Why Some Think Walz Won

As a former lifelong Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, who has since walked away from the increasing madness and authoritarianism from the left, and who is now a registered independent…

JD Vance won last night’s debate, hands-down.

Vance did exactly what he needed to do, which was to appear presidential and calm. This is because many of us are thinking (rightfully so) that if Trump gets elected, he’s likely to be the subject of more assassination attempts, or thrown in jail, and Vance is likely to end up president. Independent voters are watching to see whether Vance can be trusted to take over from Trump. If they feel confidence in Vance, they will be more likely to vote for Trump. It’s that simple.

Vance did not need to be a bulldog, a meanie, or “passionate.” Too much passion would have scared people that he was some sort of right-wing fundamentalist fanatic.

Instead, Vance appeared rock steady and reasonable. His one flare-up against the clearly biased “moderators” was well-deserved and well-timed, and I applauded him (literally) when he stood up against their fake “fact-checking,” despite moderators promising viewers they weren’t going to do that.

Initially concerned about Vance as Trump’s VP pick, I am 100% Team Vance right now.

Looks shouldn’t matter so much in politics, but the contrast between the VP candidates was remarkable. Vance is young, so that helps. He appeared polished and handsome.

Walz can’t help the fact that he isn’t a good-looking guy – except that he doesn’t make the most of what he has. With his perpetual clown-frown lines and baldness, Walz might do better to adopt a clean, close-cut beard like Vance has. But it was also the shifty eye movements and jittery body language that sunk Walz, who was alternatively nervous, confused, and scrambling to take notes to keep up with the quick-witted Vance.

Walz seems to be gunning to take over Joe Biden’s reputation as a gaffe master, with a number of silly flubs that should be concerning to anyone voting. Why? A once in a while gaffe is not a problem, but in one debate, we had Walz claiming that he befriended school shooters, that he was a “knucklehead,” and that Dick Cheney, not Liz Cheney was on the Walz-Harris team.

In his first response, Walz confused Israel and Iran. This is not good, because we need leaders who aren’t going to screw up basic facts when speaking to other countries.

Trump had a field day, posting to Truth Social a graphic of a lawn sign that said: “TRUMP VANCE ‘24 *NOT FRIENDS WITH SCHOOL SHOOTERS*.

Now, Walz also has a history of fabricating stories, such as his being in China during Tiananmen Square. We have two main possibilities here: One, Walz actively lies, which is terrible, or two, Walz truly is a knucklehead and can’t keep his own facts straight, which is much worse in many respects.

I haven’t had much exposure to Walz, and my first impression (prior to the debate) was revulsion, like there was some sort of “ick” factor surrounding the man I couldn’t quite put my finger on. In seeing Walz in the debate, he seemed like a nice guy, though whether he truly is a nice guy I can’t say for sure.

The “off” factor is still there, however. There is definitely something “off” about Walz. He’s either naive and stupid, or he’s calculating and stupid, trying to appear folksy and nice. Or maybe he believes his own hype. I don’t know. But he’s not “all there,” whatever that means.

Critics of Vance claim he’s too slick, and maybe he is to a point, but I don’t get a fake vibe from Vance. Vance seemed “nice” too, but in a stronger, dare I say, more masculine way.

Walz, either way, is not that bright. This was evident to me after a few answers, due to Walz’s tendency to ramble on and throw unconnected ideas together in a long-winded word salad to rival Kamala Harris. Oh, Walz’s word salad sounds a little “smarter” than Harris’s, but make no mistake, his words were still salad and not meat.

I’ve been doing interview coaching part-time for some years now (here’s my booking link if you are interested), and Walz pretty much did everything I recommend not to do. Specifically, the biggest mistake people make when interviewing a job is that they tell too much and ramble on about inconsequential things to the point where the listener can’t follow the train of thought anymore. E.g.:

Governor Walz, you said you were in Hong Kong during the deadly Tiananmen Square protests in the spring of 1989 The Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets are reporting that you actually didn’t travel to Asia until August of that year. Can you explain that discrepancy?

