Dan Balz: “Overall it was an unsatisfying, disjointed debate, as the two candidates brushed past specific questions to open up other arguments at will. It probably changed few minds and no doubt brought some encouragement to the bases of the two parties. In that way it was a typical vice-presidential debate.”
Jonathan Chait: “Pence provided an evening of escapist fantasy for conservative intellectuals who like to close their eyes and imagine their party has nominated a qualified, normal person for president. It is hard to see how he helped the cause of electing the actual nominee.”
Robert Costa: “It was a dutiful, deflective and prepared performance for a campaign that rarely fits that description. Instead of causing Trump or his aides campaign-changing headaches, Pence played it safe and, when he could, sought to reassure the movement conservatives he knows well and who have been wary of Trump’s murky populism. Beneath the smooth patter, however, there were significant cracks with Trump — especially with regard to Russia and its role in the war in Syria — that showcased how far Pence’s instincts stray from Trump’s.”
Glenn Thrush: “The Virginia senator has a reputation for being a nice guy, but he was given a hit man’s job on Tuesday. And the target was Trump, not Pence, whom the Clinton campaign regards as a political bit player who will vanish into obscurity after the election. Hence, Kaine’s task was a slightly awkward one: to aim over Pence and hit Trump. It didn’t really work, and not for lack of trying.”
Andrew Sullivan: “As for Kaine, I don’t think he appeared presidential; he failed to defend the past eight years clearly and aggressively enough; he did nothing to rouse the Obama coalition. He seemed like a classic politician. He was strong on abortion at the end, and on his faith. He seems like a hugely decent guy – but he missed a few moments to really expose Trump’s extremism the way he needed to.”
Save to Favorites