When Kamala Harris Takes a Risk - 8/12/24

Tim Walz seems like the least risky politician in America. The avuncular coach-next-door who grew up in a small town in Nebraska and taught high school in rural Minnesota comes across authentically as the type of nonthreatening and reassuring parental figure that many Americans crave in an unsettling and angry time in our history.

But when Kamala Harris named the Minnesota governor as her running mate last week, her decision actually reflected a considerable gamble on the part of her campaign. Of the three finalists whom Harris was reportedly considering as her vice presidential nominee, Walz is by far the most progressive of the group. Since successful campaigns must both motivate existing supporters and persuade undecided voters to achieve a winning coalition, selecting a left-leaning nominee instead of one of her two more centrist alternatives suggests that the Harris campaign may have decided that they can carry this election by relying primarily on the enthusiasm, excitement and ultimately the turnout of their party base.

Given how the first weeks of her candidacy have energized traditional Democratic constituencies, it’s understandable that Harris and her advisers might see this as a plausible path to victory. This may be the most invigorated Democratic voters have been since Barack Obama’s first campaign in 2008. The contrast between Harris’ immense and animated rallies and Joe Biden’s inability to motivate young people, non-white voters, single women and other progressives has been the key driving force behind her comeback in the polls. Harris was reportedly told that selecting Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro or Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, the other two alternatives she most seriously considered, could have a dampening effect on left-leaning voters. Rather than risk that type of buzzkill, Harris decided to continue to ride the wave that had been carrying her ever since she entered the race.

But Harris, who ran hard to the left in her 2020 primary, has vulnerabilities that she will be unable to avoid over the next few months. Kelly’s aggressive history on border-related issues could have offered her critically important protection in the debate over the nation’s immigration policy. His record in the military and as an astronaut would have provided important credibility on national security issues to a greater degree than Walz. Of course, the horrific shooting of his wife, former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, would allow him to talk about gun control in a compelling and personal way that few other politicians can.

Harris’ decision to pass over Shapiro is an even more difficult decision to unpack. Shapiro holds an astronomical 61 percent approval rating in his home state of Pennsylvania, perhaps the most important state on the electoral map. But like Kelly, he deviates from Democratic orthodoxy on issues that are high priorities for influential party interests. Shapiro supports school vouchers and fracking, enraging teachers’ unions and environmentalists. But the strongest and angriest criticism he faced was from those who oppose his strong support for Israel in the war in Gaza. 

Shapiro was certainly not the only contender to take a strong pro-Israel position since the war started last year (Kelly and Walz did as well). But Shapiro was the only one of the three who was Jewish. And while Trump’s criticisms of Harris as anti-Semitic would be farcical, if not so offensive, it is easier to see how she and her advisers may have decided that an internal battle with anti-Israel progressives would not be helpful in their efforts to unite the party behind her.

In addition to keeping the Democratic base enthused, Harris’ team also sees Walz as a valuable conduit to voters in less populated areas. One of the biggest divisions in American politics is between urban and rural voters, and Democrats have struggled for years to compete outside of big cities and inner suburbs. If Walz can help with these communities in closely contested states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, he could end up being an immensely useful asset to a campaign headed by a woman from San Francisco. But passing on the opportunity to balance the ticket ideologically is a gamble that could leave Harris exposed to harsh attacks on immigration, crime and energy policy that could sway centrist voters.

We’ll know in a few months whether Harris’ decision to roll the dice on Walz was a successful one. But right now, it carries a significant amount of risk.