News

At this point, refusing to fact-check a debate is just a tacit admission that you want to help the GOP. After all, JD Vance is on record saying he has no problem lying and making up things if he thinks it's politically advantageous. Tim Walz shouldn't have to cut into his time correcting the lies of an established liar. Why have journalists involved at all? Seems like it'd be cheaper to hire some bozo off the street to read the questions and only enforce time limits on the Democrat. You don't need Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan to accomplish that.

I feel like Walz will be able to call Vance on whatever bullshit he's peddling... but not having a neutral fact checker is a terrible idea.

CBS does plan to offer its own form of live fact-checking — but it will be online, rather than directly from the moderators, via its CBS News Confirmed Unit journalists in an online blog.

So the attention of the viewer is divided or they don't even know that there is an online live fact check.

Sounds more than fishy

So they're just going to let Vance fearmonger the country into a race war.

Cool. Cool cool cool.

He says she says. What a way to run a debate. Terrible idea!

I refuse to upvote any post woth the word "slammed" in the title

S L A M M E D

Hook each VP candidate nuts to a car battery and every time they lie hit them with the full voltage.

Simple as.

Slamalamadingdong!

A vanishingly small number of US voters are even going to watch this. There is wildcard baseball and a bunch of other crap happening at the exact same time.

I will say this debate is inherently riskier than the last one simply because JD Vance is already at his floor. He's the most unpopular VP or VP candidate in history. Worse than Sarah Palin, worse than Spiro Agnew, worse than Aaron Burr.
He loses, nothing changes, he cannot go lower barring Mark Robinson tier revelations and even then I have doubts. He wins, Walz slips a point or two, Harris by extension maybe 1/4th of a point.

Really anything that can stop the bleed for the Republicans is a win for them, October is critical. Harris rode a 6 week high after getting in at the end of July, spent the first two weeks undoing the pit Biden had dug, then got boosts from the VP pick and convention that lasted until early September. Trump finally had trends on his side and the debate utterly wrecked that. That's finally fading again so they really are seeking a win, a screw up here could be too late to wait out and Vance getting some good press could bury stuff like the Uncle Robinson(no relation) disaster.

The other problem is that he's young, really young, Teddy young. JD Vance is young enough he can fake it for a little bit in a way Trump is just too old to do these days. He's baitable, but not to the level of Trump or even Biden in this environment. Young Narcissists can put on a face for a while in a controlled space like this, 80s Trump did it all the time and I'd argue Vance might be sharper than him.

I don't think it's a bad matchup, Walz is very wholesome and more experienced(and the reverse would be very unideal for the Democrats. Vance would be better at avoiding the massive tangents Harris baited Trump into, meanwhile Walz isn't as high energy or effective on the pursuit against Trump as Harris is) , but he definitely 'looks' and 'sounds' older than he is, especially compared to Harris. So Walz is walking in with that already there.

We're gonna have a proven liar on our network. We're not going to do anything to point that out.

Try not to use "Slammed" in Article title challenge (Impossible)

Cowards. Why hold a debate at all if you're gonna be pussies about it?

Vance will be fact checked way more.

Fuck CBS