We love, trust and RESPECT Governor Tim Walz. I have zero doubt about his abilities and his strength. He is brilliant. I love you two. 💙💙💙💙💙
I'm my view, the winner of any debate is the person that actually answers more questions. Not the person that just looks good and smooth. This is why American politics is so screwed. Experts praise appearance rather than substance
It's a toss up really. With no fact checking, it was just a crap shoot. Fact checking is a must!!
Why can’t you do some research, I learned all about the Harris Policies and the Project 2025, if you check these 2 things out you will never need fact checking on the Chump and his minion, the Project will scare the hell out of you! JD Vance wrote the forward! I can give you a hint, it is not about regular Americans winning , it is about a whole new world for regular Americans and if your not white or a Christian nationalist, then I’d hurry up and become one!
Smarty pants lost on the question, ‘Did Trump lose the last election?’ Couldn’t answer it and Waltz called him out on it.
Walz was believable! So relatable. He dida great job!
I'm sorry but you're being insane, Anthony. You're not approaching this from someone who is a normal American voter taking this all in, you're approaching this as a political insider. JD Vance came off as robotic and like a snake while Walz came off as someone you can sit down with. Yes, Walz had a couple of slip ups, but they weren't breathtaking and made him seem like an actual human.
That's a lie. Undecided are paying attention
That's a lie. Undecided are paying attention
@@hmmm2564 So?
You can hate Trump all you like, you can vote for Kamala as many times as you like, but Vance won the debate.
@@billcoleman4258 As an American I wasn’t looking for the most polished I wanted to hear about polices and Walz gave policy so I will be voting for Kamala and him because I want someone relatable.
How has Vance beat Walz when all he did was dodge questions and lie people
Yes, Walz appeared to be nervous. jumpy and occasionally trip on his word. But he came across to me as a guy who understood policy and govern (by how he answered some of the question). He appeared to me a guy who knew what he was talking about. And what he said was relatable. He might not slick debater, but he made me believe that we can trust him, because he has lot of experience on solving issue in his state (as an example). Vance is smooth and slick. But he came across as this typical slick politician who is so good with words. He doesn't come across to me as a guy who rolls the sleeve and put his word in reality. It's like just a smooth talking, lofty promise and even his lie come across smooth like a butter. Walz showed up as what we've been seeing him, real and legit. JD showed up as shape shifter. He came across as fake.
Looking in from the UK, i do not think JDV 'won'. I'm a professional Automotive Engineer, so I'll put this in car terms:
JDV was like a Corvette with a 1 litre bike engine under the hood, all show and no go! Whereas Walz was like that sleeper Volvo at the lights. Doesn't look much but with a big V8 and Bilstein suspension, it's got it where it matters.
Walz was the one with the substance. It was his first time out, after all.
I preferred Walz going by audio only. Vance was polished but Walz had more believable answers.
Vance won the award for ‘smooth operator.’ He is a blatant two-faced liar. He is smooth, but empty, weak, soulless. Walz spoke to policy and he did so authentically and honestly. Walz won because lying is disqualifying.
Vance couldn't say trump lost the last election
Vance is slicker then trump. Watch out for him. He will do anything for power.
How can anyone think Vance won? He presents as a smarmy snake (shiver) that can’t be trusted. Walz won by presenting as a trustworthy problem solver
In the debate I was watching Tim W accepted he had misspoken about the time of the visit to Hong Kong. He also admitted he sometimes gets a bit carried away. I love your podcasts but I honestly feel I was watching a different debate to the one you saw. I felt Vance was on the defensive a lot of the time and was checkmated a few times by Waltz. Sure Waltz was nervous at the start but he got over that after one or two questions. I think people will forgive a little nervousness in such an unnatural situation. He beat Vance hands down on passion and commitment. Vance was good on presentation but ultimately he was trying to defend the indefensible and boy it showed.
Lying smoothly gives you the title of smart and slick. The world we live in. Walz won the debate for those of us who don’t care about theatrics.
Vance was wolf in sheep’s clothing
Yes! Nailed it!🎯
I've been saying this for an hour.
I disagree with your assessment- JD Vance did not win this debate. He just showed how slick and smooth he is when lying
Walz won by being human and truly genuine and showing he is for the american people…and calling out JDs non stop lies!!!! Vance is such a turn off with his lying and smirking!
