Minnesota Governor Tim Walz? Rep. Tim Walz worked alongside her on Tuesday.
The Walz’s unexpected decision arrived like a bolt from the blue. Throughout the final week of his term, Pennsylvania Governor Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has a greater-than-60% probability of becoming a member of the Democratic ticket. In defiance of conventional wisdom, which had largely backed Shapiro, Harris opted for Walz as her replacement. On Tuesday morning, sources close to the Trump campaign expressed relief that their Democratic opponent had chosen not to select Tom Wolf, the popular Pennsylvania governor, as his running mate.
The decision to choose Wald as president will undoubtedly spark a thorough and contentious examination of the selection process. Both sides of that argument have plausible justifications. The debate surrounding Kamala Harris’s initial decision as Democratic National Committee chair is contentious, with some arguing it was an error in judgment.
The compelling rationale for choosing Shapiro over Walz lies in two key aspects.
1.
Currently, Harris is polling ahead in Pennsylvania than within the other key Rust Belt battlegrounds. Despite being the likely Democratic nominee, they lag behind former President Donald Trump by a significant margin of 1.2 percentage points in, while managing to tie with him in and pull ahead by 2 percentage points in, according to RealClearPolitics’s polling averages. Close the gap in Pennsylvania, and Harris could find herself in striking distance to sweep the three Midwestern swing states, potentially sufficient to secure her a victory at the White House.
Pennsylvania boasts 4 more Electoral College votes than Michigan and a staggering 9 additional votes compared to Wisconsin. As long as Democrats win Pennsylvania, they will likely lose each of these states and still maintain alternative credible pathways to victory. Harris could potentially secure more than the requisite 270 Electoral College votes even if she loses Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as long as she manages to win both Georgia and Arizona alongside her stronghold in Pennsylvania.
Shapiro, having managed Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in Pennsylvania in 2020, could credibly have assisted Kamala Harris in potentially influencing a similar outcome for her running mate, President-elect Joe Biden, in the state during the preceding election. According to recent polls, the governor’s approval ratings within the state currently stand at. Last month, a survey found that Trump led Harris in Pennsylvania by 2 percentage points – but when the same respondents were presented with an alternative between a Harris-Shapiro ticket and one featuring Trump and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance previously led by one level.
2.
While Pennsylvania’s profitability is notable, it is by no means sufficient. Although there’s reason to believe that Shapiro might have assisted Harris in crucial states, a more specific connection remains unclear.
Harris’s most significant political-legal legacy will likely be the widespread perception that she was a vice president who effectively handled her duties and played a crucial supporting role to President Biden, helping him navigate the complexities of national governance. The Democratic nominee originates from a prominent liberal stronghold within one of America’s most progressive states. During her tenure in the Senate, she accumulated a remarkable record of achievement that placed her among Congress’s most distinguished lawmakers. During her unsuccessful 2020 marketing drive, Senator Harris endorsed several progressive healthcare initiatives, including, amongst others, universal coverage, single-payer systems, and Medicaid expansion. As Republicans seek to capitalize on these vulnerabilities for their own political gain.
Senator Harris has attempted to mitigate the impact of this controversy by retracting prior statements, emphasizing her professional credentials, and highlighting her commitment to specific issues.
By selecting Shapiro, the company’s rebranding initiative may have benefited from her expertise. Pennsylvania’s Governor enjoys a reputation for being a voice of reason and balance in the political arena. As Republicans have managed Pennsylvania’s Senate, Shapiro has consistently enacted bipartisan legislation. Since his appointment, he has been involved in several initiatives that have garnered widespread interest, such as streamlining processes to eliminate redundancies in public sector job roles and driving rapid reconstruction efforts in a specific area. As Jonathan Chait of The New York Journal notes, Shapiro has demonstrated a remarkable ability to articulate his views in a way that resonates with those on both sides of the political spectrum. Following an attempted assassination that left President Trump injured and claimed the life of a prominent local supporter, attorney General Josh Shapiro delivered a poignant tribute to the fallen individual, Corey Comperatore, a courageous firefighter who had lost his life at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The eulogy he delivered in praise of his political opponent’s civic-mindedness and family-oriented values struck a chord with a wide audience, likely contributing to his own surging popularity as reflected in recent public opinion surveys.
