D
David Axelrod
J
John Heilman
M
Mike Murphy
Mike Murphy：Vance 在辩论中表现出色，展现出一种与他在竞选活动中截然不同的‘友善’形象。他结合了伪装友善和快速抛出极端观点的策略，试图显得精明。虽然他在媒体评价中获胜，但这并不一定能影响选民。Walz 的表现与其竞选活动中的风格不同，他选择不攻击 Vance，这可能是其策略的一部分。
David Axelrod：辩论的基调是积极的，因为两位候选人表现出尊重和互相认可，这受到了观众的喜爱。Vance 的策略在某种程度上开启了反特朗普主义的大门，观众的反应也反映了特朗普营造的政治环境。虽然 Vance 在辩论中获胜，但民调显示双方支持率不相上下，这表明 Walz 的表现也得到了认可。
John Heilman：选民厌倦了特朗普式的政治，他们渴望一种更温和、更尊重的政治氛围，即使这种氛围并非完全真诚。Vance 在辩论结尾关于 1 月 6 日事件的回答是其表现的低谷，而 Walz 在此问题上的回应则相对较好。由于辩论的基调温和，缺乏有冲击力的片段，这使得媒体难以制作出具有传播性的视频剪辑。Vance 关于 1 月 6 日事件的回答将成为辩论中最受关注的片段，因为它易于传播且符合媒体关注的焦点。
Deep Dive
JD Vance's slick but inauthentic performance in the VP debate earned him initial praise, but ultimately revealed inconsistencies, particularly regarding the Affordable Care Act and January 6th. While his polished demeanor contrasted with his usual campaign style, his contradictory statements and evasiveness on key issues raised questions about his credibility.
- Vance combined a "fake nice guy" persona with rapid-fire delivery of questionable claims.
- Vance's debate performance was praised by some on the right, but his inconsistencies on issues like the Affordable Care Act and January 6th undermined his credibility.
- Undecided voters responded positively to the respectful tone of the debate, potentially signaling a desire for less divisive politics.
Shownotes Transcript