Tipsheet

It Sure Looks Like POLITICO Had the Dumbest Take on the VP Debate

Rebecca Downs
Rebecca Downs  |  October 02, 2024 4:30 PM

Multiple polls have shown that Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) won the vice presidential debate when he went up against Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) on CBS News. While even POLITICO had to admit as much, that didn't stop them from putting out multiple ridiculous articles about Tuesday night's debate. Arguably the worst take, though, had to do with Walz's creepy facial expressions, which had editors from the Babylon Bee quipping such an article could even put them out of business.

Joel Berry, the managing editor of The Babylon Bee, shared excerpts from the POLITICO Magazine article, which claimed "Walz's wide eyes showed his passion."

"They're gonna put us out of business," Berry posted in response to another user when mocking the article.

The blurb on Walz's wide eyes was certainly meant to be a positive. "When Walz felt especially passionate about something, he’d open his eyes wide as saucers. Eye-popping can sometimes be a sign of surprise, but for Walz, it simply revealed his emotional intensity — like this moment during an exchange about abortion," it explained, a topic which Walz went heavy on with the lies and fearmongering. 

"Early humans would have made such facial gestures to communicate strong emotions, like 'danger is close.' For Walz, it gave extra weight to his feelings and held our gaze," such a blurb also noted.

Recommended

Chris Matthews Nails What's Wrong With Dems Matt Vespa
Medical Examiner Makes Stunning Admission During Daniel Penny Trial Mia Cathell

Walz's facial expressions throughout the debate certainly received plenty of attention on Tuesday night, with many mocking the Democratic governor. He had reportedly been feeling nervous in the days before the debate, and it certainly showed.

Walz's "wide eyes" was just one of many mentions in a piece about "8 Body Language Tells From the Vice Presidential Debate," put together by author Joe Navarro. 

There were plenty of blurbs about Vance as well, and they were less than positive. Here's where further absurdity comes in. The very first of the eight "tells" dealt with how "Yes, Vance’s beard matters."

"Our appearance is fundamental to our body language, and research indicates that voters see beards as (surprise, surprise) more masculine. That can be positive to some, reading as strength and competence. But to others, especially women, it can be negative, conveying aggression and opposition to feminist ideals," the blurb read in part.

Another negative for Vance had to do with a blurb on how "Vance let a little frown give him away," to do with Project 2025, an initiative from the Heritage Foundation that is in no way connected to the Trump-Vance campaign, though that doesn't stop Democrats from lying about it, even when they know better. 

"When Walz brought up Project 2025, Vance exhibited a little tell that carried a big message: a slight squinting of the eyes and a small frown. Clearly, this was a sore subject. When we hear something we’re unhappy or uncomfortable with, the negative emotion flashes over the face, exactly as we saw here," Navarro noted. "We have to guard against such behaviors in high-stakes interchanges like negotiations or, say, vice-presidential debates — they reveal to your opponent what topics you want to avoid and where your weaknesses lie."

Perhaps this isn't so much one of Vance's "weaknesses," but frustration that the Harris-Walz ticket keeps getting away with lying about an initiative that has nothing to do with the Trump-Vance campaign. 

Even when offering what could have been a positive for Vance, in how "Vance called attention to his heart," Navarro wasn't willing to come off as that favorable to the Republican senator. 

"It’s such a strong gesture that it’s often taught in public speaking. But that presents a risk: If it appears contrived, you are in trouble. Coming off as dishonest is worse than doing nothing at all. I can’t say whether Vance was being authentic or not — I’d have to see him perform the gesture in different contexts. But the move was meant to communicate a heartfelt sentiment," Navarro wrote in part.

In addition to the screenshots people shared over X, there's been over 100 replies to the POLITICO post, as many took the chance to further mock Walz and his facial expressions. 

POLITICO also published an article on the moderators who fact-checked Vance, after they claimed previously they would not do so. The outlet predictably put the focus on how "Republicans are livid," which resulted in more backlash against POLITICO.