The perception of Shapiro’s credibility among voters skeptical of Trump yet distrustful of progressive ideologies may be bolstered by his controversial nomination as vice-chairman, which in turn has sparked resistance from the Democratic left.
While Walz may appear to be a committed liberal at times? Representing a conservative, predominantly rural congressional district for over a decade, he meticulously tracked the voting records to demonstrate his commitment to transparency. During his last Congressional term, Walz aligned with the conservative Heritage Foundation’s preferred policies approximately 15% of the time, a significant increase over the average rate for House Democrats, where he agreed with their stance more than two times as often.
Despite these challenges, Governor Walz of Minnesota implemented a substantial and forward-thinking governing agenda in 2023. Despite the slim margin – just 321 votes – his celebration secured a majority by enshrining progressive policies, including restoring voting rights for ex-felons, investing $1 billion in education, imposing background checks on private gun transfers, protecting gender-affirming care across states, mandating carbon neutrality by 2040, restricting non-compete clauses in labor contracts, establishing a statewide board to set minimum labor standards for nursing-home employees, directing funds towards improved infrastructure, and increasing taxes on corporations and high-income earners.
As Minnesota’s progressive legislators continued to push the envelope, their flurry of innovative legislation attracted national attention. As soon as Harris publicly named Walz and Shapiro to her shortlist, teams and commentators began vociferously advocating for the former’s selection over the latter’s.
Given the potential consequences of their choices, Walz’s decision could inadvertently reinforce a Republican narrative portraying Harris as perilously out of step with her party on the left flank, while Shapiro’s selection might conceivably undermine such an impression and reframe Harris within a more moderate context.
However, this statement does not necessarily imply that selecting Walz was an error. The case for selecting candidate A over Shapiro can be made on at least five compelling grounds.
Walz’s addition to the Democratic ticket balances it in certain respects that Shapiro’s presence would not have matched.
The Minnesota governor’s recent TV appearances have been standouts, with his sharp jabs at the Republican ticket sparking widespread attention and going viral as a result.
Recent reports have emerged featuring two potentially damaging accounts about Shapiro.
Shapiro’s ability to support Harris in Pennsylvania might be exaggerated.
Shapiro’s decision to pass over a moderate like Cuomo or Whitmer, instead opting for a more liberal candidate, would have sparked intense debate within the Democratic Party, potentially fracturing the coalition and undermining the prevailing sense of optimism and unity that has characterized the Biden era.
1.
Given that some causes are well-known, Walz does not prioritize ideological consistency with the ticket to the same extent as Shapiro might desire. While he may tilt his representation towards one demographic group, he arguably strikes a better balance compared to the Pennsylvania governor in terms of demographic alignment. Unlike prominent politicians such as Harris, Shapiro, Biden, Obama, Clinton, and Clinton, Walz eschewed a traditional path, forgoing law school and military service.
Hailing from a small town in rural Nebraska, this individual combines his passion for the outdoors with a background as a former high school soccer coach. With a strong foundation in the Midwestern region, Biden boasts significant ties to this traditionally Democratic stronghold. Can Walz’s Midwestern upbringing and familiarity with the region make him a more effective messengers to sway voters in Wisconsin and Michigan compared to Shapiro, who has no personal connection to these areas?
Walz campaigned extensively across rural Minnesota throughout his 2022 gubernatorial bid. Throughout his lengthy tenure at the Home, he performed remarkably well in non-urban areas for a Democrat, defying expectations. Waltz is cognizant of the enchanting influence he holds over certain voters. While the Harris marketing campaign may need to alleviate concerns among moderate to conservative voters, Representative Walz is likely to adapt a pragmatic approach by finding common ground. Given the progressive movement’s genuine admiration and trust in Walz, it’s plausible that they might extend greater latitude to a Harris-Walz ticket, allowing for more pragmatic policy adjustments than a Harris-Shapiro ticket would have enjoyed.
