Answer -
Tuesday, Oct. 1
Matchup Game Time (ET) TV Channel Liberty 88, Aces 84 Game 2 7:30 p.m. ESPN2 Lynx 77, Sun 70 Game 2 9:30 p.m. ESPN2
As to another event, media punditry was up to expectations.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-won-the-vance-walz-debate-we-asked-chatgpt/ar-AA1rzCVb
That, and navel gazing.
_____________UPDATE_____________
There is this:
And with Walz being back-up to a healthy candidate in mid-life, while Vance is backstop to a very old and mentally decrepit self-repeater, Vance matters more.
From that same commentary:
RitaRita says: I can’t help thinking that JD Vance is the billionaires’ choice to replace Trump. He’s ambitious, a smooth liar, and knows who his daddy is. He also seems to be a true believer in the goals of Project 2025.
If Trump weren’t such a stupid narcissist, he’d be looking over his shoulder to make sure that Vance isn’t researching the 25th Amendment.
harpie says: Yes. I believe VANCE has been groomed for that purpose.
Reply
Not a posing "objective news" outlet, but arguably insightful.
Make of it what you will.
___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Based solely on smoothness, mannerisms, and delivery the belief here is Vance did a cleaner presentation of himself. He wears a suit better. That matters to some. On substance - objective view vs. subjective view, the belief here is both are second ticket spot, and don't matter. (Next Presidential election may be a different story.)
Trump, after he got pantsed by Harris in their debate to where he's hiding from scheduling another, was hoping on Vance and was not let down. Vance tried for a silk purse from a sow's ear, doing well, but still, a sow's ear remains what it is.
___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Guardian presents two debate navel gazing items, where a reader can read something into them. A panel, (buffet output), you agree with the panelist closest to your biases: here. Second, single author, not a panelist, with the author's photo above.
A young woman, her item headlined, JD Vance’s debate lines were so polished you could forget they made no sense.
Her item is in line with her other Guardian posts. The question interesting to Crabgrass - is this an age-related thing? (The question posed: is this happenstance, or an actual age difference?) Of the panelists who are regular contributors with bio page photos, this author is younger. In effect, can one speculate from this single instance to a valid conclusion that younger people are less tolerant of speil-n-spin, and quicker to see and call it out when encountering it? As one ages, does one have a lessened sensitivity to speil-n-spin after being over the years more deluged with it? Akin to neuropathy. Sensitivity fading with time, not more heightened.
Think it over. Perhaps I accord wisdom and discernment to her since I agree with all she wrote. Trump aides reportedly feel Vance closed a sale. Do tell.
Preaching to the choir is not a good measure of the quality of the sermon.
Read the item and see how you view it.
That’s a good assessment, as usual, but I don’t necessarily agree that the debate will not affect the election…if the Harris team uses the Vance soundbites therefrom adeptly.
E.g., Vance’s dissembling on several issues, like Springfield, abortion, J6, etc (the list is as long as his answers were) can be set up in campaign ads opposite actual video clips and blockquotes that he an Trump have spouted over the last days, months and years.
I’ll be very disappointed if they don’t do that post haste, going forward. Sometimes I wish they’d hire the Colbert crew for that kind of purpose, but without the laugh lines, just for the way they’re so good at highlighting that dichotomy between Trumpist rhetoric and reality — and doing it in record time . Maybe the Lincoln folks will pitch in, as well as the Harris team this month, and hopefully it will be a swift, prolific effort. The material from last night is staring them in the face and it isn’t hard to sort through, certainly.