MENU

Can Tim Walz Seduce Independents? No, but J. D. Vance Might

By Ruth Papazian

October 4, 2024

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

Only informed voters, who tend to be political junkies, watched the entire debate.

Only informed voters, who tend to be political junkies, watched the entire debate. Most may have watched the first question or two to get a feel for how the candidates handled themselves before changing channels. Some waited until the closing statements to dip in and see how each candidate summarized the case for his ticket.

Political junkies will be horrified, but this is actually an efficient way to size up the candidates—especially as social media feeds will be replete with MSM debate recaps and memes to fill the “dippers” in on what they may have missed. For my part, I include a link to the full transcript.

Governor Tim Walz is more articulate and sincere sounding than his Laugh Track running mate.

I watched the entire debate, of course, but paid particular attention to how it started and how it finished.

Governor Tim Walz is more articulate and sincere sounding than his Laugh Track running mate and was at least conversant with the policies their consultants told them to run on than she is. He vindicated the consultants who insisted she needed an old white guy as her running mate.

Walz likely didn’t move the needle among independents and undecided voters.

However, Walz likely didn’t move the needle among independents and undecided voters. He was continually on the attack, which pleased his base—but he was also dodgy, which will piss off independents and frustrate undecided voters.

Worse, he handed the Trump-Vance campaign material with which to ridicule him (Alinsky Rule #5):

  1. He was clearly nervous for the first 15 minutes or so and the screen grabs of his facial expressions do not inspire confidence—especially with the Biden-Harris hurricane response being a total failure and the Middle East on the brink of regional war. Remember the visuals of Biden staring blankly into space while Trump was speaking got him dumped from the ticket.
  2. Walz tried to pull off being an attack dog without undercutting his “nice guy” schtick, and to seem agreeable he kept nodding his head when Senator J. D. Vance was speaking. Those clips are priceless.
  3. Asked about claiming to be in Tiananmen Square when he wasn’t in China until several months afterward, Walz gives a Norman Rockwell retrospective of his life—growing up in rural Nebraska, joining the National Guard, working on family farms, using the GI bill to become a teacher—then pivots to his well-rehearsed dodge, “[M]y community knows who I am. … I have poured my heart into my community.” But then, he admitted, “I’m a knucklehead at times … I talk a lot and get caught up in the rhetoric.” Priceless soundbite.
  4. He never answers the question; when pressed, he admits he “misspoke.” At best “misspoke” can mean a gaffe. At worst, a lie. So Walz admitted to being a fool or a liar. Not a good look, either way, especially given that his running mate is completely devoid of presidential timbre.
  5. During the obligatory “gun violence” question, Walz made the startling claim that, “I got a 17 year old, and he witnessed a shooting at a community center playing volleyball.” Given that he admitted he gets caught up in rhetoric and lies, is this even true? Fox9 fact-checked. Inference: Walz embellished.
  6. When Walz was asked to explain why he changed his mind on opposing an “assault weapons” ban he bizarrely answers, “I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents. I’ve become friends with school shooters.” Wow. Huge gaffe. What a soundbite!

Vance came off as reasonable, steady, and thoughtful—not at all “weird”—which will please those independents who dislike Trump. Unlike Trump, Vance didn’t take the bait and stayed on message instead of relitigating the 2020 election, etc. More important, Vance came off as presidential. Those who are holding their noses to vote for Trump and those who are vacillating between the candidates, can put up with Trump for four years and see Vance transition into the top job.

Additionally, Vance looked young and vigorous compared to Walz, who looks much older than his 60 years. And by not being strident, Vance wasn’t off-putting to suburban soccer moms or to young voters unhappy about their job prospects and being unable to afford their own apartment or home.

Vance used the first question (“If you are the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran”) as an opportunity to tell voters who he is, why he is running, and what he and Trump want to accomplish in office. When he directly addressed the question at hand, he made sure to hit back against Walz’s assertion that Trump is “dangerous when the world is this dangerous” by pointing out that “Trump delivered stability in the world by establishing effective deterrence. People were afraid of stepping out of line” and explaining how Biden-Harris failed foreign policy emboldened Iran enough to directly attack Israel.

Vance also deftly turned Walz’s attacks and rebuttals back on him. During his rebuttal of Vance’s answer to the first question, Walz asserted that Trump withdrew from a deal that “boxed Iran’s nuclear program in in the inability to advance it … and put nothing else in its place … So Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than they were before because of Donald Trump’s fickle leadership.”—and Vance immediately reminded Walz that Harris has been vice president for 3.5 years, adding, during the four years Trump was president was “the last time that an American president didn’t have a major conflict breakout.”

