Vice-Presidential Debate (Wednesday, 10/7/2020) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

The VP debate between Pence and Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris is slated for Wednesday, Oct. 7 at 9 p.m. ET (6 p.m. PT) at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

The debate will run for 90 minutes and comprise nine 10-minute segments with no commercial breaks. Susan Page, USA Today's Washington bureau chief, will moderate. Pence and Harris will be seated for the debate and positioned 12 feet apart.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/vice-presidential-debate-2020-how-to-watch-pence-vs-harris-debate-live/

 

[Infoman]

Thanks guys, this thread reads like a Gameday thread during Falcons hate week... (entertaining, thanks... LOL)

I had to watch this with my Trump supporter neighbors, and wife.... Their comments and discussions (I usually stay quiet - with the occasional laugh or sigh) were the exact mirror twilight zone opposite of what you guys did here.

"She never answers a question" - "That's all Lies" - "Here's a video that shows that she said that" - "He went easy on her" - "The moderator is asking bias questions" - "She got more time, while he was consistently cut off" - "The FLY has chosen"

It's crazy how people can watch the same thing, and see something totally different... It's almost like all the "hard leaners" in both directions - Are just "Fans" of a party... and not really looking at the content objectively from either side for truth!

Neither of them answered any of the questions directly and in detail.. nor were they pressed to do so.

We are so forked... LMAO.

 

[bdb13]

Thanks guys, this thread reads like a Gameday thread during Falcons hate week... (entertaining, thanks... LOL)

I had to watch this with my Trump supporter neighbors.... Those comments and discussions were the exact mirror twilight zone opposite of what you guys did here.

"She never answers a question" - "That's all Lies" - "Here's a video that shows that she said that" - "He went easy on her" - "The moderator is asking bias questions" - "She got more time, while he was consistently cut off" - "The FLY has chosen"

It's crazy how people can watch the same thing, and see something totally different... It's almost like they are all just Fans... and not really looking a the content objectively from either side!

We are so forked... LMAO.

For a lot of people this stuff is certainly all just team sports.

Pence was much smoother and so I'd say he probably "won" as far as that goes, but I think both of them pretty much did what they wanted to including avoiding any major errors.

Big assist to Kamala from that fly though lol.

 

[coldseat]

After a night of reflection the two things that stayed with me about the debate last night.

1.) That fly was everything. I've laughed so much with the memes and gifs and all of the snipes taken at Pence's expense.

2.) Pence didn't answer a single question directly. While I think that works well for one or a couple of tough questions, when you do it repeatedly for EVERY question during a debate, it just plainly comes off as not being able to run on the record you've built up over the last 4 years. Even with all of the "missed" opportunities that Harris had and Pence's constant droning on and attempt to dominate, that was the most obvious and lasting takeaways to me.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I give this one to Pence too, but barely. Kamala just didn't seem prepared and to not pile drive him over the Superspreader event and Trump's erratic behavior since is inexcusable. Pence didn't miss any opportunities to get his shots in but Kamala missed a lot of lay-ups.

Fortunately for Kamala all anyone can talk about today is the fly, so...

 

[brandon]

The missed opportunities on the super spreader event and Merrick Garland were big.

They're such easy wins...there's got to be some underlying reason why the campaigns have made a decision not to discuss Merrick Garland.

 

[wardorican]

Thanks guys, this thread reads like a Gameday thread during Falcons hate week... (entertaining, thanks... LOL)

I had to watch this with my Trump supporter neighbors, and wife.... Their comments and discussions (I usually stay quiet - with the occasional laugh or sigh) were the exact mirror twilight zone opposite of what you guys did here.

"She never answers a question" - "That's all Lies" - "Here's a video that shows that she said that" - "He went easy on her" - "The moderator is asking bias questions" - "She got more time, while he was consistently cut off" - "The FLY has chosen"

It's crazy how people can watch the same thing, and see something totally different... It's almost like all the "hard leaners" in both directions - Are just "Fans" of a party... and not really looking at the content objectively from either side for truth!

Neither of them answered any of the questions directly and in detail.. nor were they pressed to do so.

We are so forked... LMAO.

I pointed this out in Febuary, when I caught this interview. It's worth a listen.

This news increasingly comes from cable TV and social media, and the stories that get our attention are usually national stories, not local ones. Scandals and entertainment are also more appealing than discussions of policy or even what's happening in our own neighborhoods.