At best it was a tie. One person lied. In a debate you lose if you present false facts. Waltz had less acting skills but spoke truth. Waltz was caring, kind and spoke his own truth
I thought Vance was horrible
Me too . Too slimy shady and dishonest
Walz is the winner !! Truth always wins!!
You can't fixate on Walz's poor answer on Tiananmen Square (a meaningless story where Walz probably misspoke) while simultaneously ignoring Vance's complete non-answer on whether or not he thinks Trump lost in 2020 (a very REAL story that had massive consequences for the health of your democracy). Some really poor takes in this pod I think 😩
This probably matters more than you think because it is about narrative. The Democrats have this long running narrative that Trump has bad character and is a braggart and liar. Now the Republicans can make Walz out as someone who's just as bad. It allows people to be confused, agnostic, or partisan when looking at the narratives.
Vance only won the debate if you grade on slickness, but if you grade on the truth, Walz blew Vance away because every other word out of Vance's mouth was a lie. Walz wasn't as slick in presentation, but he had the right answers, AND they were true.
I really have no clue what the pundits saw. Every moment I remember of the debate minus 2, is Walz making good substantive points and Vance drawing a blank and/or changing his position. 1. School shootings 2. Housing prices 3. Jan 6/accepting results of election 4. Roe 5. Calling Trump Americas Hitler and more…
Katty please, let Anthony finish his sentence please. You're putting off some of us who wants to listen.
Thank you! This bothers me as well. Often I am anxious to hear Anthony complete his thought, and he can’t because she keeps cutting him off. This is the same thing Bill Maher does , interrupts constantly and despite agreeing with his views - I just can’t watch him any more.
I think it was pretty much a wash. And basically the VP debate doesn't matter much. When it comes down to it, we know that Walz can run things and run them well. Vance - you've got nothing. I don't think he knows what he thinks, he thinks what his wealthy donor tells him to think. Period. The only original thoughts he has, are his rather despicable feelings on women. He is just horribly unlikable and terribly untrustworthy. I've said it from the beginning and I have not changed my mind. He gives me serious serial killer vibes. I am a woman, so there is a good foundation for that.
Focus groups uniformly decided Walz won the debate with a decent margin. Walz's favorability numbers have doubled
Vance won? Well good for him. Winning an argument doesn't make a bad position correct or constructive. Valid or invalid, bad is still bad.
He dodged most of the questions and so I would not say he won the argument.
Anthony's critique and insight of the debate is excellent. Appreciate your critical thoughts. Vote Blue!
During the debate, there was a moment where they were talking about immigration so Jd Vance said, “ Kamala is not doing the job that American people give to her” I think that was a moment to attack him and ask him if he recognized that Trump lost the election.
Walz won the debate. Substance matters. Slick lying is not a win at all
Walz was truthful forget the show biz shite!
JD Vance is the gaslighter-in-chief
Lying is not winning
This is the Mooch... he happily took the job as Trump's press sec. He's exactly the same greaseball Vance is
@@backtoearth1983
Anthony never was Trump's press secretary.
Check your data before ridicule yourself.
2 minutes in and Katy K summed it up perfectly, Vance not the rotweiller and Walz not the confident coach. But in saying this it is interesting that we give Trump so many concessions when it comes to smooth speech (or severe lack of) yet we hold everyone else to a higher account.
That’s true but the bar is set particularly low for Trump for some reason
White privilege pays well
The majority of your audience have never been on or even seen an Ivy League college debate. We’re not looking for technical wins or losses. We care about substance and sincerely. So for us regular people. Vance may have won the technical debate award but Walz won the Night & the hearts of the majority of Americans who were watching
People this is not a show it is the futurevof your country
Thank you- not a reality tv show
The American people need to tell Donald Trump that!! 🗳🙏🏼
Vance was smooth. Walz was much more substantive. Walz discussed issues in a much more direct manner.
Although I didn't watch the complete debate, I only watched the after reviews, it was very clear to me that Vance has his eyes on the oval office and is aligning himself to get there by whatever means possible. He's just in it for himself, doesn't give two s***s about Trump or anyone else. He seems like he will say whatever, to whomever necessary to get to where he's going.... definitely a "yes" man for sure.
Sorry how can you win a debate if it’s all lies and deceit…
As a person who interviews people all the time for a job, I look past nerves as long as they know what they are saying. I think sometimes we can say there was no clear winner here.
