So, this is just my initial impression, I admit in the second 1/3 of it I was a little distracted by IRL issues, but I did watch it.
All in all, both candidates did pretty well on paper. Vance I think came off slightly better on charisma. he was smooth, he was slick, he was at the top of his game, and he came off well and relatable to the people IMO. Walz came off slightly worse. part of it was just his age and demeanor and thing beyond his control, but he still did look worse when contrasted with Vance. he also had that cringey comment about how he "befriended school shooters" which was an obvious gaffe and was not intentional, but you know how they are, people take everything out of context. Still, I'd give Vance a 5 on style, and Walz a 4.
On substance though...well....Vance was peddling a bunch of garbage. He was all over the place, he was lying about everything, and while the American people are probably too stupid to know that, yeah, I knew it, and honestly, while he didnt go full on "eating the dogs" level like Trump did, he still kinda sucked. So he gets a 2. Walz on the other hand did better. I admit, on a couple of issues i wasnt super duper convinced by walz's answers (hello healthcare debate, where walz defended the flawed ACA framework and vance advocated for replacing it with the power of the free market), but yeah, he was substantive at least and I have to give him a solid 4 here.
As such, Vance's overall performance is a 7, Walz is an 8, so walz won for me. i'll always take a slightly less charismatic candidate who speaks truth over the slick salesman selling lies and that's what it came down to. How the american people will view it, that's up for debate in itself. I could see a case for vance "winning", but honestly, i preferred walz. Although I was voting dem anyway so...yeah.
No comments:
Post a Comment