Noticing how I'm watching the debate. My system is naturally watching for whose answers seem more solid, confident. So far, JD Vance seems a little more stable. Tim Walz seems comfortable when attacking, but very nervous and uncertain when trying to answer the core content of a question. It’s a little funny and surprising to see his nervousness – e.g., constantly repeating and overusing the term fundamental.
Vance seeming better is kinda unfortunate for me because on values I’m way more aligned with Walz!
Also noticing that I’m initially much more focused on style than substance and who’s winning
… will see if that shifts.