SPECIAL EDITION: The vice presidential debate.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

ICYMI.

I did a video breaking down “my take” on North Carolina and the lies being spread about what is happening on the ground:

Quick hits.

1. Iran fired roughly 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in what it said was retaliation for Israel’s recent strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon. (The attack) Israel said it will respond forcefully to the incident. (The response) Shortly before the missile attack began, seven people were killed and eight others were injured in a stabbing and shooting perpetrated by two suspected terrorists in Tel Aviv, Israel. (The attack) 
2. The death toll from Hurricane Helene has risen to 162 people, and President Biden reported that around 600 people remain unaccounted for. Search and rescue operations are ongoing, but hundreds of roads are still impassible in North Carolina and other parts of the Southeast. (The latest)
3. U.S. job openings increased in August after decreasing in June and July, while hiring fell and layoffs declined. (The report)
4. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill banning legacy admissions at private colleges and universities in the state. (The bill)
5. Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum was sworn in as the country’s first female president. (The occasion)

Today's topic.

The vice presidential debate. On Tuesday evening, vice presidential candidates Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) faced off in the only scheduled vice presidential debate of the 2024 election. The debate provided a stark contrast to the recent presidential debates, with the two candidates delivering fleshed out policy positions, repeatedly finding common ground, offering respectful disagreements, rarely interrupting each other, and avoiding personal attacks.

CBS News hosted the debate, which was moderated by "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell and "Face the Nation" moderator and chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan. The debate lasted 90 minutes, with two four-minute commercial breaks and a two-minute closing statement for each candidate. Unlike the two presidential debates this cycle, the candidates’ microphones were not muted during an opponent’s answer, creating a few instances of cross-talk, though moderators reserved the right to mute microphones, which they did one time.

Vance and Walz were not allowed prewritten notes, and each candidate was given two minutes to answer to each question, two minutes to respond to their opponent, a one-minute rebuttal, and an optional additional minute at the discretion of the moderators. The candidates also agreed to forego fact-checking from the moderators. However, O’Donnell and Brennan fact-checked Vance during the debate.

The debate covered a range of topics including foreign policy, climate change, immigration, abortion, gun violence, housing, healthcare, and the 2020 election.

Throughout the night, Vance repeatedly pivoted to the strength of the economy under President Donald Trump before the pandemic. During one of the debate’s more memorable moments, Vance answered an abortion question by stating that Republicans have “got to do so much better” to earn back the trust of Americans on the issue. Rather than focus on the morality of abortion, he discussed the need to address issues women face that prevent them from having stable environments in which to raise children. 

Conversely, Tim Walz frequently pivoted to healthcare and housing as two areas where he and Vice President Kamala Harris plan to invest more resources to help with issues of affordability for the middle class. One of Walz’s most memorable moments came late in the debate while discussing the 2020 election, when he asked Vance who won the last presidential election and called his response a “damning non-answer.”

Many pundits considered Senator Vance to be the night’s winner, though snap polls of debate watchers showed a virtual tie. A CBS News/YouGov poll found Vance won 42%-41%, and a CNN/SSRS poll had Vance winning 51%-49%, while a POLITICO/Focaldata poll found it was 50%-50%.

Today, we’ll get into what the left and right are saying about the debate, then my take.

What the left is saying.

• Many on the left praise the respectful tone of the debate while noting that Vance seemed to exceed expectations. 
• Some argue that neither candidate won on substance. 
• Others say Vance’s answer on January 6 overshadowed the rest of his performance.

The Washington Post editorial board called it “a polite night of substantive debate.”

“In a welcome shift from the recent presidential faceoff, the vice-presidential candidates maintained a measured and respectful tone throughout the evening. They didn’t bait each other with personal attacks but rather focused on policy. There were even moments of grace and generosity,” the board said. “It also gave Americans a chance to evaluate the two major party tickets on substance. Here, Mr. Vance put a more attractive sheen on Trump-style populism. Mr. Walz only occasionally mustered a forceful critique in response.”

