Vance beats the “knucklehead”

The headline is not me engaging in name calling. No.  No.  No.  That appellation for Governor Tim Walz comes from a person who knows the Minnesota governor better than anyone else on the planet – Governor Walz, himself. 

In grasping for an answer as to why he lied about being in China at the time of the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989, his explanation was that he misspoke because — as he put it – “I am a knucklehead.”  It is not the first time he used that term to describe himself.

Overall, the debate was marked with an unusual level of comity.  It was all very civil – with Vance and Walz agreeing with each other on some issues. It had to be disappointing to the red meat fringe on both sides.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was my impression that Senator Vance had won the debate on points.  No knockouts and only a couple of knockdowns.  My initial impression was confirmed when the most ardent Harris/Walz personalities on CNN and MSNBC called it a draw, noting that Walz was a bit off his game and Vance was merely a slick car salesman – as a Democrat member of Congress described the Ohio senator. 

(Hmmm.  Wonder if that sexist pejorative will cost the Democrats the car salesPERSON vote?  Don’t you just hate when Democrats forget their political correctness dogma?  But I digress.)

The left leaning newsies made every excuse possible for Walz less than stellar performance.  He is not a skilled debater – just a common guy who was understandably nervous.

(Hmmm.  Hasn’t Walz been a major political figure for the past 18 years as a member of Congress and governor of a major state?  He has spent more of his adult years as a politician than a coach.  But I digress … again.)

My impression was further confirmed when CNN announced that the post-debate snap polling gave Vance a narrow 51 to 49 percent edge as the winner of the debate.  It should be noted that CNN’s polling analyst David Chalian said that the network’s survey model contained more Democrats than Republicans.  That undoubtedly tamped down Vance’s number by a couple of percentage points.

The CNN poll showed that Walz’s favorability rating improved – but so did Vance’s.  Interestingly, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough showed the Walz’ improved favorability numbers but NOT the overall 51/49 percent win for Vance.

The greater question is whether the debate will have an impact on the vote – of those who have not already voted, of course.  (We really need to reform this cock-a-mammy early voting system.  But I digress … yet again.)

There were notable moments, however.

I was struck by how little attention the CBS moderators — Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell — gave to foreign policy.  They opened with a question about the Middle East and whether the United States should go all in with Israel. Vance was stronger in his support of the Jewish state.  Walz was more equivocal – with one eye apparently on the radical left faction in his political base. 

That was it.  No question about Ukraine.  No question about Taiwan. No question about Biden’s policy and American weapons for Israel.   If you were not otherwise informed, you would have no idea that the world is ablaze in real and potential conflicts.

While post-debate pundits pointed to the 2020 transition of power as the most heated exchange, I thought the kerfuffle between Vance and moderator O’Donnell was the most heated.  Vance sternly called her out for violating the rule against fact-checking by moderators.  And she clearly did in offering her own rebuttal.  And Vance only called her out after it occurred a second time – at least by my observation. It was the only time that CBS muted the microphones to cut off what had become a three-way conversation.

Vance clearly bested Walz on immigration, the economy and crime. Walz scored points on abortion and the old “threat to democracy” narrative.  The problem for Walz and Democrats is those issues are not at the top of voter concerns.

Other issues centered on the accomplishments of Trump and Biden as presidents.  Walz depicted the Trump years as chaotic and hurtful to the American people.  Vance was effective in using facts and figures – no wars, higher wages, no inflation, and tighter control on the border — to portray the Trump years as an era of peace and better kitchen table economics.  Vance wins on those issues because more Americans remember those years as more accurately described by Vance than Walz.  That is what virtually all polling tells us.

Walz appeared to defy common sense on the gun issue.  While he proudly described himself as a gun owner and hunter, he argued against mental illness as a factor in the mass shootings.  He went so far as to criticize Vance for demonizing the mentally ill – which was not true.  Walz emphatically stated, “It’s the guns.”  Vance was effective in noting that more than 90 percent of gun-related murders are with illegally possessed guns.  Getting these guns off the streets has been the epic failure of the big city political administrations for decades. 

Vance missed a slam-dunk opportunity in the gun debate.  Walz noted that Finland has a high percentage of gun ownership without the high rate of gun deaths and mass shootings.  That seems to prove that the number of guns in private hands is NOT the core or causal problem.  Duh!   So, what is?  Walz literally blew away his definitive statement that “It’s the guns.”

Those on the left saw Walz’s finest moment when he asked who won the 2020 election.  Vance dodged a direct answer.  He argued that despite the events of January 6, 2021, there was a peaceful transfer of power on January 20^th.  There was no attempted coup.  Actually, the moment power was transferred –January 20^th – it was very peaceful.  No riots.  No protests like those that occurred on Inauguration Day 2016.

There were no questions from the moderators regarding race issues – inner city crime, voting rights and the apparent movement of Blacks and Hispanics to Trump. 

That leaves the rules and the role of the moderators to be judged.  In terms of the rules, they were okay – and better if the moderators had obeyed them themselves. I was surprised that Walz was doing a lot of note-taking – and Vance none.  They obviously eased the rules since the presidential debates.  The questions were slightly biased against Vance – something that Republicans and conservatives have come to expect and largely accept.  But not as bad as in some past debates.  I give the moderators a C-minus. 

History tells us that vice presidential debates create grist for the media mill for a few days. They have a very limited impact on the outcome of elections.  This one is likely to have a very limited impact. But if there is even a slight impact, it will go to Team Trump.  Normally the impact of the second tier debates is not significant enough to affect the outcome, but in a race this close …???

As a closing thought, if I were running the Trump campaign, I would have commercials featuring various issues  and Walz statements – then closing with Walz saying “I am a knucklehead.”

So, there ‘tis,