Yeah, well, and to the folks out there didn’t get at the top of this look, I I grew up in small rural Nebraska town of 400 town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on and I’m proud of that service. I joined the National Guard at 17, worked on family farms, and then I use the GI Bill to become a teacher, passionate about it, a young teacher my first year out i got the opportunity in the summer of 89 to travel to China 35 years ago, be able to do that. And then started a program to take young people there we would take basketball teams, we would take baseball teams, we would take dancers and we would go back and forth to China. The issue for that was, was to try and learn. Now look, my community knows who I am. They saw where I was at. They look I, I will be the 1st to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I’ve tried to do the best I can, but I’ve not been perfect. And I’m a knucklehead at times. But it’s always been about that. Those same people elected me to Congress for 12 years. And in Congress I was one of the most bipartisan people working on things like farm bills that we got done working on veterans benefits. And then the people of Minnesota were able to elect me to governor twice. So look, my commitment has been from the beginning to make sure that I’m there for the people to make sure that I get this right i will say more than anything, many times I, I will talk a lot i will get caught up in the rhetoric, but being there, the impact it made, the difference it made in my life i learned a lot about China. I hear the critiques of this i would make the case that Donald Trump should have come on one of those trips with us. I guarantee you he wouldn’t be praising Xi Jinping about COVID, and I guarantee you he wouldn’t start a trade war that he ends up losing. So this is about trying to understand the world. It’s about trying to do the best you can for your community. And then it’s putting yourself out there and letting your folks understand what it is. My commitment, whether it be through teaching. Which I was good at, or whether it was being a good soldier or was being a good member of Congress. Those are the things that I think are the values that people care about.

Governor, just to follow up on that, the question was, can you explain the discrepancy?

All I said on this was as I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I I will just that’s what I’ve said. So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protests went in, and from that I learned a lot of what needed to be in in governance.

The only thing that’s memorable in that long, incoherent ramble is: “I’m a knucklehead at times.”

Wow.

In the end, I’m left wondering what Walz’s core message really was. Mainly, it seemed to be about Trump and J6, which is no reason to vote for someone on the opposite side. Also, apparently Walz thinks insurance mandates are a good thing, which I very much oppose.

No mention of single payer healthcare, which used to be a priority for many Democrats.

No real talk about how to create peace in the Middle East.

Nothing about how to battle inflation or improve the economy other than tired, stale Democrat talking points about taxing the rich more so they “pay their fare share.”

Walz also misled listeners about the cause of Amber Thurman’s death – she didn’t die because she was traveling 600 miles – she died because the abortion pill killed her with sepsis.

Pretty much the only two things the Democrats have right now is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and abortion.

In contrast, Vance did an excellent job hammering out his main points in various ways throughout the debate. His message was understandable and clear:

Inflation is bad, people can’t afford things, immigration is out of control, and we need to bring back the peace and prosperity we had under Trump.

Vance missed a few opportunities – for example, clarifying to the audience that the abortion pill caused Thurman’s death, not a lack of abortion – but overall, he didn’t miss a beat. Vance did the best he could with the abortion hand, talking about creating more family-friendly policies, something which Republicans have been criticized for in regards to abortion for decades.

I was also very pleased that Vance brought up the censorship being pushed by the Biden-Harris administration. It is one of my top issues as a voter, and all Walz could do was ramble and mumble something lame about “book banning,” which is another lie from the Democrats – selecting non-pornographic books for K-12 school libraries is NOT the same thing as “book banning.”

So why do some people believe that the flustered and confused Tim Walz won?

In reading some threads on Democratic Underground, I notice that many Democrats seem to find Walz’s debate performance appealing because he got emotional.

Yes, emotional.

Instead of seeing Vance’s calm as an asset, these Democrats interpret calm as cold or slick.

Second, they honestly believe that everything that comes out of a Republican’s mouth must be a lie, so they don’t stop to analyze the information (or research it themselves) to see if anything might have merit.

Thus, to these Democrats, Vance just lied his way through the debate.

Never mind Walz’s lies, such as the ridiculous assertion that Mexican cartels never use children as drug mules. Or crediting Kamala Harris for reducing prescription drug prices when Trump initiated the program.

Look, every politician lies or fudges the truth, but this time-honored common sense has been thrown out by the left, who now believe every damn thing their candidates spew.

