Body language expert reveals how ‘nervous’ Tim Walz helped JD Vance ‘put a clinic on’ at VP debate

Tim Walz got one chance to make a first impression at Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, and blew it before his opponent, JD Vance, even got the chance to speak.

The Democratic Minnesota governor greeted the watching millions of Americans with wide eyes, appeared nervous and stumbled over his words, Washington, DC-based body language expert Chris Ulrich told The Post.

“Out of the gate he was nervous,” Ulrich said. “He was using a lot of filler words like ‘umms’ and ‘ahs,’ which can undermine [what you say.]”

Ulrich said Walz’s poor opening meant he had to work the rest of the debate at gaining back momentum.

“Those first several questions are really important, because if you don’t come across powerfully in the beginning of that moment, it undermines it,” he said. “You’re now working against that [negative impression] all the way.”

The Democrat’s nerves appeared to grow more frazzled as he answered the first several questions from co-moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, with Ulrich noting Walz’s rate of speech had spiked noticeably by the time he answered his third question.

The nervous energy culminated when Walz was asked about a lie he repeatedly told about being in China during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

“The question that tripped him up the most was the Tiananmen Square incident … because he doesn’t truly answer the question,” Ulrich said. “This is something we saw him do before, where he vaguely says he’s a knucklehead at times, and he gets caught up in the rhetoric.”

Instead, Ulrich said, Walz should have addressed the situation head-on by admitting he “over-exaggerated.”

The Democratic candidate later grew in confidence when it came to issues “in his wheelhouse” such as abortion and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Ulrich said. But his late improvement only mattered if undecided voters tuned in for the full debate.

Walz was mocked by several prominent viewers for his body language during the debate, with noted Trump critic Meghan McCain posting on X that “Walz is so uncomfortable it’s hard to watch.”

Across the stage, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) appeared calm and powerful from the start, delivering a confident opening — despite giving what seemed like a pre-planned response that did not answer debate monitor Margaret Brennan’s opening question regarding Iran’s ballistic missile strikes on Israel.

“Looking at Vance, he was very poised. He delivered his message confidently,” Ulrich said. “And what does confidence look like? It’s open body language, these open-palm gestures that he does.”

That confidence continued throughout the night, with Vance using well-timed hand movements that “help your audience to absorb the information, to ‘follow the bouncing ball’,” the body language analyst said.

The senator further excelled in the manner and speed with which he delivered his responses — even out-performing his running mate, former President Donald Trump, in some key elements of exuding confidence, Ulrich said.

“When Vance answers his questions, he was slow, meticulous. He would introduce that he was going to answer the question, and these open gestures were on the beat,” Ulrich said. “So in that way, he came across very confident and poised, and in a way that his boss did not.”

Vance showed some nervousness, though, increasing his “blink rate” when answering questions that weren’t in his comfort zone on the campaign trail, such as addressing climate change or his prior remarks in support of a federal ban on abortion, Ulrich said.

But overall, Vance’s performance may have eased some concerns among undecided voters put off by Trump’s reactive, occasionally brash comments during his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10.

“I feel like [Vance] put a clinic on for Donald Trump on how to address a question and come across coherently,” Ulrich said. “Compared to his boss two weeks ago, he was much more effective in arguing the case that a second Trump presidency would be an option for the voter.”