The debate between the two US vice presidential candidates, which took place on Tuesday night in New York (Wednesday morning 2/10 Greek time), was interesting for two reasons: first, because it is the second and last debate of this year’s presidential and vice presidential candidates and second, because the personalities of the two vice presidential candidates, Minnesota’s Democratic governor Tim Walz and Ohio’s Republican senator Jay Dee Vance.
The winner of the debate is Vance, 40, who was poised and knowledgeable, while Walz, 60, initially seemed to struggle unsuccessfully to find his rhythm, though he eventually found it.
In general, the debate clearly highlighted the differences between the two parties in the issues that concern the voters. It was held in a civilized atmosphere although, according to the agreed rules, one’s microphone remained open while the other spoke and each of the two vice presidential candidates could interrupt while their opponent spoke (unlike the Kamala Harris-Donald Trump debate where one’s microphone was muted while the other was speaking).
The most disturbing element of the debate is that Vance refused to admit that Joe Biden was the winner of the 2020 election and Donald Trump was the loser. “I’m focused on the future,” Vance replied, trying to avoid the subject. “That’s a non-answer,” Walz shot back.
In the 90 minutes that the debate lasted, Vance hardly mentioned Biden’s name at all, trying to “blame” the president’s economic and immigration failures on Kamala Harris. Walz, on the other hand, seemed out of sorts at the beginning of the debate when the topic was foreign policy and the Middle East in particular, but found his form when the debate turned to abortion.
Vance exuded self-confidence and tried to soften his image: from fierce “culture warrior” (e.g. against the woke culture) to “compassionate conservative” (e.g. avoiding expressions about childless women with cats).
A difference from the Harris-Trump debate was that in the debate between the vice-presidential candidates, the journalists who moderated it did not perform fact checking, i.e. a live-time control of the elements contained in the answers of the vice-presidential candidates. The “live” fact-checking of the Harris-Trump debate had allowed reporters to check and refute on the spot Trump’s claim that Haitian immigrants eat their neighbors’ pets. By and large, live fact checking was considered more successful and constructive.
#readywitted #Jay #Dee #Vance #evasion #live #fact #checking