“Mr. Walz’s worst moment came when he used a gusher of words to try to wash away a tall tale about witnessing the Tiananmen Square massacre; an apology would have been easier. His best moment, however, was particularly meaningful. It occurred when he challenged Mr. Vance to acknowledge that Mr. Trump had lost the 2020 election,” the board wrote. “Coming at the end of a refreshingly civil conversation, the moment reminded Americans of the presidential race they have — with Mr. Trump at the top of the GOP ticket.”

In MSNBC, Alexander Nazaryan said neither Vance nor Walz “brought much substance to the debate.”

Vance and Walz “spoke to their respective audiences. I doubt they did much to convince undecided voters. And they did nothing at all to inspire. At the end of the night, I was left with just one question: Is this the best we’ve got,” Nazaryan wrote. “Vance declined to walk back the lies he has promulgated about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. And his thoughts on school shootings were crushingly meager: ‘We have to make the doors lock better,’ he said with what appeared to be a straight face.”

“I can’t say that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz… did all that much better. He doesn’t creep me out the way Vance does, with his undercooked musings on demography, but he doesn’t thrill me, either,” Nazaryan said. “He looked nervous, and his voice sounded thin. Asked about a lie he’d told about being in Hong Kong during the protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989, Walz stammered through a largely incoherent response… in a suit, onstage, he is just like another politician — and not an especially adept one, at that.”

In Slate, Jim Newell wrote “J.D. Vance won the debate. But Tim Walz got the clip.”

“It’s not that Walz was terrible. He was fine. Vance, though, was in control for most of the night, more nimble and polished in the nuts and bolts of debate, while able to present his case for a second Trump administration in a way that didn’t scare the children. For most of the night,” Newell said. “The key failing of Walz was not a lost train of thought here or there, or his obvious jitters and nerves at the debate’s outset. It was missed opportunities that allowed Vance to get away with his presentation of the Trump campaign—and its desires for the country—as common sense for your family.”

“At the very end of the debate, though, Walz seemed to get it—and was able to produce Vance’s worst moment of the night, and a defining takeaway for the Harris campaign to use. In this case, Walz was paying attention when Vance, asked about Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election, did his usual cool and collected dissembling of it as all a big misunderstanding. Walz pounced, and effectively,” Newell wrote. “Walz may have been on his back foot the whole night. But in the end, Walz got the clip.”

What the right is saying.

• The right views Vance as the clear winner, suggesting he came out ahead on nearly every topic.
• Some registered surprise at how poorly Walz performed.
• Others say Vance established himself as the future GOP standard-bearer. 

National Review’s editors wrote about “J. D. Vance’s big night.”

“J. D. Vance didn’t just win the debate with Tim Walz by being polished and unflappable. He won it on substance… This was true even on issues where Democrats usually have an edge. On health care, Walz backed himself into defending the individual mandate — the least popular part of Obamacare, and one he seemed unaware had been repealed. Vance was better-informed, as well, about the abortion law that Walz signed in Minnesota,” the editors said. “Walz did not make headway on the issues where Republicans have a lead, either. Vance effectively prosecuted the Biden-Harris administration for abandoning successful Trump policies, and Walz had no answer. Vance also pointed out that wages grew smartly during Trump’s time as president.”

“Only on the 2020 election did Walz find and exploit an opening. Trump’s lies about having won that election in a landslide are indefensible, but glossing over them is a price Vance has been willing to pay for his political career. He was reduced to arguing that Trump deserves credit for eventually leaving office in peace,” the editors wrote. “Vance made as strong a case for Trump as could be made — a better one, in fact, than Trump typically makes for himself.” 

In PJ Media, Matt Margolis said Walz got “spanked.”

