The Case for Walz

Why Kamala Harris should choose Minnesota's governor over Pennsylvania's

With only two days to go before Kamala Harris officially receives the Democratic nomination for president, her search for a running mate has entered its final stages. After beginning with an expansive list consisting of the whitest males her party has to offer, she has reportedly winnowed everything down to two final contenders. One of these men—Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania—was regarded as one of her likeliest choices from the very start and is currently seen as the odds-on favorite in anticipation of her announcement tomorrow. The other—Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota—is a true dark horse contender, an obscure Great Lakes governor left off of many early lists who rapidly rose to prominence through the power of his affable personality. And although both were considered to be relatively boring moderates before the start of the veepstakes, the shadow war between the two has grown to become very divisive.

Or, to be more precise, Josh Shapiro has become very divisive.

As the Pennsylvanian’s chances blossomed over the past week, many on the left have hurriedly come out to proclaim him a historical disaster in the making. To them, he isn’t just someone with disagreeable positions on the issues. No: he is pure potential electoral poison, a Democratic JD Vance that could strangle Kamala’s bid overnight. In turn, they have cast Tim Walz as a once-in-a-generation talent just waiting in the wings—a true progressive stalwart from the heart of Middle America, capable of appealing to everyone from the youth to veterans to rural voters. The choice, in their eyes, isn’t really a choice, but a complete no-brainer that will reveal whether or not Kamala is smart enough to avoid losing the election before she’s even officially nominated.

Conversely, and as one might expect, more centrist-minded commentators have taken an entirely different view. While they don’t see the contest as having anything close to the same stakes as leftist commentators do, they do see its winner to be similarly clear: in their case, Josh Shapiro. This isn’t because they particularly dislike Walz or see him as a dangerous pick—in fact, they hardly ever mention him at all. What moves them is that, from their perspective, Shapiro has so many upsides that he’s an extraordinarily obvious pick. He’s young, (supposedly) charismatic, has a spectacular electoral record and is the single most popular politician in the state that could decide the election. What’s not to love? How could anybody even compete?

So, which of these two lines of argument is the correct one? From my point of view, neither of them quite hit the mark. While I perfectly understand and agree with those who are ideologically opposed to many of Shapiro’s positions—I am, too—I don’t agree with how many of these same people have characterized his potential impact on the election. And while I do understand the electoral benefits centrists bring up to advocate for Shapiro, I don’t quite agree with their analysis of him or how they treat the long-term implications of Harris’ selection.

This does not mean, however, that I do not have a preference for Harris selects. Even after taking everything Shapiro’s proponents have said into account, I still favor Walz as her #2. In this article, I’ll go over why.

Who Is Tim Walz?