Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), who is running as Vice President Kamala Harris’s (D) partner in the upcoming election, struggled to explain why voters should not blame Harris for the ongoing economic struggles and rampant inflation plaguing the country. When prompted by ABC News’ Michael Strahan during an exclusive one-on-one interview to address this issue, Walz avoided giving a clear response and instead chose to discuss “price gouging” and “false information.
Walz emphasized that addressing concerns about the economy is crucial, given that 74 percent of voters have had to cut back on groceries due to rising costs. He mentioned that many of these concerned voters might associate Harris with responsibility for these economic challenges, but Walz seemed unsure how to address their concerns.
Instead of providing a direct response, Walz shifted the conversation towards discussing policies aimed at helping “folks in the middle” and addressing the issue of false information spreading. He then pointed out that Harris is focusing on making homeownership more affordable and implementing tax cuts for the middle class as ways to address price gouging concerns. However, these statements did not directly answer the question posed by Strahan.
When asked about Harris’s role in the Biden administration over the past three and a half years, Walz made an odd reference to former President Donald Trump. He claimed that Trump had four years to address these economic issues, but failed to make any improvements, essentially passing the blame onto him. Walz also mentioned the need for a partner in Congress to pass meaningful legislation, citing the example of a bipartisan immigration bill that Trump opposed due to its potential impact on his political future.
While this talking point may be relevant in discussing the challenges faced by the Biden-Harris administration, it does not directly address the issue of inflation and its impact on Americans’ daily lives, particularly when it comes to food prices which have increased significantly under their leadership. Overall, Walz’s response to the question raised more questions than it answered, leaving many unsure about how to interpret his stance on the matter.