R. Kelly’s Daughter Joanne Won’t Introduce Her Future Son to Her Grandfather in Prison

Despite vehemently disagreeing on many points in the campaign’s trajectory, the former’s co-workers President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harrisrespectively, they reached the point of agreement in several cases.

That’s not to say there weren’t some more serious moments, with Walz being accused of lying about being in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and bloodshed, calling himself “an idiot” and admitting he “misspoke.” . He was there about two months after the incident, according to a NPR fact checking.

In turn, Vance has been questioned for his seemingly shifting positions on abortion rights, among other issues, with many experts believing he lied on stage when he said he would not seek a national abortion ban, contradicting comments further recent efforts made by Congress.

Vance also criticized CBS Information moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margarat Brennan after the latter fact-checked his misleading statements about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Remember, this was the viral moment from the presidential debate where Trump talked about immigrants eating cats and dogs.

Vance did not mention anyone eating anything on this issue, but argued that Springfield, Ohio, is overstretched in its educational and housing infrastructure due to “hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants” competing “with Americans for scarce property.”

“And just to be clear to our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, has a lot of Haitian migrants who have short-term, protected status,” Brennan retorted, which angered Vance.

“Margaret, the rule was that you wouldn’t do a real test, and since you’re checking me out, I think it’s important to tell you what’s really going on,” Vance said, before jumping into the process of searching for Momentary. Protected Position.

When Walz began to give his opinion, the moderators cut off the microphones for both candidates and insisted that the talk should move on to other topics. At different times, both moderators provided targeted opportunities for the opposing candidate to fact-check their opponent.

One moment that hasn’t been verified or clarified, but received some heat in reactions online, was when Walz spoke passionately about the rise in gun violence and said he had become an “associate of college shooters.” Did he say it wrong? It was a phrase that left some online confused or outraged, depending on their political leanings.

Another notable moment from the night that gained even more prominence was when Vance repeatedly refused to say whether or not he would accept the results of this year’s election, regardless of the outcome, and even refused to acknowledge that Trump lost in 2020.

At one point, Walz even asked directly, “Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?” To this, Vance pivoted, responding, “Tim, I’m focused on the long term,” he said, before asking whether Harris had been censoring free speech on Facebook for four years.

“That’s a damning lack of response,” Walz fired again.

In a post-debate interview with undecided voters, this change proved fundamental for at least one voter.

Walz also accused the Trump campaign of stopping a bipartisan bill that could have strengthened the southern border and done so much to support the flow of illegal immigrants there, just so he could use it as a political tactic in the debate, in a point even interrupting Vance talking about the subject to joke, “Move the invoice.”

In the end, the large consensus from the immediate polls after the talk left both candidates in a nearly hopeless atmosphere, with Vance considered the winner by a small margin (42% to 41% per year). CBS Information vote, with 17% considering it a tie).

They were also closely tied on three of the top five issues for voters, according to CBS News: East Central, economy and immigration, with Vance slightly ahead on the last two. In Abortion (62-38) and Health (59-41), the margins were most notably in Walz’s favor.

Overall, though, viewers seemed to appreciate the more cordial, issue-oriented tone of the speech. Both candidates came out of this trying better with potential voters than they went in.

In fact, it was so non-shocking and non-polarizing that it almost shocked Hollywood into silence on the issue. While there was a lot of response to the presidential debate, there was much less noise on social media during and after the vice presidential race.

Another notable response is that everyone came away extremely confident that their candidates won, suggesting that both candidates do what they wanted to further their base’s agenda. What matters is how they fare with these undecided voters.

Based on Politicalthat essential Election Day advantage may have gone to Walz, based on early reactions.