“Make no mistake about it, JD Vance crushed Tim Walz in this debate. It wasn't even close. Gov. Walz was grossly outmatched. Even with both moderators helping him out, it wasn’t enough for him to compete with Sen. JD Vance,” Margolis wrote. “Vance was calm, cool, and sharp. He had good answers for the questions, knew his facts, and repeatedly hit on the right points, including the fact that Kamala Harris is the sitting vice president who claims to have all these great ideas to fix the problems in this country but, for whatever reason, isn’t.”

“I thought Tim Walz was going to do a lot better… Walz was clearly nervous and rattled at times, and made some pretty embarrassing gaffes,” Margolis added. “I knew JD Vance would do well tonight, but I honestly underestimated him. Normally, I don't expect vice presidential debates to matter, but I think this one might. I think JD Vance really connected with average Americans tonight, and Kamala Harris can't be happy with her running mate right now.”

In The Washington Examiner, Jeremiah Poff suggested “Vance has staked his claim as the future of the GOP.”

“The first sign that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) was in complete control of the vice presidential debate was when he delivered the best answer that any Republican has ever given on climate change,” Poff said. “Vance showed exactly why former President Donald Trump chose him to be his vice presidential nominee: He was articulate and even-keeled and showed a keen ability to explain the nuances of the Trump campaign’s policy platform in a manner easily accessible to voters while brilliantly dismantling the indefensible record of Vice President Kamala Harris.” 

“With his all-star performance, Vance has staked his claim as the future of the Republican Party, regardless of whether or not the Trump ticket is victorious in November. He has effectively and brilliantly articulated the conservative populism that Trump has promised to deliver in a way that no one before him has,” Poff wrote. “While the debate on Tuesday was about each candidate’s efforts to support their respective running mate at the top of the ticket, Vance has made a statement that, four years from now, he should continue the Trump legacy and carry the party’s standard into the future.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

As with most debates, there is too much to cover for a traditional “my take” section. So here are 18 thoughts on what we saw last night:

