Rather than counterbalancing the narrative that suggests Harris is a “San Francisco liberal,” Walz’s selection instead reinforces that left-wing brand.
When I heard that Vice President Harris had selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate, the first thought to hit me was that of revered baseball manager Casey Stengel: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”
That’s not to say Walz is the worst choice in the world. But Shapiro is the governor of Pennsylvania — probably the most important state for Harris electorally, where he has a 64 percent approval rating. That fact alone might have been dispositive.
Walz, conversely, is the governor of Minnesota, a state that Harris should easily win. And while Walz’s avuncular Midwestern image might play well in the so-called “Blue Wall” states (which include Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), it’s not the same as him being the popular governor of one of those states.
What's more, by going with Walz, Harris has abandoned the generational change contrast that a Harris-Shapiro ticket would have enjoyed against Trump. (Although Walz is just nine years older than Shapiro — and only months older than Harris — he presents as much older.)
As someone who has been described as a “Never-Trump conservative,” I must also concede that my perspective is biased in favor of the more moderate Shapiro. Nevertheless, there are thousands of politically homeless Americans yearning in vain for someone — anyone — to woo them.
Just the other day, a bunch of current and former Republicans endorsed Harris, presumably with the goal of winning over some disgruntled suburban soccer moms and erstwhile Nikki Haley supporters. Today, that goal became much harder.
Rather than counterbalancing the narrative that suggests Harris is a “San Francisco liberal,” Walz’s selection reinforces that left-wing brand.
Now, it is true that Walz won’t be easily pigeonholed as some effete cosmopolitan liberal — he’s a veteran and a high school football coach, among other things. And it’s also true that some of his past positions would be hard to cast as out of touch (he was once backed by the NRA).
Still, much of Walz’s actual record — such as signing a law that allows undocumented immigrants to receive a driver’s license, and his response to the George Floyd protests — will be easily pilloried.
To be sure, Republicans would have attacked Shapiro, too. But those attacks would have lacked the same plausibility.
Shapiro’s image is clearly that of a moderate. This includes his support for school vouchers, the “middle ground” he has carved with regard to fracking and his forceful condemnation of antisemitism by protesters against the Gaza war.
This brings us to an important question: Did Shapiro being Jewish sink his chances? After all, the last thing Harris needs are protests outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Likewise, winning Pennsylvania might be a pyrrhic victory if it cost her Michigan.
If that was the deciding factor, it is an indictment of the left. Because Shapiro was (in my opinion) the clear choice, such speculation is impossible to ignore.
But there are other reasons that Team Harris might have made the choice. Walz was great in interviews; indeed, he inspired the whole "Republicans are weird” meme. Maybe Team Harris has some polling that I’m simply not aware of. Or perhaps the vetting of Shapiro turned up something that could haunt him. Or maybe Harris and Walz simply had amazing chemistry, while she and Shapiro didn’t click. It’s impossible to know why Harris made this decision.
Regardless, there is one more thing about this pick that really bothers me.
As Susan Glasser, staff writer for the New Yorker, put it, the “Walz picks suggests Harris subscribes to the Obama (and Trump) theory of elections — it’s all about the base. Motivation over persuasion.”
For 20 years now, this cynical electoral strategy (which, with apologies to Glasser, probably goes back to Bush-Cheney ’04) has tremendously harmed America.
Harris’s decision to pick Walz over Shapiro once again prioritizes party unity over outreach. In this regard, she did the same calculus as Trump did when picking his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).
Sadly, this is merely the latest example of a politician forgoing the opportunity to reorder the political paradigm and possibly hoist us out of the rut we’ve floundered in for two decades.
But enough of my esoteric long-term concerns. This also strikes me as a short-term electoral mistake — which would be Harris’s first.
From the moment Joe Biden announced he was not seeking reelection until now, Kamala Harris had played perfect baseball. From where I sit in the peanut gallery, this vice presidential choice constitutes her first unforced error.
Matt K. Lewis is a columnist, podcaster and author of the books “Too Dumb to Fail” and “Filthy Rich Politicians.”
