In the days leading up to Tuesday's debate, Democrats went out of their way to say they were nervous about how Gov. Tim Walz would perform. It was an obvious effort to lower expectations in the hopes Walz would beat the gloomy forecasts and thus look like an upset winner. However, Walz had occasional moments of clarity, but spent most of the night giving rambling answers that filled the time without reaching a clear conclusion.
Vance's performance was a boost for Trump and the GOP ticket. He was by far the smarter, more thoughtful, and organized thinker on the stage. Compared to Walz, who looked bug-eyed with speed-talking answers that often veered off course, Vance's cool demeanor established a stark difference in temperament, showcasing his ability to maintain clarity and focus even while dealing with moderator bias.
The only thing Walz won was finishing first in the number of non-sequiturs. Voters looking for a point to say 'aha, that's what the policy would be,' had to be frustrated. The stark contrast in performance contributed to doubts about Walz's readiness to serve and reflected poorly on Kamala Harris, aligning well with Vance's polished delivery that elevated his party's ticket.
Vance was cool, deliberate, and polite to a fault. He fostered a civil and substantive tone that showed an effective debate strategy. His approach included finding common ground, as he often began answers with acknowledgment of Walz's points, displaying an informative and diplomatic communication style that resonated positively with the audience.
Collection
[
|
...
]