1. I'll spoil the ending first: Vance won the debate. On substance, he seemed to know the issues better; he was a more polished communicator, and it often felt like he got the better of Walz in their exchanges, even when Walz was defending a position more popular with Americans. Post-debate polling showed a pretty even split in who Americans viewed as the winner, so it's not as if Walz got trounced, but most of the focus groups I saw broke for Vance. That’s what I felt watching it, and I think it’s the most telling indicator. I am skeptical this debate will impact the race at all, but Democrats must be glad they are not running against Vance atop the ticket.
2. Despite the strength of his night, for a lot of voters — especially those in the middle — Vance's ending to the evening will spoil everything else. That Vance still can't say Trump lost the 2020 election — that his political future quite literally depends on keeping that charade alive — is both frightening and disappointing. It’s equally disorienting to hear him defend the obviously incorrect claim that Trump oversaw a peaceful transfer of power. Personally, I found that exchange to be the most frustrating thing either candidate did all night.
3. What a nice debate! I mean, really: It was substantive. Cordial. Illuminating. Downright Midwestern. I felt like I had been transported to a different era. There were even some bizarre moments where it was easy to imagine a Vance-Walz 2028 ticket. I genuinely forgot what it was like to watch politicians actually debate policy issues (and sometimes agree with each other). It was brain food. How refreshing. The entire debate reminded me how my own politics are all mixed up and confused and don't neatly fit into any bucket, because I found so many arguments each candidate made compelling.
4. Not for nothing, but Vance and Walz both seem to know much more about policy issues than their running mates, which makes for an odd dynamic.
5. Vance delivered the best answer — and the best messaging — that I've heard from any Republican on abortion since Roe v. Wade fell. It was a compassionate, pro-family position that will connect with moderates on abortion and even some people in the pro-choice camp. Yet, it's undeniable that this is a hard pivot to the center from the Trump-Vance ticket. Vance's past comments on abortion are much different than what he's saying now, which he explains by arguing he is responding to voters. I'm unconvinced his personal views have changed, as I think he is ideological and principled on this issue. My guess: Republicans are reacting to the numbers. The public polls show they’re clearly losing on this issue, but the internal polling must be awful for them to tack this far to the middle.
6. Walz looked like he might vomit on himself for the first five minutes of the debate. All week, there were reports about how nervous he was to enter the national political stage, and for the first portion of the debate it showed. I thought the second half of the debate was effectively a draw, but a lot of viewers were probably in bed by then.
7. Walz previously said he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. A report came out last week proving that this was a lie. Somehow, some way, he was not prepared to answer a question about it at the debate. This is political malpractice. I have no idea how his team did not have him ready to explain this — but calling yourself a knucklehead and stumbling through an answer about how you grew up in the Midwest doesn't cut it. More importantly, he has genuine credibility problems now. He seems to "misspeak" an awful lot.
8. On the other hand, at one point in the debate, Walz said he was "friends with school shooters." If Walz can deliver a gaffe that big on the biggest night of his political career, then I’m willing to believe that any lie or mistruth from his past was actually him misspeaking.
9. I saw a never-Trump GOP strategist on X say that Tim Walz has "the killer instinct of a manatee." I laughed when I saw it because it's so true. What I'm less sure of is whether this is an asset or not. My personal feeling is that Walz might be a bit too soft for the job — not assertive or direct enough. I don't feel that way about Trump, Harris, or Vance. But then, this morning, as I was re-watching the debate in my kitchen, my wife walked in and listened for a few minutes while having her coffee. "He just seems so nice," she said to me unprompted, in a cheery tone. "He doesn’t sound rehearsed. He sounds like a real person. None of the other politicians ever talk like this." 
10. As magazine editor Max Meyer noted, Vance could have appeared more comfortable than Walz because he has been debating in liberal spaces for years. That got me thinking: I’d love to see JD Vance and Pete Buttigieg debate each other. Both men have a knack for communicating their ideas to people who disagree with them. 
11. Can CBS really not find a single conservative to moderate the debate? It's genuinely embarrassing at this point. They asked Walz a few tough questions, but the insertions of subtle "fact checks" and comments all going in one direction, and the inherent liberal bias in their framing, is grating to me. And I’m a moderate. I can’t imagine what it’s like for tried and true conservatives to watch this. I will say this, though: They make it a lot easier to pitch Tangle.
12. At one point, Vance tried to give Donald Trump credit for “salvaging” the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). I damn near fell out of my chair. This was one of the most egregious "up is down and down is up" moments of the night. Walz rightly pointed out that Trump tried (and continues to promise) to kill the ACA without explaining what will replace it. It is pretty shocking to me that Republicans have had a full decade to develop a coherent message and plan on this issue, but still have nothing.
13. At another point, Walz claimed "you can't scream fire in a crowded theater" in response to Vance’s criticism that the Biden administration tried to censor speech online. I actually slapped my own forehead in shock. This is one of the most persistent myths about free speech and free speech law. It is not true. This misunderstanding comes from a non-binding statement from a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1900s that has been overturned for almost 50 years and is so common of the law that it’s become a meme.
14. The number-one attack line on any of Kamala Harris's promises is "she's been vice president for 3.5 years, why hasn't she done it?" For some reason, Harris and Walz refuse to say "Republicans" or "Congress." It's very odd to me. When Vance was asked about why he criticized Trump's record on the economy as recently as 2020, he justified it by saying that Trump would have gotten more done if “Congress was doing its job,” describing our current Congress as a forum for whining. This is a good answer. When Harris and Walz are pressed about why Harris hasn't already enacted her agenda, they respond as if someone just asked them to explain quantum mechanics. 
15. I'm really curious if, after watching this debate, there are any conservative Republicans out there – especially die-hard Trump supporters – who realize that they may have a better leader for the party in their midst. To me, it seems apparent that Vance is a better communicator than Trump, and he has the policy chops to explain why people should vote for their ticket. As The Wall Street Journal editorial board put it, he “makes a better case for Trump than Trump.” Plus, he has none of the baggage. If you're a Trump voter who watched the debate last night, I'd be curious to hear from you about how his performance landed.
16. While discussing bringing down child-care costs, Vance said we should "induce more people to provide child care options." This sounds like classic big-government language (it seems to imply government incentives to work in child care). It’s worth pointing out that a different way to reduce child-care costs is actually by encouraging immigration. 
17. Speaking of big government, it appears that both major political parties have officially abandoned any semblance of a small-government orientation. This has been obvious for several years to anyone paying attention, but it’s cemented after last night. 
18. I'll end with something reporter Lee Fang said that I endorse wholeheartedly: "Walz and Vance agreeing with each other on lots of topics, on trade, even some aspects of clean energy policy, suggests to me in some alt political system — ie Denmark’s multiparty system instead of our two party system — we would have political coalitions of reasonable leaders."

