Offline
So whatcha' think ??
Personally I thought BOTH did a decent job. I was impressed with Kain's preparation. I really had not heard a lot of him speaking before this.
I expect BOTH groups will think their candidate did a good job. BOTH seemed to be well qualified to be a VP (or President for that matter).
What came off as a big point for me was that Pence really could NOT defend most of Trump's remarks (many of which are indefensible at least IMHO) and either ignored them or deflected to something else.
I also watch body language on the split screen while the opposite person is speaking. That many times tells me a lot. It did tonight.
Offline
Yes, Pence continuously denied Trump making comments or remarks that Kane brought up even though they are on tapes and can be replayed ad nauseum. Both interrupted the other as did the moderator who asked pertinent questions of the candidates. All in all--if I did not watch this debate I would have missed little.
Offline
Looks like Pence won the debate decisively.
RNC prematurely declares Mike Pence debate winner two hours before start time
The Republican National Committee (RNC) appeared to accidentally declare on its website Tuesday night that Mike Pence was the winner of the vice presidential debate, nearly two hours before it was slated to start.
“Americans from all across the country tuned in to watch the one and only Vice Presidential debate. During the debate we helped fact check and monitor the conversation in real time @GOP. The consensus was clear after the dust settled, Mike Pence was the clear winner of the debate,” said the blog post on gop.com, the party’s website.
The post, which went viral nearly two hours before the debate was scheduled to begin at 9 p.m., said that Pence’s top moments were on the “economy” and “highlighting Hillary’s scandals.”
Last edited by Goose (10/05/2016 4:25 am)
Offline
Couldn't make it through the first 15 minutes without getting annoyed to the point where I flipped over to the Orioles-Blue Jays wild card game.
It was less of a debate than it was two guys doing campaign stump speeches for their running mates.
Offline
Just got back from Florence, Italy, yesterday. The debate was carried on CNN and BBC News over there. I would in general say the opinion of most Florentines is that the whole USA political process has run off the rails and, to them, reminding them of the Berlusconi fiasco.
Offline
Some people criticized Kain for attacking Trump relentlessly, BUT the campaign is really about the two people at the top who are running. In that regards and the fact that he kept bringing up Trump's OWN WORDS against him, it was apparent Pence had little or no defense and as such was showing that most of Trumps words ARE indefensible. The times he tried to off put the statements it probably did as much harm to Pence as anyone else.
I expect that BOTH the R and D camp felt their person did a decent job. It will not likely sway anyone in the already decided realm.
This contest was aimed at the undecided. IMHO I thought Kain did the better job in that respect.
Last edited by tennyson (10/05/2016 9:05 am)
Offline
I thought this summed it up pretty well:
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
I thought this summed it up pretty well:
Yea, it looks like Pence has learned to appreciate, and emulate, Donald Trump's contempt for the truth.
Last edited by Goose (10/05/2016 10:50 am)
Offline
I didn't watch it live, but I caught up on the highlights.
I'm generally disappointed with the debates. Call me old school - I think the purpose of a debate should mostly be to sway undecideds, and secondarily to get a few of the decided voters to crack as well. There should be ample opportunity to hear the candidates' ideas and arguments. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates the candidates took it in turns to open each debate with a one-hour speech, then the other candidate had an hour and a half to rebut, and finally the first candidate closed the debate with a half-hour response (thanks Wikipedia). How about that?
These recent debates are more like mom and dad fighting in the kitchen. Just one person talking over another, back and forth. Since participants are limited to a minute or two for their answers there is hardly time to mount a well-reasoned response, it's all about the quick soundbites. And those soundbites aren't convincing undecideds of anything...it's all about getting people who have already made up their minds to go out and repeat catchphrases with a heightened degree of animosity.
Offline
Yep, there has to be a better way. What, I don't know but anyway has to be better than what was witnessed last night and at the first presidential debate. Right now I'm just waiting for all this to be over next month.