Vance also adroitly handled the immigration question—which was framed in terms of mass deportations and separating parents here illegally from their American-born kids, as well as the unauthorized “fact-check” by CBS moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan:

We have a historic immigration crisis because Kamala Harris … wanted to undo all of Donald Trump’s border policies. Ninety-four executive orders suspending deportations, decriminalizing illegal aliens, massively increasing the asylum fraud that exists in our system, that has opened the floodgates.

And when he was pressed about “the children,” he hit back: “My point is that we already have massive child separations thanks to Kamala Harris’s open border” [referring to the 300K missing unaccompanied minor children who entered our country illegally].

There was a lot of back-and-forth between the candidates on the economy in which Vance also came out on top. When Walz tied “Donald Trump’s failure on COVID that led to the collapse of our economy” to his not trusting “experts” because “Trump thinks he has all the answers,” Vance rebutted:

[T]hose same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to China, we’d get cheaper goods. … if we shipped our industrial base off to other countries, to Mexico and elsewhere, it would make the middle class stronger … if we made America less self-reliant, less productive in our own Nation, that it would somehow make us better off. … And for the first time in a generation, Donald Trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to that bipartisan consensus, we’re not doing it anymore.

And later on, Vance hit it out of the park:

I think you’ve got a tough job: you’ve got to pretend that Donald Trump didn’t deliver rising take home pay, you’ve got to pretend that Donald Trump didn’t deliver lower inflation, and then you’ve simultaneously got to defend Kamala Harris’s atrocious economic record, which has made gas, groceries, and housing unaffordable for American citizens. I was raised by a woman who would sometimes go into medical debt so that she could put food on the table in our household. [W]e can get back to an America that’s affordable again. We’ve just got to get back to common sense, economic principles.

On the question of “reproductive rights” Vance correctly pointed out that the bill Walz signed in Minnesota allows doctors “discretion” on whether to terminate the life of a baby who survives a botched abortion, and calls upon the GOP to adopt more family-friendly policies … “support fertility treatments … make it easier for moms to afford to have babies … make it easier for young families to afford a home so they can afford a place to raise that family” if they truly want to save innocent life. He hit that one out of the park as well.

Vance also missed several opportunities to hit Harris and Biden on policy and lack of leadership.

However, Vance also missed several opportunities to hit Harris and Biden on policy and lack of leadership:

A question about Hurricane Helene was framed as a “climate change” issue (of course), and Vance’s answer and rebuttal focused on how Trump’s energy policy reduces carbon emissions and is environmentally friendly. All well and good. But he should’ve first pointed out that Biden, Harris and Walz were slow to acknowledge the devastation caused by the hurricane; that Biden was vacationing on the beach, while Harris and Walz kept campaigning and fundraising without missing a beat before, during, and after the storm; and that locals in the affected states have yet to see any sign of FEMA.

During the back-and-forth over Vance supporting an abortion “ban” at one time—he said he supported “a minimum national standard”—he missed a huge opportunity to rebut Walz invoking the death of Amber Thurmond, a pregnant Georgian who died because she had to travel to North Carolina to get “care,” by pointing out that she had taken an over-the-counter abortifacient without medical supervision and died because standards for administering that potentially fatal drug had been loosened by the FDA, which underscores the need for states to regulate abortion.

However, he still managed to hit a home run when he asked Walz, “Do you want to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? Because Kamala Harris has supported suing Catholic nuns to violate their freedom of conscience.” Of course, Walz dodged the question, even when Vance asked it again during the back-and-forth discussion.

Vance won the coin toss, and like Trump, opted to have the last word in the debate.

In his closing statement, Walz tried to make the case that he and Harris are “change agents”:

Kamala Harris is bringing us a new way forward. She’s bringing us a politics of joy. She’s bringing real solutions for the middle class. And she’s centering you at the heart of that, all the while asking everyone, “Join this movement. Make your voices heard. Let’s look for a new day where everybody gets that opportunity and everybody gets a chance to thrive.

But what is it that they are bringing change from? Failed policies, that she is responsible for. Nobody outside the base is buying this.

Vance exploited this disconnect in his closing statement:

[E]very American, whether they’re rich or poor, ought to be able to turn on their heat in the middle of a cold winter night. That’s gotten more difficult thanks to Kamala Harris’s energy policies. … [Y]ou ought to be able to afford a nice meal for your family. That’s gotten harder because of Kamala Harris’s policies. … [Y]ou ought to be able to afford to buy a house. You ought to be able to live in safe neighborhoods. You ought to not have your communities flooded with fentanyl. And that, too, has gotten harder with Kamala, because of Kamala Harris’s policies. … [Harris] says that on day one she’s going to work on all these challenges … Day one was 1400 days ago. And her policies have made these problems worse.

Four runs batted in.

Now having said all this: The real debate is: Does Walz look more like Uncle Fester, Elmer Fudd or Don Rickles?

 

(Visited 132 times, 1 visits today)