Final (?) Debate thread before the election in 35 days.
Debate begins at 9 PM Eastern, 6 PM Pacific and runs 90 minutes.
Vice Presidential debates are always tricky since nobody has voted for Vice President in living memory.
Expect Vance to attack Walz on his military service.
Expect Walz to attack Vance on the whole “immigrants eating cats and dogs” thing.
Expect Vance to attack Walz on being an assistant coach, at best.
Expect Walz to roll out “Weird!” at least once.
CBS has announced the burden of fact checking will be on the candidates themselves.
https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10
How to watch here:
https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10
"How can you watch the VP debate on cable?
CBS will air debate coverage starting at 8 p.m. ET on CBS broadcast stations and affiliates. Find your local station here.
How can you stream the VP debate without cable?
The debate can be streamed on the free CBS News app on your connected TV or smartphone, on Paramount+, and all platforms where CBS News 24/7 is available, including CBSNews.com and YouTube.
Debate coverage on CBS News 24/7 begins at 4 p.m. ET."
Edit Impressive how a debate can go when one participant doesn’t have mental health issues! Thanks for coming everybody!
A little more than an hour in…
Vance has been exactly as polished as expected, other than a slightly rough start coming off as robotic. He’s managed a few genuinely human-seeming moments, too, especially upon learning that one of Walz’s kids witnessed a shooting. But he’s been lying nearly constantly.
Walz isn’t as polished, but he’s been doing much better in that department than I would have expected, while still coming off as very nice and genuine. He’s had a couple of flubs, but none of them were debate killers, while he’s gotten in far more actual hits than Vance, by far. Like, it’s not even close.
There’s another thing: Vance is legitimately boring to listen to. I didn’t realize this before, but his voice could be used as a sleep aid.
I’m biased. I’ll own that. So take from this what you will: I think Walz is winning. It’s close, but I think he’s coming off as more honest and more real, while Vance is coming off as dishonest and plastic.
I see where you’re coming from, but I’d argue that while Walz is doing a respectable job, he’s not quite managing to keep up with Vance’s pace. The thing about Vance that makes him particularly worrisome is that he’s refined Trump’s messaging—he’s just as dangerous, but he presents it in a way that’s far more polished and effective. That’s what makes him so slippery.
Sure, Walz’s authenticity is a big plus, but in a debate setting, especially on TV, polish can sometimes outshine sincerity. And Vance, after shaking off that stiff opening, has settled into a confident, almost calculated cadence that’s making his points hit harder—even when they’re misleading. It’s that ability to mask lies behind a veneer of smooth professionalism that’s giving Vance the edge right now.
So, while I agree that Walz is holding his own and has some solid moments, Vance’s ability to deliver Trump’s talking points with better packaging makes him a much tougher opponent.
The “friends with school shooters” bit might have been a debate killer. I obviously don’t want that but it was pretty bad