The poll referenced in the article was from 574 CNN viewers with a MoE over 5%.
plz-let-me-in on
According to [CNN’s instant poll of viewers who watched the VP debate](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html), Walz was at 46% favorable, 32% unfavorable (net +14%) before the debate, while Vance was at 30% favorable, 52% unfavorable (net -22%). After the debate, 59% had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22% viewing him unfavorably (net +37%), while 41% had a favorable view of Vance, with 44% viewing him unfavorably (net -3%).
So while Vance did have an increase in approval after from debate (from -22% to -3%), Walz actually went from +14% to +37% net approval after the debate! His increase in favorability was actually bigger than Vance’s! So much for all the takes from the media that Walz somehow did poorly in the debate.
PlentyMacaroon8903 on
I don’t know how anyone got a positive feeling about Vance besides he could lie as easily as he was breathing. But he didn’t even seem like he believed what he was saying.
feral-pug on
The issue with Vance is that he can’t answer a question and he comes across as an insufferable asshole. It’s not a debate club, it’s outreach to the American people. Even on a relatively good night, for him, he doesn’t come across as very human.
Walz was, as always, incredibly human and relatable. He did a good job providing actual substance and reaching out to people, instead of just standing there telling lies and saying nothing.
Vance just exudes “not trustworthy” vibes.
Arthesia on
59% is actually incredible.
By comparison:
Walz: 59% (debate viewers)
Harris: 47.5% (national average)
Trump: 43% (national average)
Vance: 41% (debate viewers)
Biden: 40.5% (national average)
Relevantcobalion on
I think there’s one clear takeaway from last nights debate: it’s amazing how the adults in the room can have a substantive conversation (mostly) when the orange man-child isn’t present. When your VP looks better than you, that’s not necessarily a *good thing*, unless you’re not counting on the president to be president for his whole term…
LankyGuitar6528 on
So people like a decent normal guy over a fast talking super slick college educated liar. Weird.
Saint-Benjamin on
I was a little worried and I still am. But, Vance outed himself as every disingenuous middle manager ever.
me_xman on
Walz won bigly
roninshere on
Glad to see Americans are seeing through the bullshit. Let’s hope they don’t vote for bullshit on Nov 5.
TechieTravis on
I think that both candidates got a boost simply because people were happy to see a civilized debate. After watching a crazy old man rant and rave about immigrants eating people’s pets, it was good to see Vance be articulate and measured, even if his actual policies are still wack. Walz won on substance.
hughhuckleberry on
I find it interesting that MSM is calling out Vance almost en masse for lying so prolificly as he did versus how hard it is for them to admit Trump lies (they say something like “falsely claims” or “wildly speculates”). Walz did really well considering he isn’t a good master debater, but what I really took away from this is that
1) Vance made Trump look even crazier. The smooth talking lies contrast to Trump’s rambling gibberish lies is night and day. Vance came across as stiff, but I can see how he could tear the fabric of this nation apart
2) MSM does indeed give Trump multiple mulligans any time he opens his mouth. The amount of articles I’ve seen call out Vance for his smooth and dry lying compared to Trump’s unmistakeable sloppy, messy lies is incredible. MSM is just as weird as Vance/Trump and, on purpose or for clicks, is in bed with Trump for sure
StrangerAtaru on
CBC claims Vance had a better debate and Walz was held back. I just hope all the Walz support for yesterday wasn’t just bias.
rhj2020 on
Even if Vance wasn’t a huge dirtbag, I don’t want to vote for for someone as old as me. Life experience matters.
Knute5 on
Walz’s words were truer and more sincere, but his speech was more halting, less smooth than Vance. I’d think Vance would get the “not what you say but how you say it” bump, but would suffer the Wednesday-morning scrutiny and the spreading of clips on social media where the content is actually broken down.
ronswansonificator on
If Tim Walz sold you his used truck, he’d spend thirty minutes telling you everything that could possibly be wrong with it and then insist on replacing the brake pads before he’d sell it to you, just to be safe. JD Vance would fast talk you into a patched together piece of shit and laugh at you when it dumped the oil out halfway to your house.
