Paul Kengor: Picking Shapiro could have been key for Harris

Kamala Harris’ choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was a shock. The wide consensus was that she would pick Shapiro, especially with her announcement coming in Philadelphia. Everyone was stunned by the unknown Walz, including Donald Trump, who said he was “thrilled,” and rightly so.

There were so many good reasons for Harris to pick Shapiro. Whereas Harris is far left, Shapiro has a reputation as a moderate. He’s also strong on Israel. Harris is weak on a crucial issue to Pennsylvanians: fracking. She has tried to cover for that, but the fracking industry knows she’s no friend, whereas Trump certainly is.

Shapiro would have provided much-needed ideological balance. Most significant, he’s a popular Pennsylvania Democrat who won the governorship in a landslide.

In 2016, Trump won Pennsylvania and thus won the election. In 2020, he lost Pennsylvania and lost the election. Pennsylvania will likely decide 2024. For Harris, picking Shapiro was a good prospect for putting our state in her column.

Instead, Harris went for a governor who does nothing for her in the Electoral College. Minnesota was already in the bag for Democrats. All the blather about Minnesota and Walz representing “Midwest values” is nonsense. Look at any Electoral College map over the last 50 years. The one Midwest state that Democrats always win is Minnesota. Here’s a striking example:

Ronald Reagan in 1980 won 44 of 50 states, and in 1984 swept an incredible 49 of 50. He twice won Pennsylvania, California, New York, New Jersey and even ultra-liberal Massachusetts. There’s only one state Reagan never won: Minnesota. Sure, in 1984, his opponent was Minnesota native Walter Mondale. But Reagan didn’t even win Minnesota in 1980.

Minnesota is extraordinarily liberal, a Midwest anomaly. Harris had it in the bag.

So, why did she choose Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro?

Harris opted for an ideological soulmate. On every issue, Harris-Walz are a perfect match: economic, social, even sexual-gender issues. Moreover, Harris fell ideologically head over heels for Walz over his reaction to the Minnesota riots during the George Floyd period. He greatly impressed Harris, even as many moderate Americans were appalled by his handling of the situation. The Trump campaign immediately made an issue of that in ads. It will undermine the Harris campaign’s attempts to portray Walz as some moderate Midwest grandpap.

Americans are going to be struck by the fact that Walz will be unleashed as an attack dog by Harris. My first book was on the subject of the vice presidency, and I can tell you that a vice-presidential running mate is often picked for the purpose of attacking the other ticket while the presidential nominee aims to look more presidential. This was immediately evident in Walz’s demeanor in Philadelphia, as Harris stood behind him grinning while he laid into Trump. That’s what she wants. Shapiro would not have done that.

For now, the polls have trended in Harris’ favor. She has cut into Trump’s lead in Pennsylvania. That’s a predictable early excitement of liberals eager to rally around a Democrat who isn’t Joe Biden. We’ll see if it lasts.

This much is certain: Shapiro would have been a far better pick for Harris to win Pennsylvania, and the election.