There's something to be said about someone like JD Vance, who insists he doesn't need much debate prep because, as he puts it, "You don't have to prepare if you don't have to hide what you say." It's bold, sure, but it also feels like a gamble.
I get it, confidence, especially in politics is key. You've got to believe in your ideas enough to stand up in front of millions and defend them. But there is a fine line between confidence and complacency, and I'm not so sure Vance knows where that line is.
https://www.youtube.com/live/VAGZGQg31hs?si=t5HDQ7BNXcILKHF4
He's in a national debate, and though he is well-recognized by Republicans, he's hardly been endearing to independents or Democrats.
That's a problem.
He's had a few viral moments, like the bizarre comments about "childless cat ladies" and while that sort of statement might resonate with a certain base, it's not going to help him win over skeptical voters. At some point that sort of rhetoric alienates more than it attracts.
And let's talk about his approach to debate strategy.
He's going to try and attack Walz over his handling of the riots in Minneapolis, which, yeah, fair game. But it just sounds like such a rehashed play. He tried something similar in 2022 against Tim Ryan, tying him to liberal policies and Nancy Pelosi. That worked then, but is that going to cut it now on the national stage?
It’s one thing to win an Ohio Senate seat and another to try to sway the entire country.
What I observe in this is his decision to play the role of "everyman" who answers questions candidly. He may actually be a good communicator, but when one is running for the second-highest office in the land, is "going everywhere and talking to everybody" sufficient?
There comes a time when tough talk and catchphrases aren't enough for the electorate. They have to have some faith that you're up to the intricacies of the job.