I concur with the editors of the Palm Beach Post:
GThe vice presidential candidate debate was the exchange America wanted. Unlike the presidential debate, this one will not be remembered as a political beatdown. Democrat Gov. Tim Walz and Republican Sen. JD Vance actually talked issues, at times seeming to agree on some of them. The conversation was mostly civil and, more importantly, informative.
and
Both men did their jobs in defending the positions of their running mates. The reality is that the two are running for vice president, not the top job. Nobody, for example, recalls the accomplishments of the Pence administration. The role of the vice president, whoever the voters send to Washington, is to back the president’s policies; they can offer advice, even object, but the final say belongs to the president, not the person who’s a heartbeat away.
Granted, Walz struggled when asked to explain why he has said that he was present in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square during the bloody 1989 student-led protests. He wasn’t. And Vance mixed in a fair share of historic revisionism, non-answers and at times outright lies when pressed. Former President Trump, for example, didn’t try to save the Affordable Care Act – he worked hard to kill it. And, for the record, Vance has supported a national ban on abortion. The Republican’s failure to respond to whether he believed Trump lost the 2020 election, was, as Walz put it, ” a damning non-answer.”
Still, the debate showed a cordiality, even shared empathy that has been lacking in this presidential election season. The final decision comes next month. The candidates for vice president did their part, and the electorate is better off for it.
Why don’t we get more of that? And, related, whom does the contentious, incoherent appeal to emotions serve? I’m going to speculate. College-educated voters under 35 without the patience or, maybe, the ability to follow the less agonistic style of the vice presidential debate.
The cordiality is because its the VP debate, not the Presidential debate.
I read an article after the debate where Vance stated his goal was not to debate Walz; but to attack Harris, her record, and her policies. The same no doubt applied to Walz vis a vis Vance and Trump. Knocking out or going extremely negative on a Vice Presidential candidate doesn’t do anything to the top of the ticket.
If the two men were the top of the ticket; no doubt it would have been a lot more vicious. Vance wouldn’t have remained silent about Walz’s biographic exaggerations, Walz would have gone a lot harder at Vance’s professed beliefs prior to being on the ticket.
“College-educated voters under 35”
Doesnt seem likely. More likely older and less educated. For that group the appeal to emotions will matter more. Under 35 people largely dont vote.
Steve
that is also the age group most likely to online posting memes, lead flame wars, etc. For some reason, the consultants think that is more important than icky meat space interactions.
On another note, notions of sportsmanship, gentlemanly behavior and the like are tools racist/sexists/whateverist use to oppress and therefore tainted.