I just watched the veep debate. I thought both candidates did a good job. It was not the first time I've found myself wishing we could get rid of the guys at the top of the ticket.
I think the Republicans will once again complain about moderator bias, but it wasn't nearly as blatant this time. I don't think SNL will be mocking the moderators this time around.
As for who won? As with the Presidential debate, it's hard to put myself in the head of an undecided voter to try and understand which points might move the needle in terms of actual votes. I think Walz scored some good hits that Vance looked awfully slippery trying to avoid, especially related to Trump losing in 2020. So, I think probably Walz won it, but I suppose I'll watch some post mortems from media sources to see if there was some moment that I didn't think was important, but will be pushed.
There was one thing about it that I found a bit irritating, though. One thing Vance brought up was a claim that Minnesota law allowed doctors to withold care from babies born alive after attempted abortions. Walz denied it. Vance kept pressing and insisted it was the case. What bugs me is that this ought to be fairly easily resolved. It's not really a matter of opinion. Either the law allows it, or does not allow it, or, possibly, it's so badly written that you can't tell. Even in that case, though, it ought to be possible to look at the law and point to a specific section to back up a claim. I wouldn't expect the candidates to be able to cite lawbooks on the spot, but it would be nice if post-debate fact checkers would do that, but I doubt they will.
Except, of course, for yours truly. Here is what a relevant statute says, and I think it's pretty definitive.
Subdivision 1.Recognition; care. An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Vance was....we'll be generous....wrong.
It bugs me because, in general, a lot people act like somehow this is a matter of opinion. Vance says one thing. Walz says another. Ok, fine. What do the law books say? Sometimes, it's vague, but in this case, it doesn't seem like there are two possible interpretations, and I wish the media fact checkers would do that.
ETA: I looked at a few fact check articles. CNN's did cover the abortion law, and explain it.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics ... index.html
Summary: The law doesn't allow witholding of medical care to any baby that has any chance of survival. The previous law required doctors to attempt to perform life saving procedures even on babies who were known to have no chance of survival.