Kelly Sloan
A few comments on Kamala Harris’ decision to choose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate:
– The most important requirement for selecting a vice president is: “Will this person significantly improve the presidential candidate’s chances of winning the election?” The answer in this case is unlikely.
It’s hard to say what Walz means for the election in terms of electability. By selecting him, Harris seems to have at least caved to the demands of the far left of the Democratic Party. Granted, Walz has become the overnight darling of every Democrat (except those who live in Pennsylvania), but that’s probably a simple matter of political necessity, like immediately rallying around Harris after President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the election. There’s simply no time left to publicly argue about the vice presidential choice. She probably could have picked Bob Menendez, and his sins would have been instantly forgotten.
Stay up to date: Sign up to receive daily opinions in your inbox Monday through Friday
But that doesn’t change the political trouble she got herself into by choosing the progressives’ favorite. Harris had another chance to move toward the center, and she missed that one, too. It’s notable that on the same day Harris chose the most left-leaning candidate, Cori Bush lost her primary to a (relatively) more moderate alternative. In primaries across the country, voters reject the more extreme candidates of both parties. That was clearly the case in Colorado in June, so it’s notable that the presidential candidates of both parties have chosen ideological doppelgangers of themselves. Most Americans have little idea who Tim Walz is, but they soon will, and his record as governor will be a worthwhile topic for Republicans to cover in the coming months.
The other traditional criterion for the vice presidential election is winning a key district or region. Minnesota was never on the ballot anyway, but Pennsylvania was. Admittedly, this is becoming less and less of a valid criterion, especially given the increasing polarization of the electorate. But if Harris loses Pennsylvania by however many electoral votes, she will likely bitterly regret it.
Which brings us to the question, why not Josh Shapiro? The popular Pennsylvania governor seemed the more politically logical choice and was the option Republicans feared most – perhaps a little too publicly. He is an excellent orator, closer to the center than Harris or Walz, and would have been a good counterweight to Harris’ more progressive instincts, especially on foreign policy. All of this seems to have been too much for the anti-Israel bloc and the teachers’ unions.
Maybe it was just chemistry; maybe Harris just didn’t like Shapiro that much, but such sentimental musings have traditionally not been allowed to interfere with political exigencies. Early reports suggest she just hit it off with Walz, and although the interview was for the vice presidential candidate and not her best friend, there is some evidence of philosophical agreement. The last time a vice presidential candidate challenged the front-runner’s policy positions was Andrew Jackson/John Calhoun. The ideological gap between her and Shapiro on Israel may simply have been too wide to bridge.
There is the as-yet unanswered question of Walz’s future political ambitions. Does he see this as a step toward the ultimate prize? It’s hard to say, but aside from Dick Cheney, few vice presidential candidates haven’t seen a president when they look in the mirror in the morning. So what are his prospects? Well, if Harris wins in November, she will be the nominee in 2028, assuming the Republic survives for four more years. The crystal ball doesn’t exist to predict who might be in the race in 2032. So what if Trump beats Harris? If that happens, Walz will be a spry 64 in 2028 and presumably have a good shot at the nomination. That may have been part of the calculation to play out a future race against JD Vance, pitting a left-wing populist from the Midwest against a right-wing populist from the Midwest.
The question many Americans were asking at the beginning of this year remains: Is this the best we can do? Sadly, the answer is still yes.
Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.
