Tim Walz’s performance” in the vice-presidential debate tonight (October 1, 2024) revealed how little Democratic advisers understand about what is going on at the subconscious level among voters who may ultimately vote for Trump and the authoritarian movement he leads.
It was a very polite, demure affaire. Walz and the Democrats who prepared him made a number of glaring mistakes.
Walz’s handlers did not prepare him well for the debate.
First, Walz allowed Vance to present the facade of a reasonable politician genuinely interested in solving the problems of the people and the country. Count that as a win for Vance and, more importantly, for Donald Trump and the fascist Republican Party he now so completely dominates.
Second, the most glaring defect in his performance was his extremely serious demeanor on be split screen when Vance was speaking. He should have been prepped to display a relaxed demeanor, as fortunately Kamala Harris learned to do and did so well in her debate with Donald Trump.
With all that we’ve learned about political debates on television since the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, when Kennedy won on appearance and demeanor among those watching the debate, while Nixon won among radio listeners following the substance of the arguments, the fact that Walz was nor prepped to display an appropriate demeanor when Vance was speaking was, quite frankly, shocking.
Third, Walz didn’t seem to understand that his opponent in the debate was not J.D. Vance but Donald Trump, and that Vance was only useful as a target exemplifying the worst characteristics of Trump. Walz was not there to win a popularity contest with Vance, but rather to take on Trump and onlybsecondarily his unprincipled disciple,J.D. Vance.
Trump has said and done so many outrageous and unforgivable things–not only in this campaign but also in the 2016 campaign, during his presidency, and since he left office in 2021–that Walz was working in an extremely target-rich environment.
Vance for his part, has engaged in despicable lies and immigrant-bashing, such as his lie that illegal Haitian immigrants were stealing pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Both Trump and Vance have doubled down and continued to repeat these inexcusable, hate-filled lies.
Notably, Walz did not even mention the substance of the lies. Walz did not even mention that Trump and Vance had falsely accused Haitian immigrants who were lawfully in the United States of being illegal aliens, and such evil people that they stole and ate their neighbors’ pet cats and dogs. Nor did he mention the violent atmosphere and threats that Trump’s violent rhetoric about the Haitians had produced.
Instead, he assumed that most oeoplevrecalled and understood the substance and context of the events he was describing, Maybe hecwas simply assuming tgat voters throughout the country are like Minnesota voters.
They aren’t.
Third, Walz was way too civil and respectful of Vance. He didn’t need to have resorted to Trump-like rhetoric to press his point. He might have done so in the politest of tones, all the while figuratively driving the dagger into his opponent, and thereby Trump.
Walz might have driven his figurative spear into Trump and Vance on their repeated denials that Trump had lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
Fourth, Walz failed to parry Vance’s attacks on Harris for being responsible for what Vance viewed as her grievous policy failures by simply pointing out that shecwas not and had not been the President, and that as Vice-President her job had been to carry out the President’s policies.
Isn’t that exactly what Vance would do if he necame Vice-President, he might have asked.
Walz might have driven this point home by stressing the fact that it would be Vance’s job to execute Trump’s policies, however much he might personally disagree with them. This would have opened the way for strong and repeated attacks on some of Trump’s most egregious policy ideas and positions.
That would mean, would it not, tgat Vance would have to implement Trump’s pro-Russian policies, p which might include cutting off aid to Ukraine and / or pressuring Ukraine to enter a negotiated settlement with Russia which amounted to defeat. To negotiate a deal that involved abandonment of the most basic principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, such as the prohibition against the use of force across international frontiers and the acquisition of territory through military conquest And the enforcement of the laws of war by punishing those responsible for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide.
In short, Walz did not understand the opportunity ton treat the debate as if his real opponent were Donald Trump. He failed to call out both Trump and Vance for their outrageous actions and policies. He failed to attack Trump and Vance for their constant spewing like from a firehose of small and monstrous lies.
Walz didn’t seem to know where he was or what his job should be.
It was a great lost opportunity.
In the end, however, Walz’s performance probably didn’t hurt the Harris campaign, as the debate was pretty much a draw. Those voters who were able to follow the arguments, except perhaps for some wealthy businessmen, were probably already going to vote for Harris.
The debate did reveal two things, however.
First, that the Democrats are clueless as to how to conduct a campaign aimed at the emotions of probably the majority of voters whose vote will be decided by subconscious factors that have little to do with the fine rational distinctions made in tbe policy arguments voiced in the debate tonight.
Second, that should Trump win in November, an incumbent Vice-President Vance will be a formidable opponent in the 2028 election. Utterly unprincipled, nimble, and smart, with a barroom-brawler character to match tbat of Trump, Vance would be a hard man to beat.