Vice President Kamala Harris’ selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate was a comfortable choice for Harris, but it may not have been a wise one.
Harris is in a close race for the Oval Office with less than 90 days until Election Day. Every step Harris takes, every move she makes, every word she says is scrutinized and second-guessed by her Republican opponents. That is expected. And no matter who she chose as her running mate, the Republicans would be critical.
Harris has also been under scrutiny by her party’s left wing. They are nervous about her continuing faithfulness to progressive dogma with which she has been identified and are wary of things she is saying now that are designed to portray her as more centrist. Harris has now assured her left flank by selecting a running mate who will burnish her progressive credentials even if it may not provide a broader pathway to the attraction of more
centrist support.
Republican nominees former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, have staked out the strong, conservative position in the race — leaning hard to the right. They are comfortable there. Their voter base wants them there. And they have a lock on voters critical of the current administration’s immigration policy, those who oppose single-payer health care, those who have had enough of DEI and those who bristle at efforts to “defund the police.”
Harris could have been helped by selecting a credibly centrist running mate with a record of strong leadership and governing skills. Such a partner could have helped her win the support of undecided voters in crucial mid-Atlantic and Midwest swing states. Walz has strong leadership and governing skills. And he will likely be helpful to the ticket in the Midwest. But he lacks the broader appeal of a more centrist alternative.
Walz’s selection also disappoints a large segment of nervous Jewish voters — an important voting bloc in several swing states — who perceive hostility and antisemitism coming from the far left of the Democratic Party, and a disturbing anti-Israel tone bubbling up in intra-party dialogue. Walz’s pronouncements on Israel have been embraced by J Street. That makes many in the pro-Israel community nervous.
Walz’s state of Minnesota is home to a sizable Muslim population. More than 18% of the state’s Democratic primary voters chose to write “uncommitted” rather than supporting President Joe Biden as a means of protesting his support for Israel in the Gaza war.
Walz has said that the party needs to focus on winning back those anti-Israel voters and appears to have made the effort to do so with carefully balanced statements of even-handed support for both sides in the Israel-Gaza dispute, betraying a tendency toward moral equivalency that is anathema to much of the Jewish community and a large segment of the electorate that knows the difference between good and evil.
The November election is upon us. There is plenty of time for Harris/Walz and Trump/Vance to make clear where they stand on issues of importance to the American public and on issues of concern and frustration to our community.
The centrist vote will likely be influenced significantly by those positions. And the centrist vote will likely decide the coming election.
