In two respects, however, Harris’ choice could have negative consequences. First: During her years in the Senate and her failed quest for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she adopted a number of progressive positions—endorsing the Green New Deal, opposing fracking, supporting Medicare for All (including for undocumented immigrants), and comparing ICE to the KKK—that she is now repudiating. Choosing a running mate seen as strongly progressive could make it more difficult to separate herself credibly from her past record.
Second: In the context of the Electoral College, Harris’ choice could backfire. While Walz’s Minnesota is safely Democratic, Shapiro presides over the most important swing state in the 2024 election. Although many pundits see Walz as especially appealing to rural and working-class voters, the evidence suggests otherwise. Compared to Biden’s 2020 performance in Minnesota, Walz received the same share of the vote overall (52%), and he did no better than Biden among rural and small-town voters, working-class voters, and Republican identifiers while running four points behind Biden among Independents.
By contrast, Shapiro far exceeded Biden’s 2020 baseline statewide, racking up 57% of the vote compared to Biden’s 50%. And he outpaced Biden in virtually every electoral group, exceeding the president’s share by seven points among rural and small-town voters, seven points among non-college voters, nine points among Republicans and voters leaning Republican, and five points among Independents.
Agree. While I had no problems with any of the potential VP picks, I hope she made the correct choice.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-walz-and-not-shapiro-for-vice-president/