Die-hard Democrats have been pre-programmed to see every talking point from Republicans as lies, and they interpret Walz’s emotionalism as a good thing, as opposed to a weakness.

They also think Walz is “smart,” when he’s clearly not terribly bright, which to me shows the intellectual mediocrity that has taken over the modern left.

Walz is a middling intellect, meaning, he can put enough word salad together to make it seem like he has half a brain to people with short attention spans.

Walz is some ways may be the most dangerous type of politician – if he’s sincere, then he’s naive and gullible and likely to be easily manipulated by nefarious forces. Want to know why Walz wants tampons in boy’s bathrooms? The man is simply not smart enough to actually reason through all the implications of these actions. He just wants to be “nice” and “help.”

I’m reminded of the “I’m helping” Simpson’s meme:

In fact, the more I think about it, the more Tim Walz becomes a living, breathing, adult Ralph Wiggum.

Now, before I quit my lengthy analysis, let me speak briefly about the terrible moderation. Vance was right to call out the lame attempts to “fact check” by the moderators. But the fact checking wasn’t the main problem. The main problem was that every single question, almost, was written from the leftward perspective, and already had bias built into it. For example:

• “Senator Vance, according to CBS News polling, 7 in 10 Americans and more than 60% of Republicans under the age of 45 favor the US taking steps to try and reduce climate change. Senator, what responsibility would the Trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change?”

• “Senator Vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out the largest mass deportation plan in American history and to use the US military to do so. Could you be more specific about exactly how this will work? For example, would you deport parents who have entered the US illegally and separate them from any of their children who were born on US soil?”

• “Senator Vance, do you support a national paid leave program, and if so, for how long should employers be mandated to pay their employees while they are home taking care of their newborn?”

• “Senator Vance, at the last presidential debate, former President Trump was asked about replacing the Affordable Care Act. In response, he said I have concepts of a plan. Since then, Senator, you’ve talked about changing how chronically ill Americans get health insurance. Can you explain how that would work? And can you guarantee that Americans with pre-existing conditions won’t pay more?”

• “Governor Walz, your ticket also has some childcare tax credit proposals. Do you think Congress will agree to the $6,000 credit for newborns and $3,000 credit for children over the age of 6, as your campaign has promised? Is that realistic?”

• “Senator Vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illegal. Would you again seek to challenge this year’s election results even if every governor certifies the results?”

• “Governor Walls, after Roe versus Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, in the ninth month is absolutely fine. Yes or no is that what you support?”

Can you see the built-in bias? E.g. Senator Vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illegal.

WHO said it was unconstitutional and illegal? If this were skewed conservatively, we could easily said:

Senator Vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors. That has been called brave and important for defending democracy.

See what I did there?

The problem is, with a dumbed down, emotional left that closes minds to any information from Republicans as “lies,” this clear and obvious bias is seen as somehow “impartial” from “experts.” Note how Walz leaned on “experts” whereas Vance demolished them.

Die-hard Democrats defend the biased moderation with false claims that only Republicans need fact-checking. They have been so insulated that they don’t have a clue as to what they don’t know. So they feel justified that the moderators weren’t being “biased” but “protecting” the American people from alleged “lies.”

These same folks are the ones who don’t want to hear about covid vaccine injuries, because…experts.

Now, the only positive thing I can say here is that if Tim Walz is genuinely nice just a bit stupid, like Ralph Wiggum, then he’s at least possibly a mitigating factor on a heartless Kamala Harris presidency. But I’m not convinced he’s all nice, or at least, perhaps he’s just nice up to the point where might get triggered and lash out in an emotional outburst.

And Vance may well be a Uniparty plant, but frankly, I’d still rather have an articulate, non-woke NeoCon in office than woke, stupid, NeoCons in disguise. But I don’t think Vance is a plant. Vance may be what’s standing between us and World War 3, literally.

Vance will be targeted now that he’s been shown to be a rock star. I fully expect Gloria Allred to pull out the blood red carpet for her next Bimbo Eruption, paid for by God knows who, as this is all they can do to take Vance down without outright violence.

Pray.

Tip Jar