Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) hunts, is a Christian, and gives off “dad vibes” — this last one particularly appeals to news-media types. For these reasons, Democrats believe he has the blue-collar appeal most Democrats lack.

It’s true Democrats need to reverse their mad rush to become the party of wealthy suburbanites if they want to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. But is it true that Walz can win over the type of voter turned off by San Francisco politicians like Vice President Kamala Harris?

Walz’s record is mixed on that score.

Check out the county maps for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 win of Minnesota compared to Walz’s 2018 win. Walz did much better than Clinton, winning 54% of the vote compared to Clinton’s 46%.

Clinton won nine of 87 counties in 2016, while Walz won all nine of those, plus another 12. (Norman County was basically a tie.) Drilling down a bit deeper, six of those additional 12 counties were in Walz’s congressional district, which he had represented for more than a decade.

So, if we’re asking about Walz’s reach to working-class rural or exurban voters, we should look outside of his congressional district. There, he improved on Clinton’s seven counties to a total of 13. Of those extra six counties Walz won, former President Donald Trump had won by more than a couple of points in only three: Anoka, Beltrami, and Koochiching.

Of those three, Anoka is a wealthy county, with household income more than $10,000 greater than the state as a whole, while Beltrami and Koochiching are poor counties, with both more than $20,000 below the state average. Beltrami’s population is about 20% Native American (the Red Lake Reservation is there), and Koochiching is a tiny county with fewer than 6,000 voters in those two elections. So, if we get anything from this analysis, it is that Walz was much better than Clinton in turning out the Native American vote. There’s no real evidence there that Walz can win the working-class white vote.

MSNBC analyst Steve Kornacki looks at Walz’s 2022 reelection and also fails to find evidence that Walz reaches beyond Democrats’ standard base.

Some liberal journalists are upset by this analysis.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that’s just motivated reasoning. Yes, journalists like Walz, a pro-abortion, left-wing Democrat, more than they like Vance, a conservative, Catholic Republican, but this tells us nothing about voters.

It’s possible that early polling will show a Walz appeal among working-class voters, but that evidence isn’t present yet.