vance is obviously a better debater and a smarter guy than walz. he did a brilliant job handling all the 105mph curveballs thrown at him and handling the mods ganging up on him.

i'm not sure if normies will view vance as too slick though.

vance comes off more as a slick pol than some xo aspie. he kind of reminds me of john edwards, especially when he starts talking about his prole upbringing. that's cringe to me, but i guess normies like that stuff.

walz comes off as likeable and presidential even if he doesnt come off as good a debater as vance. walz did a good job portraying himself as a reasonable and thoughtful moderate, and vance didn't at all get through to the viewers that he's a radical shitlib (tampons, floyd protests, etc.).

people who don't know anything about either of these guys and don't spend their entire day on reading political crap on the internet are going to think both of these guys are reasonable men who they can see as president. in that sense, the debate is a wash for both of them.

much of the the debate was quite boring because "policy" is bullshit and anyone can make up whatever "policy" they may or may not do. attacking each others' personality is much more entertaining, and this debate wasn't the least bit entertaining.

the real "win" is for vance's personal career, which is fitting given that he's a me-first charlatan. he surely made a great impression with the gop base - both the trumpmos and the eGOP types - in his first real appearance on the national stage, and he'll likely be the 2028 frontrunner.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5605150&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927",#48154629)

mention of the fact that he's a chink asset would have been much better than retards squabbling about whether he lied about the month he was in some town square as a tour guide or something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5605150&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5301927",#48154669)