Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance have agreed to debate each other on Oct. 1, setting up a matchup of potential vice presidents as early voting in some states gets underway for the general election.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance have agreed to debate each other on Oct. 1, setting up a matchup of potential vice presidents as early voting in some states gets underway for the general election.

    • millifoo@lemmy.world
      296·
      3 months ago

      I dunno, these debates scare me. Harris/Walz is surging right now, and Trump/Vance is tanking: this gives Trump/Vance a chance to inject their brand of FUD by throwing shit against the wall and seeing if anything sticks.

      For example, I suspect Vance is going to try and nail Walz with Walz’s 1995 DUI. That’ll be a hard one for him to talk his way out of, it’s ugly and then later his campaign lied about it.

      • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
        42·
        3 months ago

        The DUI in 95 led to Walz quitting drinking. Seeing how well Walz has disarmed other accusations before I’m not worried about that particular attack, it would probably blow up in Vance’s face.

        I do share your general worry about the debates, though. Not least because the hype for them has set the bar so high that I think failure to meet these astronomical expectations will be seen as a huge win by Trump. Harris in particular needs to absolutely annihilate Trump for her not to lose momentum.

        And I don’t think this is guaranteed at all. This is not her nailing people to their testimonies in the courtroom. The moderators here will NOT keep Trump in check and he will NOT show her any respect. He also will NOT be legally required to speak the truth (and we can’t expect live fact-checking). Unlike her work as a prosecutor she does not attack this debate from an intrinsic position of authority. She will need to stare Trump down and put him in his place on the sole merit of her own charisma, personal authority and force of personality. That’s not an easy thing to do.

        I’m absolutely concerned.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        22·
        3 months ago

        Probably will invite the “both sides” crowd, but if I had to pick between someone who had a DUI charge but more importantly lied about it later…or someone who wrote a prologue and endorsed a fascist manifesto…not really a hard choice there. I mean, in WWII the Allies all had their problems and egomaniacs who could rightly be criticized for some bad decisions. But the other side was Hitler. So…

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          24·
          3 months ago

          I don’t recall his campaign lying about the DUI, so I think the commentor is setting up a false problem. What I do know is that Walz gave up drinking afterwards and has been sober since. Thats what you lean into. “I fucked up and faced the problem head on.”

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            14·
            3 months ago

            Looking it up it seems that while there have been a few changes over the years to the story, it’s because he started telling the truth about what happened to be up front to the public. I don’t think this is the smear that Republicans are hoping for.

            But again, it’s not quite the level of a fascist. This shouldn’t be a hard pick for any American who remembers history. Even the Joker picked the right side when given these kinds of choices.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            3 months ago

            If you have to dig back to 95 to find dirt on somebody and that dirt was a dumb mistake thousands of people make each year and it led to meaningful change, you got a whole lot of nothing. How the hell are you going to turn that into “this guy shouldnt be VP”?

          • millifoo@lemmy.world
            21·
            3 months ago

            I think the commentor is setting up a false problem.

            https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile/index.html

            "According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128

            […] in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

            I don’t think this is the smear that Republicans are hoping for.

            I truly hope not. But they’re grasping at straws, they’ll try and use anything they can get.