Vance won,you are DELUSIONAL 😂
Lying does not win a debate. Also, Vance will do whatever trump asks him if he loses the election.
@@junemulvany2531TRUMP LANDSLIDE IN NOVEMBER 5th, HYENA/TIMMY TAMPON don't have a chance, WAKE UP 😂😂
Bullshit. JD Vance was the clear winner. The overwhelming majority of both Republican voters AND Independent voters say that JD Vance won. Literal debate experts also said that JD Vance was the clear winner.
@@ShadowMelt keep taking the DELUSIONAL TABLETS 😂😂
I am not a US citizen, so I can hopefully be dispassionate.
Sorry, Katty and Anthony, you were watching a different debate to the one I watched.
Vance lied and dodged, and anybody who is not MAGA will know that.
I couldn't watch...prayed for the coach ❤❤❤❤❤
Same!
Same here - except for the praying. I wished Walz all the best in the world.
Vance was inexpressibly inauthentic.
The best, most moving part for me, was when @TimWalz talked about changing his mind about guns after speaking to the Sandy Hook parents.
The consensus on here is that Walz won.
American voters are not looking for the best debater. Walz was more deft in turning the debate towards substantive issues and demonstrating how he will use empathy as a guiding principle.
American voters are looking for the most honest serious person who will advance the values and programs that they think are important. Walz did that. Enough said.
The objectivity, the insight...This podcast is just awesome. If you guys continue to stay in the middle, put your biases aside and actually speak to the issues, you have struck gold here. Please keep up the good work.
They have not put aside their pro Vance / Trump biases.
I agree they would be good if they did.
@@daydays12 Nobody...absolutely nobody can 100% put aside their preferences in these conversations. But unlike a lot of the media outlets out there, there is a more concerted effort on their part, in my opinion, to see things from the other side of the equation. That is all one can ask for from a journalist or a political analyst. Speak truth to facts. Their views and personal preferences may seep through from time to time but always they should always try to share their objective view after reviewing all the facts and that they do well
@@josephswanzy3539 You are kind to them and I am rather a tad unfair..that unfairness perhaps being based on Scaramucci previously being a Fox and Trump man.
I just hope that Mr Scaramucci was being cynical when he called Vance's 'polished' snake oil salesman lying professional.
A smooth talker who lies , especially on health, etc. is not a winner. Is he "too young" to remember McCain's thumb down and Trump's angry reactions?
I realise that Anthony has to be a little sensationalist in his position to add drama here but I didn’t see Walz as being all that bad. He isn’t as polished as Vance but I was impressed by his articulacy and grasp of key data and facts. I’m pleased that the debate didn’t deteriorate into too much mudslinging and although not scintillating it really brought into focus a lot of domestic topics and the logic behind decision making in policy such as the economy, housing and health care.
My impression was that Vance came off as a phony whereas Walz was more authentic.
Walz was decidedly mediocre. It won’t make a difference but it’s a lost opportunity to destroy maga
I didn't see the debate but I fear you are right. Mr Walz appears to have been too gentlemanly.... Vance is certainly not a gentleman and should have been treated as the weirdo Mr Walz said he was.
Anyone who lies in a debate does not win that debate period.
Walz won cause he’s honest, Vance lost cause he’s a Snake. Period.💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
I thought Walz piece on Gun Control was really good and actually informative
Vance was a non debater. He didn’t answer so many questions. Walt went out as himself and showed his empathy and humanity. Your comments here suggest you were watching a different debate.
Walz favorability jumped up to +31 while Vance settled in at -3 following the debate. Vance stated he has never supported a nation wide abortion ban, despite there being audio and written confirmation of such support as well as a ban on travelling across state lines to receive the care needed. Just more lies
Vance is a liar and snake. False prevado can make anyone look good. Walz is real human and can't fake true emotions. At least Walz isn't a liar. Walz doesn't need fan fair. True hearted ppl don't need to lie for a 34x felon and rapist.
I disagree. Vance did not answer many questions, smooth but manipulative and lying,…he also looked robotic, and was trying too hard to be “nice”. Tim came across as more human. That is a win for me. Americans like authenticity. They love ordinary people who can do great things…love your program. ❤
Vance is really good at reinventing himself like a shapeshifter. The blue eyes are unforgettable.
😵💫👀😵💫👁😵💫look deep in the eyes 👀