Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in the 2024 election, may have made a strategic misstep while campaigning earlier this week. In an appearance in rural Pennsylvania, Walz took a direct shot at his Republican opponent, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, by mocking his upbringing—a move that many see as a blunder that could hurt the Harris-Walz ticket.
As Walz navigates the campaign trail, he has plenty of topics he could focus on: the economy, healthcare, or education. Instead, he chose to go after Vance in a way that highlighted not only the senator’s personal story but also the stark differences between the two vice-presidential candidates.
In a video clip posted on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), Walz criticized Vance for how he portrayed his upbringing in his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. “Sen. Vance, he became a media darling,” Walz said, referencing the attention Vance received after the publication of his book. “He wrote a book about the place he grew up. But the premise was—was trashing that place where he grew up rather than lifting it up.”
Walz’s comments didn’t sit well with many, especially given Vance’s status as a champion for Middle America. Vance’s memoir describes his challenging childhood in a working-class family in Ohio, offering a raw account of his life that resonated with many Americans, particularly those from rural, economically distressed areas.
Critics quickly pounced on Walz’s attack, questioning the wisdom of belittling Vance’s story of overcoming adversity. After all, Vance’s rise from poverty to become a Yale-educated lawyer and U.S. Senator is an example of the American dream, making Walz’s criticism seem ill-advised. Moreover, Vance has emerged as a vocal advocate for the very communities Walz seemed to deride—those in the heartland of the country who feel forgotten by the political elite.
Walz continued to pile on, dismissing Vance’s current career by saying, “This guy’s a venture capitalist cosplaying like he’s a cowboy or something. I don’t even know what a venture capitalist does most of the time.”
This remark also seemed to miss the mark. Vance, who has balanced his venture capital work with a political career, has built a reputation as a thoughtful and effective legislator. His career trajectory, from a hardscrabble upbringing to financial and political success, contrasts sharply with the tone Walz used in attacking him.
In his speech, Walz, dressed in flannel and sporting a ball cap, seemed to project the very image of a politician trying too hard to appear relatable to rural voters. This comes off as ironic, especially since Vance’s authenticity is one of his strong suits—he doesn’t need to exaggerate his connection to Middle America. He has lived it.
Walz’s attempt to criticize Vance’s personal story only served to highlight the contrast between the two candidates. Vance’s appeal stems from his ability to connect with voters through his genuine life experience. He doesn’t shy away from discussing the difficulties he faced growing up, but he also doesn’t use it to pander to voters. He focuses on policy and his vision for the future, leaving his personal background to speak for itself.
Walz, on the other hand, seemed to be trying to imitate the very authenticity that Vance embodies naturally. By taking aim at Vance’s roots, Walz inadvertently emphasized the gap between his own perceived lack of authenticity and Vance’s lived experience.
Unsurprisingly, Walz’s comments sparked immediate backlash. Conservatives and political commentators were quick to defend Vance and point out the poor strategy behind Walz’s words. Many took to social media to argue that Walz’s remarks could alienate voters in the very regions he needs to win over—rural and working-class communities.
The Trump campaign’s “War Room” Twitter account jumped on the opportunity to frame Walz’s comments as out of touch with ordinary Americans. “Tim Walz—total freak show—criticizes JD Vance for working his way out of poverty, writing a book, and achieving success,” the post read.
Walz’s comments also reminded voters of the sharp contrast between the polished, articulate Vance and the sometimes bumbling Walz, who has struggled to connect with audiences on the campaign trail. For voters, the comparison may only strengthen Vance’s appeal, making Walz’s attack a potential gift to the Ohio senator.
Ultimately, Walz’s decision to bring up Vance’s background may come back to haunt him and the Harris campaign. Vance has carefully cultivated a reputation as a champion of Middle America—he doesn’t need to pretend to understand the struggles of working-class families because he’s lived them. By contrast, Walz’s comments made him look like a politician trying too hard to fit in with a demographic he doesn’t naturally connect with.
In an election where authenticity is key, especially in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Walz’s attack may have inadvertently bolstered Vance’s standing. Voters in these regions are likely to see Vance as a candidate who understands their concerns and represents their interests, while Walz’s remarks could come across as tone-deaf and disconnected from the realities of Middle America.
As the campaign continues, the Harris-Walz ticket will need to focus on issues that resonate with voters, rather than making personal attacks that highlight the strengths of their opponents. In this case, Walz’s attempt to undermine Vance only served to highlight the very qualities that make him a formidable candidate.