Take the survey: Who do you think won the vice presidential debate? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Some additional fact-checks.

JD Vance claimed that housing is unaffordable in part because millions of illegal immigrants are competing with Americans for scarce homes.

Elevated immigration is one cited reason housing demand has gone up, which has driven up costs. However, a housing shortage has existed since the Great Recession, and the driving factor has been the fact we are building far fewer homes than we used to. From 2008-2018, fewer new homes were built than at any time since the 1960s.

Vance referenced a Federal Reserve “study” that “drills down on the connection between increased levels of migration, especially illegal immigration, and higher housing prices.” After the debate, Vance shared a link to remarks from Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman in May that “the inflow of new immigrants to some geographic areas could result in upward pressure on rents, as additional housing supply may take time to materialize.” However, Bowman also highlighted strong consumer demand for services and labor-market tightness as factors affecting home scarcity. 

Tim Walz claimed that border crossings are down compared to when Trump left office.

If you compare Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) tally of border encounters from August 2024 (58,038) to January 2021, the last month Trump was in office (75,316), this is true. But in fiscal year 2023, CBP and the Office of Field Operations (OFO) reported a total of 3.2 million encounters, an all-time high. Yearly encounters under Trump peaked at 1.1 million in 2019.

Tim Walz claimed Project 2025 would create a registry of pregnancies.

Project 2025 calls for better data collection on abortion, abortion survivors, and abortion-related deaths (see page 455), but it does not call for a record of pregnancies. And of course, both Trump and Vance have repeatedly stated that Project 2025 does not represent their platform or views.

JD Vance claimed that Walz signed a bill in Minnesota that says doctors are under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion. 

The 2023 bill did change the language slightly from a similar 2015 bill. Now it says medical personnel are required to "care for the infant who is born alive" rather than "preserve the life and health of the born alive infant." But both versions — the 2023 version and the 2015 version — stipulate that "an infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law." 

Vance claimed that Iran has received $100 billion in unfrozen assets under the Biden-Harris administration, which they've used to buy weapons and attack American allies like Israel.

Iran has said it received $100 billion worth of frozen overseas assets as part of the nuclear agreement it signed during the Obama administration, not the Biden-Harris administration. U.S. officials have claimed that only $50 billion of those assets would be accessible to Iran.

The Biden administration did agree to unfreeze $6 billion in Iranian assets as part of a swap to free five American citizens being imprisoned in Iran, but Iran has not yet received those assets.

Some conservatives have argued that Vance said Iran has received “over $100 billion and unfrozen assets,” and was referring to $100 billion that Iran has purportedly received in revenue from unenforced oil sanctions during the Biden administration. While Iran’s oil revenues have increased in the past four years, Vance appears to be overstating the magnitude of that increase (if Iranian oil revenue is what he was referencing). 

Walz made an unclear claim about how much Trump has paid in taxes.

According to the debate transcript (and you can watch the clip of the moment here), Walz said, “How is it fair that you're paying your taxes every year and Donald Trump hasn't paid any Federal Tax 10 to last 15 years, in the last year as President?” 