2.
The presidential nominee’s closest confidant and most trusted ally serves as their chief surrogate throughout the campaign. And Walz demonstrated his skills as a top-notch attack dog over the past few weeks. On July 23, Governor Walz expressed his dismay, stating: “We don’t like what’s happened when you can’t even attend Thanksgiving dinner with your uncle because you’re stuck in some senseless conflict that’s utterly absurd… That’s just the truth?” These guys are simply bizarre.”
As Democrats pored over Walz’s message online and offline, they concurred with his assessment: the Trump-led GOP had cultivated a “bizarre” and off-putting political ethos. According to a poll from a Democratic organization, respondents characterized the term “bizarre” as more fittingly applied to Republicans than Democrats by a significant margin of 47% to 37%.
3.
As journalists scrutinized Harris’s record of vice presidential contenders over the past few weeks, they unearthed more potentially damaging stories about Shapiro than about Walz. While stories of this nature were previously familiar, a recent development garnered widespread attention: allegations surfaced that a top aide to Representative Brad Shapiro had repeatedly subjected a colleague to unwelcome advances and lewd behavior in the workplace last year. The governor’s workplace reached . Shapiro maintains that he was unaware of these allegations until several months had passed since the incidents occurred. It’s reasonable to wonder whether Shapiro’s close relationship with aid Mike Vereb influenced the release of the statement, which raises questions about its integrity under intense media scrutiny.
The case of Ellen Greenberg stands out as a peculiar and heart-wrenching instance. Found dead in Philadelphia at the age of 27, Greenberg’s body bore the gruesome evidence of 20 fatal stab wounds, a tragic discovery made in 2011. The initial investigation into that tragic event was initially thought to have been the result of a homicide, but further analysis and evidence ultimately led investigators to reclassify it as a self-inflicted act of suicide? Despite the apparent implausibility of a person inflicting self-injury 20 times, widespread skepticism led Greenberg’s family and the public at large to question the police’s verdict as utterly unbelievable. Despite this, when Shapiro served as Pennsylvania’s Attorney General in 2019, his office supported the city’s conclusion regarding the suicide determination. Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to take on the Greenbergs’ civil lawsuit against Philadelphia.
In a stark departure from his public persona, Walz has faced private controversy; specifically, in 1995, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. While his publicly known personal debts may pale in comparison to those of Shapiro, they still remain relatively recent and potentially explosive.
4.
Typically, presidential candidates have refrained from holding rallies at their opponents’ homes. In 2019, political scientists Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels published Researchers Devine and Kyle Kopko analyzed large-scale survey data to determine if voters residing in the same state as a Vice Presidential candidate exhibited increased support for that candidate’s party, controlling for factors such as partisanship, race, age, gender, income, and others. They discovered no such impact. According to numerous studies on the subject, the notion that vice presidential candidates consistently reap benefits from being associated with a “home state” has been thoroughly debunked.
There are indeed inherent constraints that preclude such analysis from providing definitive insights. It’s been a long time since either major party’s presidential nominee has seriously considered adding a prominent politician from a key battleground state to their ticket, let alone actually doing so. In stark contrast, every recent election has led to a trend where running mates are chosen from entirely uncontested red or blue states. Consequently, historical data may be an inadequate source for accurately assessing the effects of promoting Shapiro.
Despite this, the dearth of empirical evidence means that there is limited basis for confidence regarding Shapiro’s ability to significantly boost Democratic support in Pennsylvania. The approval ratings of political figures can undergo significant fluctuations after they join a presidential ticket. As Secretary of State. By mid-2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign had already faced significant backlash, ultimately rendering her increasingly unpopular among voters.
If Shapiro had abandoned his reputation as a bipartisan governor and instead emerged as a vocal critic of Donald Trump, he might have sacrificed any potential influence he once held with Pennsylvania Republicans. Whether his standing with the state’s undecided voters will hold up remains impossible to determine upfront.
