Along with the shift in presidential candidates by the Democratic Party from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris in the decisive phase before the election, we will remember another shift: namely, a rhetorical shift in the Democratic Party best captured by one tiny, brilliant word: weird. Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s running mate, who embodies the friendly dad from the social and geographic middle of American society, started repeatedly calling J.D. Vance, his Republican counterpart, “weird!” It was an effective label because we now associate it with the Republican ticket of Trump and Vance, and everything that they have said and done since is being virtually subjected to a “weirdness check” by the voters. 

In our hyper-medialized societies, election campaign rhetoric can decide political elections. Donald Trump himself demonstrated this in 2016 when he managed to condense his political objectives rhetorically to similar effect: Make America Great Again, as the acronym MAGA, served to generate meaning and identity for a large part of his voters and has taken on the power of a trademark for some time now. Rhetoric and slogans of this kind can function like a political chorus that is hard to get out of your head. 

The fact that Tim Walz embodies an American “average Joe” and talks to the general public like a high school coach might in the locker room, makes the label of “weird” even more effective; it underscores the short word’s authentic feel and sticks to the Republicans. The Democrats have not been able to come up with something nearly as effective since Barack Obama’s slogan “Yes We Can.” Indeed, it seems fitting now in 2024 and after the 2016 and 2020 elections (both times with Donald Trump as a candidate) that we haven’t see any powerful phrases emerge used to describe one’s own party, but rather the most effective language seems to be that used to describe the opposition.