1xbet
Walz stumbled in debate, but that may soon be the least of Kamala Harris’ problems | Opinion
Heading into the vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz1xbet, there was a lot of analysis suggesting that running-mate debates don’t have much effect. When the debate was over, Democrats had to be hoping that’s true.
Tim Walz had multiple jobs Tuesday night — to appear worthy of a title one heartbeat away from the presidency, to introduce himself favorably to viewers unfamiliar with him, and to make it appear that Kamala Harris was wise to choose him.
That’s 0-for-3.
From his halting delivery to a clumsy accounting of past inconsistencies and untruths to an over-rehearsed failure to answer the questions asked of him, it was an underwhelming performance that had even liberal commentators admitting to a superior night for Vance.
With good reason. Vance’s multiple jobs were to make his staunch conservatism palatable to swing voters, to skillfully parry hostile framing from biased moderators, and to make it appear Donald Trump was wise to choose him.
When suggestions arise that maybe moving forward, Vance should be out there explaining things more often than Trump, you could say the night was a success.
Comparisons to the Sept. 10 presidential debate are instructive. Trump underperformed and Harris overperformed, which enabled a media culture friendly to her to label it as a win. But the expectations game giveth, and it taketh away. From disagreeing Democrats to the braying Trump-hesitant malcontents in the GOP, Vance has been portrayed as a snotty, ill-fitting lightweight who brings little more than a hymnal of MAGA-friendly themes designed to boost the boss.
Well, he boosted the boss all right, delighting Trump and his voters with a performance that was as calm and measured as it was sharply effective. The Ohio senator pushed back against Walz’s mischaracterizations of the Trump agenda, and he spoke up when overmatched moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan attempted to “fact-check” him, in violation of the guidelines CBS had established.
It wasn’t quite the corrupt disaster crafted by ABC in the presidential debate, but the topic selection made sure to provide ample time for abortion, climate change, Jan. 6 obsessions and even government spending on child care, while ignoring China and Ukraine and providing wholly inadequate time to address the widening Middle East war that will fill the news every day until the election.
The reason was clear. Deep dives into our dangerous world would have given Vance the opportunity to remind millions of viewers about the relative stability of the world under Trump, his success with the Mideast Abraham Accords and his hesitancy to pour countless additional billions of taxpayer dollars into Ukraine. And while Walz has been to China as often as I’ve been to Austin, that doesn’t mean most voters crave the prospect of Harris going toe to toe with Xi Jinping.
Part of the optics problem for the Harris-Walz ticket is its avoidance of any challenging media scrutiny. It is hard to imagine a properly tough global countenance from people who can’t even stand up to Fox News.
The dangers of such untested campaigning were painfully obvious as Walz struggled through various issues, leaning too heavily on lines clearly practiced for cut-and-paste delivery.
So will this debate “move the needle,” as the saying goes? With razor-thin poll margins in various swing states, a middling night for Walz up against a broadly recognized win for Vance could be significant. But countless variables will continue to churn in the month leading to Election Day. Walz will be better at rallies than he was on the debate stage. It appears there will be no more debates to attract 90 minutes of hyper-focused attention.
Actual events are more likely to sway any remaining undecided voters. With the Middle East on fire and a dockworkers’ strike threatening to rock an already fragile economy, the Harris-Walz ticket may now face more daunting challenges than a subpar debate night.
Mark Davis hosts a morning radio show in Dallas-Fort Worth on 660-AM and at 660amtheanswer.com. Follow him on X: @markdavis.We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section.
• Letters should be no more than 150 words.
• Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days.
• Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions.
You can submit a letter to the editor two ways:• Email [email protected] (preferred).
• Fill out this online form.
Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.This story was originally published October 2, 2024, 12:41 PM.
Related stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram Cynthia M. Allen The biggest winner of the Vance-Walz vice presidential debate: civility | Opinion October 02, 2024 12:05 PM Ryan J. Rusak Who won the Vance-Walz debate? Takeaways from a civil, substantive faceoff | Opinion October 01, 2024 10:05 PM Get unlimited digital access #ReadLocalTry 1 month for $1
CLAIM OFFER
Other Voices
FWISD is living in ‘Groundhog Day.’ Engaged voters are the way out of the doom cycle | Opinion
October 04, 2024 5:20 AM
Other Voices
Ban cellphones for students? Here’s how it went at my Fort Worth high school | Opinion
Updated October 01, 2024 10:12 AM
Other Voices
Is literacy a civil right? Poor reading skills threaten democracy, individual progress| Opinion
Updated September 27, 2024 12:54 PM
Other Voices
Abbott’s visit to Fort Worth for this big news shows power of Texas A&M expansion | Opinion
September 19, 2024 12:03 PM
Take Us With You
Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram App
Part of the McClatchy Media Network1xbet
Copyright Commenting Policy Privacy PolicyCookie Preferences Your Privacy Choices Terms of Service
