Harris Doubles Down

In what was her first consequential decision since becoming the presumptive nominee of her party, Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Two weeks ago, he was a virtual unknown; now he's potentially five months away from being the next vice president of the United States.

The most stunning thing about this pick is that only a few days ago, the smart money was on Josh Shapiro getting the nod. The first-term governor of Pennsylvania is well liked and respected in his home state; a state, it should be noted, Democrats will need in November to keep the White House. The conventional thinking was that Shapiro would nail down Pennsylvania for Harris, thus freeing her up to go after the Sun Belt states. 

So why the change of heart, assuming there was one? I believe it comes down to three factors:

1. Walz, unlike Shapiro, is a low risk, high reward candidate. He is loved by progressives, endorsed by UAW president Shawn Fain, and comes across as genuine, even to his opponents. Conversely, Shapiro is more of a centrist, who sometimes leaps before he looks, and is more of a career politician. The barrage of attacks he was starting to get from the base - virtually all of them baseless and shameful - would've ultimately been a distraction and could well have derailed the momentum Democrats had built up over the last 15 days. With the convention only two weeks away, the last thing Harris needed were protests in Chicago, of all places. I have no doubt she took this into consideration while making her decision. 

2. The last time a running mate delivered a state for their ticket was Lyndon Johnson in 1960. Since then, the prevailing logic has been to a) do no harm, and b) shore up a deficiency. Mission accomplished on both. With the recent polling coming out of the Keystone showing Harris with a slight lead over Trump, the campaign may believe that Shapiro is more of a luxury than a necessity.

3. It's clear Harris believes this will be a turnout election. If that's the case, she will need every single registered Democrat to show up at the polls this November, and that includes progressives. Among the many mistakes Hillary Clinton made in her 2016 presidential bid, none were more egregious than her failure to excite the base. Her pick of Tim Kaine as running mate, far from enhancing her prospects, only served to reinforce the sentiment on the Left that she was a phony. The low turnout in Democratic strongholds like Detroit and Milwaukee led directly to her defeat.

It is this last factor that may prove to be the most critical for Harris. It's clear from the results of the last few elections that the country is deeply polarized. Urban areas are becoming more blue and rural areas are becoming more red. The inner suburbs tend to lean blue while the exurbs tend to lean red. The crossover / independent voter is becoming less and less important. Witness the ground Harris made up in such a short period of time just by the announcement that Biden was dropping out of the race. With virtually no change in policy, other than who was at the top of the ticket, she gained almost five points in the polls.

What accounted for this sudden shift? In a word, the base. African Americans, women, young people, progressives, they represented the lion's share of the movement northward. There was virtually no indication that independents had changed their opinion one way or the other. In fact, if the election were held today, the majority of this demographic would likely vote for Trump. Think about that.

Erin Overbey of The New Yorker had this to say about the VP pick, and why it will be so pivotal in this election:

"Hillary lost in 2016, in part, because she took her base for granted, ignoring the schisms on the Left and focusing her campaign almost wholly on moderate Republicans and the illusive swing voter. Dems continue to underestimate the number of voters, especially white women and white men, who will vote for Trump (again).

"The Dems urgently need someone in the VP slot with an ability to articulate a positive vision of America powerful enough to push back the fear mongering and incoming attacks of the right—the ‘performative utterances’ that give Americans permission to give in to their bleakest impulses. Both Walz and Buttigieg are speaking of Democratic policies in ways that are revolutionary—crafting deeply persuasive new arguments on Democratic principles like school lunches, women’s privacy, health care, etc.

"For years, the Democratic Party has appeared from the outside to be stuck in a perpetually reactive state of gridlock—always reacting to any and every manufactured culture war or seemingly ceding ground to the Republican or conservative outrage of the week / month / year. 

"Walz, Buttigieg and Beshear represent a strong departure from this type of reactive politics; each appearing to offer positive, assertive visions of an America where government is focused not on perpetual beltway outrage / gridlock but on tangible ways to improve Americans’ daily lives, and I believe it is these kinds of persuasive, positive visions of - and arguments for - America that are a necessary complement to Kamala’s pragmatic leadership style—and will be equally appealing to American voters in November."

Over the last hundred years, four Democrats have won the White House by a very wide margin: FDR, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Three of them - FDR, LBJ and Obama - ran on a progressive platform. We've grown accustomed to believing the Clinton model was the one the party needed to embrace. Meanwhile, blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt states were getting screwed over by a global economy that was exporting their jobs to Asia; all with apparent blessing of the Democratic Party. And these geniuses have the nerve to act surprised when they get their clocks cleaned every four years. There are used-car salesmen who have more shame.

Perhaps it's time for Democrats to rediscover their roots; to have a come to Jesus moment, as it were. Trying to work both sides of the aisle clearly isn't working. Not only are they not getting the credit they think they deserve from the center, they're doing everything possible to discourage the one group of voters who desperately want something they can believe in. As the saying goes, moderation, in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue. 

To those who say that Harris, by opting to go with Walz, is playing with fire, the recent elections in the United Kingdom would beg to differ. There, the Labour Party beat the Conservative Party in a landslide. It was the first victory by Labour since 2005, and it ended a fourteen-year run by Conservatives as the governing party. The top issues for voters were the economy, healthcare, education, infrastructure, the environment, housing, energy and immigration. Sound familiar?

In 2008, Barack Obama ran on a message of hope and change. That message inspired millions of young people to turn out and vote for him. Tonight, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz gave a packed house in Philadelphia a similar message, sprinkled with overtones of joy. The contrast between them and Trump and Vance could not be more stark.

Only time will tell whether lighting will strike twice.