"What news do political junkies demand? Outrage and gossip. Why? Because it's alluring. What news do we avoid? Local news. Why? It's boring," Hersh writes in his book, Politics is for Power.


This week on Hidden Brain, we explore the paradox of our passion for politics: we're more informed than ever, but many of us are also less politically active. Why do we see politics as something that happens on Capitol Hill, and not in our neighborhoods? How do we re-frame politics from a form of entertainment to a vehicle for change in our lives? Hersh suggests that the solutions may be less daunting than we think.

 

[wardorican]

I give this one to Pence too, but barely. Kamala just didn't seem prepared and to not pile drive him over the Superspreader event and Trump's erratic behavior since is inexcusable. Pence didn't miss any opportunities to get his shots in but Kamala missed a lot of lay-ups.

Fortunately for Kamala all anyone can talk about today is the fly, so...

They avoided the super spreader stuff. I think she actively did. NBC's Lester Holt was confused why they wouldn't bring it up. Chuck Todd wasn't sure exactly how to answer, but what I got out of him, is that they were probably worried it would seem mean and actual give some sympathy towards the president. I don't remember if he said sympathy or not. I'd have to watch that post debate segment again. But, I think it's just a lost opportunity about how more poor leadership has caused a real issue at our center of government power.. we have multiple staffers, politicians, military heads, all infected and in quarantine. It was reckless and has caused more dysfunction.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Mike Pence could've gone out and presented Lincolnesque oratory on the greatness of the Trump administration's response to COVID, or the amazingness of the Obamacare replacement plan which has literally never been announced after five years of Trump talking about how easy it is, or whatever else. And it would have been bullshirt. Why are we pretending that two candidates are competing on equal footing and the one who performs the best technical job in a debate "wins" anything and may have swung the election when one of the two campaign platforms is bullshirt? Why does it matter if Kamala Harris didn't come up with any epic Merrick Garland zingers when her opponent was spewing bullshirt?

This election has nothing to do with Mike Pence or Kamala Harris, and at this point it almost only tangentially has anything to do with Joe Biden. This election is a referendum on an incumbent President who has a four year record of bullshirt.

 

[wardorican]

Mike Pence could've gone out and presented Lincolnesque oratory on the greatness of the Trump administration's response to COVID, or the amazingness of the Obamacare replacement plan which has literally never been announced after five years of Trump talking about how easy it is, or whatever else. And it would have been bullshirt. Why are we pretending that two candidates are competing on equal footing and the one who performs the best technical job in a debate "wins" anything and may have swung the election when one of the two campaign platforms is bullshirt? Why does it matter if Kamala Harris didn't come up with any epic Merrick Garland zingers when her opponent was spewing bullshirt?

This election has nothing to do with Mike Pence or Kamala Harris, and at this point it almost only tangentially has anything to do with Joe Biden. This election is a referendum on an incumbent President who has a four year record of bullshirt.

It's because, I think many folks who vote for Trump use Mike Pence as their decoder ring to ignore what Trump actually says.

Otherwise, I agree with you. It's a referendum on normalcy in the Presidency, and the type of crazy, erratic, angry, mean, behavior. We shall see which way America goes. I'm going full Dave Chappelle here... I've seen this story before, and Often I get disappointed.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

They avoided the super spreader stuff. I think she actively did. NBC's Lester Holt was confused why they wouldn't bring it up. Chuck Todd wasn't sure exactly how to answer, but what I got out of him, is that they were probably worried it would seem mean and actual give some sympathy towards the president. I don't remember if he said sympathy or not. I'd have to watch that post debate segment again. But, I think it's just a lost opportunity about how more poor leadership has caused a real issue at our center of government power.. we have multiple staffers, politicians, military heads, all infected and in quarantine. It was reckless and has caused more dysfunction.

With both of them missing easy shots I'm wondering if this isn't on purpose. When a boxer is up on points late the goal is to just not give your opponent an opening. Knockout punches are nice but they also make you vulnerable to a counterpunch, and if you've won 8 rounds of a 12 round fight there's no need to risk taking that punch.

Maybe that's it. It's certainly possible they don't want to risk saying something that could be taken wrong by the public, seem insensitive or give the Trump campaign a chance to counter the argument in an effective way.

It's not how I'd play it, but it certainly could be their play. It would explain them both missing these really easy snapbacks.

 

[donato]

I don't think she brought up Merrick Garland on purpose. All Pence has to say is that it is within their right to seat a justice. The small % of people that care already know all this.

