• jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    He certainly seemed awkward in the first couple minutes, but I’m not sure what the big deal would be outside of that.

    • wagesj45@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      That thing about when he was in China was a shitshow from top to bottom. I had never even heard of the “controversy” so it was probably some bullshit the moderators threw in to appease the conspiracy lunatics and appear balanced. Then his answer was a bunch of nothing and flailing around. I don’t think he even answered it. The closest he got was “that’s what I said” and didn’t address the accuracy of the statement or an explanation in his answer. And then he stopped with a few seconds left in his allotted time and froze up and stammered for the rest of it.

      Tim Walz is, by all appearances, a stand up guy and smart as a tack. But that isn’t really what drives these debates. If they were won and lost on the merits, no Republican would have been elected in my lifetime. But they’re not about substance and by pretty much every measure that answer and interaction was a doozy of a loser.

      But that was the only answer that he flubbed like that, so the night wasn’t a total disaster for Walz. It just wasn’t a win.