US Politics Election Extra: Vance - Walz Debate Summary. Who Won?

Hello Team

🎦 00:00-00:10⏩

Jonathan welcomes viewers to an ATP Geopolitics update on the US elections.

Return to top⤴️

Vance vs Walz debate: Score draw.

🎦 00:10-04:48⏩

This was a vice-presidential nominee debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz. Jonathan provides his overall thoughts on the debate:

• It was probably a score draw, but Tim Walz won on substance.
• In the first half of the debate Tim Walz appeared shaky particularly when he fluffed an answer about Tiananmen Square.
• JD Vance was slick and a trained debater.
• Tim Walz came across well, as an affable, personable, Midwestern guy.
• There are two JD Vances - one who is a nice, normal guy in his personal life and the other, a politician willing to say anything to get into power (e.g. his changing views about Donald Trump).
• The JD Vance in the debate was the slick, personable one that was needed and came across much better than he has at rallies.
• It was disappointing that neither candidate landed any killer punches or called the other one out.
• They both agreed with each other a lot which is unusual but good - debates should be about ideology and policy.
• Ukraine wasn't even mentioned which could be good as it is a very divisive and partisan issue.
• Tim Walz was weak on foreign policy but better on domestic policy.

Vance vs Walz: Metrics of success and favourbility ratings

🎦 04:48-07:20⏩

Jonathan discusses the candidate's favourbility ratings:

• JD Vance's strategy in the debate was to be as affable as possible and to thank the moderators and Tim Walz at the end. He needed to do this as he went into the debate with very low favourbility ratings and needed to improve them.
• Tim Walz already has high favourbility ratings as he's an affable guy.
• MSNBC had Walz winning the debate whereas Fox News had Vance winning.
• Anthony Scaramucci (who is working for the Harris/Walz campaign) said that from a technical debating point of view JD Vance won.
• The problem for JD Vance is that Trump may not like how well he performed as Vance called Trump his "running mate" rather than "leader", "beloved leader" etc.
• Lots of people said that JD Vance came away from the debate looking as though he had won.

Vance vs Walz: The importance of the January 6th question

🎦 07:20-09:29⏩

A lot of people are talking about the last question of the debate, which was about January 6th.

• When asked whether he would have certified the 2020 election results JD Vance didn't give a definitive answer which was disappointing and interesting as it seemed that he had already made up his mind prior to the debate.
• Vance's response, to a difficult question, was to deflect and ask about censorship which worked well as Tim Walz's response wasn't memorable and got lost in the noise.

Vance vs Walz: CBS fact-checking, phoniness and the importance of favourability ratings

🎦 09:29-12:28⏩

Jonathan discusses the significance of favourbility ratings and lying:

• Although CBS had said they wouldn't be doing live fact checking, they did fact-check one of JD Vance's claims about cats and dogs. Vance then complained that he didn't think they would be fact-checking.
• JD Vance's dislike of fact checking suggests that he thinks it's ok to lie.
• People can sense phoniness in others. Voters have no reason to trust JD Vance as he's on record contradicting himself (the leaked "Trump, the JD Vance document").
• JD Vance either lied about or is fickle in his beliefs. His support for Trump is his route to power.
• Polls show that JD Vance has very low favourbility ratings which is a fact (negative 13). This is in contrast to Walz and Harris who are both above water.
• People are less favourable towards others that they consider to be phony, and this is reflected in their favourbility ratings.

Vance vs Walz: Post debate polling

🎦 12:28-18:55⏩

Jonathan discusses the post-debate polling data:

• Polling before the debate suggested that 62% of voters believed that Tim Walz was qualified to be president. Since the debate this has risen by 3% to 65% suggesting that he came across as being more presidential.
• A CNN poll showed that a significant number of viewers changed their opinions about both candidates after the debate:
  • JD Vance's favourbility rating changed from -22 to -3.
  • Tim Walz's favourbility rating changed from +14 to +37.
• Both candidates came out more favourably, but Walz more so than Vance. Had Vance landed a killer blow on Walz the results would have been different. Only 1 in 7 voters changed their mind and that was in favour of Walz.
• The last question, about January 6th, was one of the defining moments in the debate which Vance lost.

Vance vs Walz: Debate Summary

🎦 18:55-19:50⏩

Jonathan summarises the debate:

• It was a score draw and unlikely to significantly shift the opinion of undecided voters.
• It will have introduced more people to both candidates, but as it was a vice-presidential debate it is unlikely that many low-information voters would have been watching.
• Neither candidate had a disastrous debate or came away having been shown to have performed very badly. They both performed well enough.
• JD Vance performed well enough to improve his favourbility ratings.

CBS debate graphic: Misleading, irresponsible and aggravating

🎦 19:50-24:27⏩

Jonathan is annoyed about a misleading graphic used in the debate by CBS.

• The graphic was about the state of the economy. It showed that grocery prices had increased by 21% since January 2021 whereas the average hourly wage had only increased by 3.8% since last September.
• The graphic is misleading and irresponsible for the following reasons:

- The time periods are different. - 3.8% of a large number (salary) is much more significant than 21% of a much smaller number (groceries).

• Wages have outpaced inflation and the graphic doesn't reflect this.
• The graphic is a blatant lie, using incomparable data.
• Jonathan encourages viewers to be more discerning as it's very easy to be hoodwinked. The graphic plays into the hands of the Republicans and their narrative, but would have been just as irresponsible had it been the other way round.
• It was irresponsible journalism from CBS.

Wrap up

🎦 24:27-24:37⏩

Jonathan concludes by saying that he hopes the video was a good synopsis of the debate which viewers can watch if they want to. He reiterates his view that the debate was a score draw.

"Men that don't wear eyeliner. Bodily autonomy for women. And fact-checkers. I hate men that don't wear eyeliner bodily autonomy for women and fact checkers I hate you fact checkers how dare you go around checking facts come on man"