According to Dems, Kamala’s “brat” and Trump is “weird.”
Everyone from Kamala Harris’ campaign to Hillary Clinton to AOC to Chuck Schumer has taken up the new line of attack, slinging “weird” at Donald Trump and his VP candidate J.D. Vance.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was one of the first on the bandwagon.
“That stuff is weird, they come across weird,” Walz said on MSNBC last week.
He doubled down on X, posting “Say it with me: Weird.” Then Walz went on CNN and accused the Trump campaign of “weird behavior.”
Walz unleashed a weird wave.
Harris’s HQ account tweeted a photo of Vance with the caption “It’s getting weird…” and later rolled out the insult “JD Vance is weird and creepy.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer asserted that Trump probably regrets picking Vance, telling CBS’ “Face the Nation”: “Every day it comes out that Vance has done something more extreme, more weird, more erratic.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Trump’s policies an “incel platform” and went on to say, “It’s SUPER weird. And people need to know.”
Hillary Clinton also got in on the action, posting on X, “If Republican leaders don’t enjoy being called weird, creepy, and controlling, they could try not being weird, creepy, and controlling.”
Fake Trump-Vance campaign posters with “WEIRD” plastered on the bottom began circulating online, with most critics honing in on Vance’s controversial comments about “childless cat ladies” and his proposal to give parents greater voting power.
“Saying weird is not a schoolyard taunt — it’s an observation,” Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said in a tweet. But honestly, it is more of a childish name-calling routine than an effective campaign tactic.
Dubbing someone “weird” isn’t a substantive refute of their policies or their platform. It’s a subjective character dig that doesn’t do anything to advance debate across party lines.
And the same goes for Trump and Vance calling people “Laffin’ Kamala” or childless cat ladies.
Enough, everybody. This is a high-stakes election, not a late-show monologue.
Both sides should be calling out the other where they disagree with them. Heck, call the other side a threat to democracy if that’s what you think.
Political attacks should be policy attacks — actual critiques that inform voters, not just that you think your opponent has a grating laugh or is “weird” or has “weird” preferences.
With less than 100 days left until election day, we need to see substance.
Stick to hit the opponent where it hurts at the ballot box: policies, not personalities.