17 Comments
Don’t tell this to ImpressiveProgram9
The poll referenced in the article was from 574 CNN viewers with a MoE over 5%.
According to [CNN’s instant poll of viewers who watched the VP debate](https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html), Walz was at 46% favorable, 32% unfavorable (net +14%) before the debate, while Vance was at 30% favorable, 52% unfavorable (net -22%). After the debate, 59% had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22% viewing him unfavorably (net +37%), while 41% had a favorable view of Vance, with 44% viewing him unfavorably (net -3%).
So while Vance did have an increase in approval after from debate (from -22% to -3%), Walz actually went from +14% to +37% net approval after the debate! His increase in favorability was actually bigger than Vance’s! So much for all the takes from the media that Walz somehow did poorly in the debate.
I don’t know how anyone got a positive feeling about Vance besides he could lie as easily as he was breathing. But he didn’t even seem like he believed what he was saying.
The issue with Vance is that he can’t answer a question and he comes across as an insufferable asshole. It’s not a debate club, it’s outreach to the American people. Even on a relatively good night, for him, he doesn’t come across as very human.
Walz was, as always, incredibly human and relatable. He did a good job providing actual substance and reaching out to people, instead of just standing there telling lies and saying nothing.
Vance just exudes “not trustworthy” vibes.
59% is actually incredible.
By comparison:
Walz: 59% (debate viewers)
Harris: 47.5% (national average)
Trump: 43% (national average)
Vance: 41% (debate viewers)
Biden: 40.5% (national average)
I think there’s one clear takeaway from last nights debate: it’s amazing how the adults in the room can have a substantive conversation (mostly) when the orange man-child isn’t present. When your VP looks better than you, that’s not necessarily a *good thing*, unless you’re not counting on the president to be president for his whole term…
So people like a decent normal guy over a fast talking super slick college educated liar. Weird.
I was a little worried and I still am. But, Vance outed himself as every disingenuous middle manager ever.
Walz won bigly
Glad to see Americans are seeing through the bullshit. Let’s hope they don’t vote for bullshit on Nov 5.
I think that both candidates got a boost simply because people were happy to see a civilized debate. After watching a crazy old man rant and rave about immigrants eating people’s pets, it was good to see Vance be articulate and measured, even if his actual policies are still wack. Walz won on substance.
I find it interesting that MSM is calling out Vance almost en masse for lying so prolificly as he did versus how hard it is for them to admit Trump lies (they say something like “falsely claims” or “wildly speculates”). Walz did really well considering he isn’t a good master debater, but what I really took away from this is that
1) Vance made Trump look even crazier. The smooth talking lies contrast to Trump’s rambling gibberish lies is night and day. Vance came across as stiff, but I can see how he could tear the fabric of this nation apart
2) MSM does indeed give Trump multiple mulligans any time he opens his mouth. The amount of articles I’ve seen call out Vance for his smooth and dry lying compared to Trump’s unmistakeable sloppy, messy lies is incredible. MSM is just as weird as Vance/Trump and, on purpose or for clicks, is in bed with Trump for sure
CBC claims Vance had a better debate and Walz was held back. I just hope all the Walz support for yesterday wasn’t just bias.
Even if Vance wasn’t a huge dirtbag, I don’t want to vote for for someone as old as me. Life experience matters.
Walz’s words were truer and more sincere, but his speech was more halting, less smooth than Vance. I’d think Vance would get the “not what you say but how you say it” bump, but would suffer the Wednesday-morning scrutiny and the spreading of clips on social media where the content is actually broken down.
If Tim Walz sold you his used truck, he’d spend thirty minutes telling you everything that could possibly be wrong with it and then insist on replacing the brake pads before he’d sell it to you, just to be safe. JD Vance would fast talk you into a patched together piece of shit and laugh at you when it dumped the oil out halfway to your house.