Thursday, 8 October 2020

My hot take on the VP Debate

[Liveblog here]

Kamala stronger and more natural than I expected. Peace weaker and more off topic than. I expected. 

Pence missed clear opportunities to make strong points. 

Trump “$750 tax” issue: I could have answered better. 

On climate change: poor answer by Pence. Waffle and giving impression that, yeah, there’s change, but who’s responsible… 

On foreign policy: why not repeat the powerful statement of Robert Gates, that Joe Biden has been “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and security issue in the past forty years.” (Gates was Defence Secretary for Bush and Obama. Highly respected both sides of the aisle).

And Pence continually went over time and didn’t address the question. 

Harris made strong attacks on Trump. Pence didn’t do the same to Biden in return. 

I don’t like the looking at the camera thing — both did it — but I guess the debate advisers know it works. 

Overall, with thirty minutes to go, it’s Kamala win. 

SCOTUS: Pence talks of “adding seats”. Why not the more powerful “packing the court”. Still, Harris didn’t rule it out  packing SCOTUS is very dangerous for the future of the republic. 

That’s it for now… (overall I’m staggered at how badly Pence has performed)

ADDED:  Pence answered the last two questions much better, I thought. Harris so-so on those (1. will you support the election results, and 2. (Audience question): why can’t we all just get along, why can’t leaders be role models).

LATER: On CNN: Pence “Deflects, Denies, Evades”. On Fox: Harris “ Deflects, Denies, Evades”. Plus ça change (Actually, both are correct). No surprises, CNN think Harris did well, Fox think Pence did well.

On CNN a “fact checker” says it’s not true that Trump stopped travel from China in February because of exemptions for residents and their relatives. But, my understanding is that he couldn’t do that because it would’ve been unconstitutional. (Must check) 

LATERER: Brit Hume suggested that instead of having a 90 minute debate strictly divided into 9 ten-minute segments, why not let the debaters go at it without restriction, talk about what they want to. With the moderator just making sure each gets about the same time. Something sure needs to change. It’s way too superficial, yet too long as well, as it stands.