For anyone who is politically involved and knows the issues, Walz won by having better and more consistent positions; as well as Vance saying some scary fascist level shit

But I fear that most undecided voters aren't in that camp, and for those people Vance did well just be being coherent and vaguely normal.

Vance lied and twisted the truth a bunch, but if you just tuned in without knowing all the facts and context, that wasn't necessarily clear

For me though I was pleasantly surprised by Walz actually making a moral case for immigration, you don't see that nearly enough

It was refreshing to have a civil debate without yelling and name calling. Compared to the previous debate it's night and day.

I like Walz so it was frustrating to hear him tripping over his words and misspeaking. I think I heard him say he was friends with a school shooter, when I know he meant to say people effected by shootings. I felt that unfortunately Vance sounded clear and authoritative which will sway some people, despite being full of shit. One question Walz handled excellently was the one on abortion and reproductive rights. I just wish he had been that solid and aggressive and confident throughout the whole debate.

Walz came across like a human, while Vance pulled off an amazing impression of one.

Same as the previous two debates - the candidate that is constrained by not being a massive fucking liar will always be at a disadvantage because the moderators have abdicated their responsibility to do their jobs and fact check.

I think Walz improved as the night went on, he seemed a little nervous and needed to slow down a bit but he came across as relatable and human. That's something Vance isn't able to do.

Walz did fine. Unfortunately, that's definitely not enough to be impressive. In today's world he needed to be more aggressive and stern.

There were also a couple of times that were just bad optics for him. He looked pretty goofy nodding his head at Vance.

Of course I wanted better from Walz. Sadly, and worrisome that Vance came across as more than adequate.

One hour after the debate, I sorted lemmy posts by top of last hour. The first 5 posts were about Vance, the 6th about Trump. Not one with Walz in the headline.

Obligatory:
"KAMALA WANTS TO CENSOR ME FOR LYING TO THE PUBLIC WAHHHH"

I feel way better about Walz. Strong debate performance even if it isn't his forte. The ending where Vance got his leg in the beartrap of Jan 6 and could not answer why Mike Pence was not on stage instead of him (because Mike Pence is not a suck up) was shocking to see. Dude did not practice for that question at all, lmfao.

I also chuckled when Vance basically argued to Walz that the Infrastructure act and the inflation reduction act were good things. No shit shirlock, that's why Biden-Harris implemented them. It brought back American jobs and have rekindled diminished, rust belt states with new factories and infrastructure.

Vance came across as kinda whiny and petulant, Walz made strong points and really defined policy specifics.

Next debate, CBS needs to do way more aggressive fact-checking. ABC had way better fact-checking, but it still could have been way better. Vance walked all over CBS with his lying and taking credit for Biden and Obama administration Ws.

Lots of deluded wishful thinking in this thread. I would never vote for Vance either, but I recognize an impressive debate performance when I see one.