Never-Trumper and former ace Republican strategist, Stuart Stevens:
I understand why people say the VP debate doesn’t matter, but I disagree. This was Trump-Vance’s best hope at changing the dynamic of a race that has steadily trended against them. Vance went in playing for a tie, more focused on personal rehabilitation than trying to win a race. So, yes, it does matter because the trend will remain constant, and Harris-Walz are headed to a relatively comfortable win.
That’s been a while:
The snap poll showed basically a tie. Vance 51% Walz 49%. These snap polls are so unscientific as to be laughable. Even talking about the +/- is a joke. Nobody votes for the Veep. This changes nothing.
My neighbors have two Trump signs and a Trump flag in their yard. They only have one Jesus sign.
Ironically, they moved here from Holywood, CA a few years ago.
More from Stuart Stevens. Considering he’s a former strategist, I find his perspective very compelling.
[>
](x.com)In debate preps, a fundamental question is do you want a hot or cold debate? Seems clear both sides decided they wanted a cold debate. Why? Harris-Walz believes they are winning and want the Harris-Trump debate to be the memorable debate. Trump-Vance believed Vance couldn’t pull off a hot debate without alienating more voters. Their fav-unfav is already to the bad. I suspect they practiced with Vance going for a knock-out and decided Vance didn’t have the chops to deliver. Too risky. So they went in playing for a tie. Vance’s refusal to say that America has a legal president will be the takeaway.
I will happily vote against one.
Central Austin has a lot of houses used as second homes or VRBOs, too. Although not complaining about the guy on the corner who got transferred and now AirBnBs both his garage apartment and his big house – he was really loud but the guests have been very well behaved. The damn leaf blowers still arrive biweekly, however, despite the fact that his “lawn” is mostly rocks and gravel.
Mike Murphy concurs with Stuart Stevens. Might there be dissension in the Trump camp?
Dark thought I’m sure is ricocheting through Trump’s mind tonight: Vance was focused on his own image rehab tonight with the phony nice-guy routine. Working his own book, not hammering media and Kamala enough, not serving interests of Trump.
They are also initial hot takes…
That’s why the spin room exists
Goodnight!
Reports are coming in that Chuck Todd is swooning over JD Vance (not kidding) and is in agony with unsatisfied mano a mano bro-lust.
Unless, of course, you need a remote area for some concentration camps. After all, it might be tough to deport millions of people you’ve rounded up back to countries that refuse to take them back.
He looks like Bill Barr and Drew Carrey’s illegitimate love child
She learned only at 6:28 that the debate was not to begin, as she mistakenly thought, at 6:30.
Nothing public and probably nothing lasting. Mango will privately use any issues or perceived Vance failings to further wraith-ify and subjugate Vance and thereby retool it into an overall win…all while brand-messaging that he won anyway. Vance will slob knob and voila…happy toadstool.
This would suggest JD has made the calculation that Trump is going to lose, is yesterday’s news, and he better start looking out for himself. And this is exactly the sort of thing Trump’s reptilian brain will notice.
lol
Charlotte Clymer
@charlotteclymer.bsky.social
Follow
I will remember this exchange for as long as I live.
October 1, 2024 at 11:04 PM
That would be an added bonus to Harris’ salvation of the republic – we’d get to watch JV thinking now he is on the ascendant, while Trump blames everything on that bad VP pick Don Jr. made and sets out to destroy him from prison.
Implying that their legal status is a fact!?!
Lecturing is not the same as debating. Vance is a better debater, but Walz is the better teacher and lecturer.
Debating is about two or more people putting forward opposing arguments over a given topic/situation. Each side in a debate is trying to convince those listening that their position is stronger than their opponents’ positions. It presupposes an adversarial situation. A debate is not so much about facilitating learning (although that can happen) but on persuading others to support your viewpoint. Debating is a skill that lawyers, not surprisingly, often need (especially trial attorneys). Vance is a lawyer and a decent debater; that is, he knows all the rhetorical tricks and strategies that a successful debater will deploy (including those strategies that one needs to deploy when one’s position is the weaker of the two sides). That doesn’t make him correct on anything, it just means he knows the strength and weaknesses in his positions and he tries to play up the perceived strengths (yes not a lot there, so he had to be very creative) and deflect attention away from those weaknesses (the list was long).
Walz was educated to be a teacher. Teachers generally learn about a particular subject matter area and how to support their students’ learning in that subject by using a variety of instructional methods (lectures, discussions, evaluation strategies, etc.). Being a good teacher is about creating a positive learning environment, not an adversarial one. Teachers are primarily trying to convey knowledge and explain complex arguments about a subject (lectures) and trying to facilitate student’s own attempts at engaging with a given subject through discussions, written papers, and yes even debates (although these debates are always in the service of learning).
I think Walz’s best moments in fact were those when he was not worried about debating, but instead was deeply engaged in a topic because he cares about it and he wanted to make sure that people understand why these issues are important (e.g., abortion, healthcare, and Vance’s troubling handwaving around January 6th). At those times Walz was lecturing, but doing it in a way that invited the audience to think critically about what he was telling them and to engage seriously with consequences of supporting Trump.