WalzHe appears to be repeating a claim that Trump did not pay federal taxes in 10 of the 15 years between 2005 and 2020 (his last year as president). This is based on a New York Times report that found Trump paid no income taxes for 10 years in that time period, so. So Walz is correct if you interpret his statement that way.

However, some viewers and fact-checkers thought Walz claimed Trump hadn’t paid any federal tax in the last 15 years, which isn’t true. The Times report showed he filed federal income tax returns and paid $641,931 in federal income tax in 2015,; $750 in both 2016 and 2017,; and $133,445 in 2019. In 2020, he paid no federal income taxes.

Walz claimed that Trump created “the largest trade deficit in American history with China.”

America’s trade deficit with China reached a record-high $419 billion in 2018. The deficit was down to $311 billion by the time Trump left office, but Walz is correct that it peaked during Trump’s term. That being said, trade deficits are often driven by things out of a president’s control, like consumer demand both domestically and abroad.

Vance claimed that no major conflicts broke out during Donald Trump’s presidency.

No new wars started during Trump's term, and there were no authorizations of military force. However, the U.S. was still involved in some conflicts. Trump ordered airstrikes on Syria in 2018. His administration relaxed rules of engagement on airstrikes in Afghanistan that led to a 330% increase in civilian casualties. He also ordered an airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

As for how unique this is in the modern era, there were also no new wars during Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter's presidencies, despite Nixon governing through the end of the Vietnam War.

Under the radar.

Hurricane Helene has destroyed huge swaths of the Southeast, but its impacts in one North Carolina town could have global ramifications. Spruce Pine, North Carolina, is home to the world’s only natural source of the highest-purity quartz sand used in making silicon wafers for semiconductor chips that power everything from smartphones to AI data centers. Catastrophic flooding in Spruce Pine has damaged the roads and rail lines used to access the mining facilities, and the status of the mines themselves remains unclear. While many silicon wafer producers have emergency stores of Spruce Pine quartz, the two companies that operate quartz mines in the area have not said when they’ll be able to restart operations. An extended disruption could lead to supply-chain issues and more expensive electronics. Morning Brew has the story.

Numbers.

• 41 minutes, 4 seconds. Gov. Tim Walz’s total speaking time in the debate, according to The New York Times. 
• 9 minutes, 19 seconds. The amount of time Walz spent attacking his opponent in the debate.
• 39 minutes, 36 seconds. Sen. JD Vance’s total speaking time in the debate. 
• 8 minutes, 14 seconds. The amount of time Vance spent attacking his opponent in the debate. 
• 22% and 46%. The percentage of their total speaking time that Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris, respectively, spent attacking their opponent in their respective debates. 
• 20% and 28%. The percentage of their total speaking time that Vance and former President Donald Trump, respectively, spent attacking their opponent in their respective debates. 
• 5 minutes, 6 seconds. The amount of time Walz spent speaking about abortion during the debate, the most of any issue. 
• 5 minutes, 8 seconds. The amount of time Vance spent speaking about immigration during the debate, the most of any issue. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about the government avoiding a shutdown.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was Evan Donovan’s X thread showing the destruction in North Carolina.
• Nothing to do with politics: The winners of this year’s MacArthur Genius awards.
• Yesterday’s survey: 1,320 readers responded to our survey on the federal government’s response to Hurricane Helene with 79% calling the response good or excellent. “Native North Carolinian here… I am proud of the efforts led by our Governor, National Guard, etc. and thankful for support from the amazing teams from all over the country, and feel the federal government has done everything possible within the control of the Oval Office and FEMA to address this unfortunate weather catastrophe,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Happy 100th birthday, President Carter! Yesterday, Jimmy Carter celebrated his century of life in his hometown of Plains, Georgia. He is the first American president to reach this milestone. In celebration, the Navy performed a flyover and Plains hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony for new statues dedicated to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Carter served as the 39th president of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Fox News has the story.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 135,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!