And of course she avoided packing the court questions. She doesn't want to commit one way or the other in case it bites her later, doesn't want to scare-motivate GOP voters to vote, and it's absolutely on the table. If she committed to saying they will or won't then Republicans can take the "high-road" of seating her and say, "I told you so, the dems are going to pack the court anyway". Or if she says they won't pack the courts they can later say she lied. By not answering you have a lot more options with less damage down the road. Then after the fact in light of the clearly rushed hypocritical confirmation the Dems can be the good guys and gals and look more justified in expanding the court.

 

[Sandman]

I don't think she brought up Merrick Garland on purpose. All Pence has to say is that it is within their right to seat a justice. The small % of people that care already know all this.

And of course she avoided packing the court questions. She doesn't want to commit one way or the other in case it bites her later, doesn't want to scare-motivate GOP voters to vote, and it's absolutely on the table. If she committed to saying they will or won't then Republicans can take the "high-road" of seating her and say, "I told you so, the dems are going to pack the court anyway". Or if she says they won't pack the courts they can later say she lied. By not answering you have a lot more options with less damage down the road. Then after the fact in light of the clearly rushed hypocritical confirmation the Dems can be the good guys and gals and look more justified in expanding the court.

Don't give the Republicans a "Lindsey Graham" quote.

 

[RobF]

With both of them missing easy shots I'm wondering if this isn't on purpose. When a boxer is up on points late the goal is to just not give your opponent an opening. Knockout punches are nice but they also make you vulnerable to a counterpunch, and if you've won 8 rounds of a 12 round fight there's no need to risk taking that punch.

Maybe that's it. It's certainly possible they don't want to risk saying something that could be taken wrong by the public, seem insensitive or give the Trump campaign a chance to counter the argument in an effective way.

It's not how I'd play it, but it certainly could be their play. It would explain them both missing these really easy snapbacks.

I'm sure that's it. The cautious approach to this kind of debate is to focus solely on delivering the message; they'll have a set of points they want to make, lines they want to deliver, and that'll basically be it. To that end, it's limiting, they'll try to only use chosen prepared points to keep focus, they won't improvise (which can be seen as risky and increases the risk of making a gaffe or saying something that could be misrepresented as a gaffe), and so they won't throw in additional points even when given an opening. Basically, 'stick to the script'.

The downside is it's very limiting; a good candidate should be able to come up with better responses in the live situation then can necessarily be chosen in advance. But even a good candidate can become flustered and misspeak, so it seems pretty typical these days for campaigns to focus on just using the debate as an additional platform for getting their message out and otherwise avoid making any major gaffes, rather than going for a knockout.

(Of course, none of that applies to Trump, because you can't really take that approach with an arrogant, narcissistic, windbag.)

 

[nolaspe]

 

[CoolBrees]

I think the message in this debate for Harris and Biden was simple: No red meat. No lines that could be turned into ads. I think they accomplished that.

Then the fly goes and steals the show and that is all anyone will remember. Because of the memes....So many memes

 

[wardorican]

I don't think she brought up Merrick Garland on purpose. All Pence has to say is that it is within their right to seat a justice. The small % of people that care already know all this.

And of course she avoided packing the court questions. She doesn't want to commit one way or the other in case it bites her later, doesn't want to scare-motivate GOP voters to vote, and it's absolutely on the table. If she committed to saying they will or won't then Republicans can take the "high-road" of seating her and say, "I told you so, the dems are going to pack the court anyway". Or if she says they won't pack the courts they can later say she lied. By not answering you have a lot more options with less damage down the road. Then after the fact in light of the clearly rushed hypocritical confirmation the Dems can be the good guys and gals and look more justified in expanding the court.

As of right now, we are not looking to do that.

 

[Heathen]

As I've said before..I believe Trump will lose in a landslide.

I'm already trying to think about how folks to the left of that admin can push them on certain issues..

One big cringe moment from Harris was when she said a few times 'we won't ban fracking!'

She waffled on that after signing on to the Green New Deal (which i support) which bans fracking effectively.

At least stand with some principle there. I get that 'be as centrist as possible' right up to an election is smart strategy, but tthat personally made me feel ill inside and a reminder that not every Democrat will be happy letting their guard down once we have a new administration in. I'll be just as critical of Biden as I would any CIC. That's only fair.

 

[Optimus Prime]