politics
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
view the rest of the comments
22 people is hardly a survey for a national election, and is a total nonanswer. I'm asking you what you think Vance did better.
Image, body language. Looking at the camera with the "Marine Stare" to show off with body language his disdain for a particular topic or response from Walz (while Walz's body language was not nearly as effective at showing JD Vance's weird shit).
If you're not aware of what "Republicans see as weird", well... guess what?? JD Vance is, and he's able to rally people with just a glance. It was clearly effective. Though perhaps in a "deeper" political look / visual communication cue rather than actual talking.
JD Vance is the complete package. Walz is well spoken but not quite as emoted and not as good of a reaction to JD Vance.
Don't get me wrong, JD Vance is fucking nuts. But if you're not seeing JD Vance's good performance here, you're at risk at underestimating the scope of the problem here.
EDIT: Like... base things. The things people care about. Like, "Who looked more like a soldier" (especially on the meta-topic of JD Vance service record vs Tim Walz's service record), JD Vance looked more like a soldier. Base things that appeal to the ID and not logic. JD Vance is spot on on these issues.
I don't think it matters because Donald Trump is the actual topic of discussion. But JD Vance's performance is better than you'd think within a Republican mindset.
Its fine because Walz didn't need to win this debate. Walz just needed to punt and he's accomplished that. JD Vance isn't going to turn all of Trump's ills away with one good debate performance either (especially since Walz wasn't crushed or defeated).
Walz needed to introduce his personality to the country. And Walz did that. Good. Take the W for what it is, but don't overplay your hand here. This isn't like the Harris v Trump debate where Harris crushed Trump. This is actually slight win to JD Vance IMO but Walz is good enough to not damage Harris's campaign kinda debate.
I know you're getting downvoted, but I appreciate this analysis. I have autism and don't pick up on body language
JD Vance did full 100% politician stance the entire time so I don't think there's anything to take from it.