5.
Shapiro’s nomination raises a second flag of alarm regarding its capacity to exacerbate existing fractures within the Democratic Party. His decision was likely to amplify internal Democratic Party divisions over US policy towards Israel, potentially heightening tensions and controversy.
While sharing similarities with some of his fellow Democrats like Walz, Shapiro’s views on Israel diverge significantly from those of mainstream Democratic leaders. Walz vocally backed a two-state resolution, yet simultaneously condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “one of the worst leaders of all time.” He expressed fervent support for Israel’s inherent right to self-defense, subsequently meeting privately with Netanyahu.
Some commentators have suggested that progressive critics’ intense dislike of Shapiro may stem from an underlying antisemitic sentiment. While it’s true in specific cases, there exists a logical basis for pro-Palestinian Democrats to harbor considerable skepticism towards Pennsylvania’s governor.
The controversy surrounding Shapiro’s stance on Israel-Palestine has primarily revolved around a CNN interview he conducted in April, sparking widespread debate. During his conversation with anchor Jake Tapper, Shapiro drew a provocative comparison between the most egregious anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian campus protesters and the Ku Klux Klan, sparking heated debate. While some critics have accused Shapiro of likening pro-Palestinian protesters to Ku Klux Klan members. Shapiro’s defenders correctly point out that his statement was misinterpreted: in reality, he endorsed peaceful protests against Israel while condemning the antisemitic bullying of Jewish students in the same interview. That’s hardly distinct from Walz’s own observations regarding this matter.
Shapiro’s animosity towards pro-Palestinian activism extends far beyond a few isolated comments on television news programs. In 2016, Pennsylvania enacted a law that prohibits the state from entering into contracts with businesses that engage in boycotting or divestment activities targeting Israeli entities or citizens. Many authorized scholars argue that this provision is unconstitutional, as it forces the federal authorities to make distinctions between enterprise homeowners based on their political activities.
Shapiro is a fervent advocate for these laws. And as Pennsylvania legal professional normal in 2021, he to implement the regulation towards Ben & Jerry’s, after the ice cream firm refused to license its product on the market within the West Financial institution. Given Israel’s prolonged occupation of that land violates international law and hinders the establishment of a Palestinian state, Shapiro’s eagerness to penalize an act of protest against that occupation may raise concerns about his commitment to the two-state solution.
Many voters are intensely concerned about the Israel-Palestine conflict and perceive the Democratic Party as being overly sympathetic to Israel’s stance. While a specific demographic may wield significant sway on social media, it’s crucial that we don’t allow their online dominance to unduly influence the opinions of younger, more apathetic citizens who are still forming their political views?
Throughout much of the year, the outcry over America’s involvement in the devastation of Gaza dominated social media conversations on platforms like X and TikTok, with increasingly passionate protests echoing across digital horizons. As Harris’s stint as Biden’s replacement unfolded, prevailing chatter shifted away from serious debates to lighthearted memes that poked fun at her relatively youthful energy. The unexpected nature of Shapiro’s decision had the potential to undermine the subtle transformation in temperament.
While Shapiro’s support for publicly subsidized education has garnered some criticism from the labor movement, specifically public college professors who may be unionized in contrast to their private counterparts. United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain praised Shapiro’s unwavering commitment to labour’s causes during a speech on the final Thursday of the month.
Ultimately, Walz proved to be a compelling choice. His endorsement could credibly help Harris resonate with Midwesterners, enable her to effectively connect with the region while minimizing internal party opposition, and potentially serve as a trusted governing partner if everything proceeds smoothly.
If Democrats emerge victorious on November 6 but narrowly miss securing Pennsylvania, and subsequently the Electoral College, many will undoubtedly bemoan Kamala Harris’s inability to tap into the popularity of a crucial battleground state’s governor.
Regardless of the circumstances, working out a significant amount may prove extremely challenging for Walz.
