fbpx

Will Kamala Regret Not Picking Shapiro?

When new polls offer daily reminders of the extraordinarily tight margins between the candidates, nervous Democrats can’t help but think that maybe Shapiro would have been a smarter choice.
[additional-authors]
October 15, 2024
Pennsylvania Governer Josh Shapiro (Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

In an excruciatingly close and increasingly tense election season, Pennsylvania has emerged as the ultimate electoral prize. While all the key swing states are too close to call at this point, Pennsylvania’s size, geography and history have made it the single most likely decider of this presidential campaign.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have spent more than $350 million just on television ads in the state — $142 million more than the next closest state and more than key Midwestern battlegrounds Michigan and Wisconsin combined. Harris spent one out of every three days in Pennsylvania during the month of September, an extraordinary commitment given the competing demands for a candidate’s time in the weeks before an election. 

Harris highlighted the state’s importance with studied precision in her debate with Trump, framing Trump’s ambiguity regarding the war in Ukraine by specifically referencing a key demographic voter group. “Why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up?” she asked.

Harris has more than 400 staff members on payroll in the state spread across 50 field offices. Joe Biden and Barack Obama, the last two Democratic presidents, are campaigning for her there. Her campaign is doing everything they possibly can to win Pennsylvania – almost. 

There is one notable exception to that no-holds-barred effort. Governor Josh Shapiro, a fellow Democrat and ardent Harris supporter, has maintained an approximately 60% approval rating among Pennsylvania voters since taking office last year. Shapiro’s high approval ratings far outpace those of Harris (51%), Trump (45%), and even Taylor Swift (46%). One-third of likely Trump voters there hold a favorable view of Shapiro, who was a finalist to be Harris’ running mate but was passed over for Minnesota governor Tim Walz. Even before Walz’s underwhelming debate performance, many Harris supporters were wondering if she had made the right decision. Now, when new polls offer daily reminders of the extraordinarily tight margins between the candidates, nervous Democrats can’t help but think that maybe Shapiro would have been a smarter choice.

The downsides of a Shapiro selection are uncomfortable but understandable (although not entirely defensible). The deep divisions that have emerged among Democrats over the Gaza war have left both Harris and Biden scrambling to reassure progressive voters that their support for Israel should not be held against them when they cast their ballots. Selecting a running mate who is Jewish and a committed Zionist could have put those votes at risk. It was a gamble that Harris was unwilling to take.

Perhaps to dampen speculation that her decision was based on factors other than Middle Eastern politics, sources close to the vice president let it be known that there was a lack of personal rapport between Harris and Shapiro, and that she had bonded much more quickly and naturally with the avuncular Walz. There has also been speculation that Harris was uncomfortable with Shapiro’s fairly transparent ambition, in contrast to Walz’s assurances that he had no interest in running for president in the future.

If those reports are true, they would be almost as disappointing as her capitulation to those anti-Israel Democrats who warned her against Shapiro. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama all selected running mates to whom they did not feel particularly close either personally or politically. (As did Biden when he picked Harris four years ago.) But each recognized the electoral benefit of a running mate who could help them reach voters who might not be available to them otherwise. Perhaps Harris could have learned a valuable lesson from these successful candidates turned presidents. Or maybe the lack of chemistry with Shapiro was just insider spin to distract from the real issue at hand.

Giving anti-Zionist progressives effective veto power over her most important personnel decision could end up being a costly mistake of incalculable proportions. 

Harris and Biden deserve great credit for their stalwart support of Israel, even given the rising pressure from the base of their own party. But giving anti-Zionist progressives effective veto power over the most important personnel decision she will make is not just an unfortunate sign of misplaced priorities. It could also end up being a costly mistake of incalculable proportions.


Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.