A New Veepstakes
What narrative will drive Kamala Harris' choice of a running mate?
Kamala Harris, it seems, is going to announce her choice of a vice presidential running mate by Tuesday. So here are a few thoughts about those who are reportedly on the shortlist.
It’s all about the narrative.
That’s my mantra for vice-presidential selections. How does this selection impact the narrative of the race?
If Donald Trump’s campaign had wanted to know my thoughts, for instance, I would have thought Nikki Haley was the best choice if they were thinking strictly about winning a general election. Obviously, that’s not the only consideration and this partnership would have had other issues (i.e., foreign policy, where Haley is pro-Ukraine and Trump is, uh, not). Still, imagine the convention speech Trump could have given:
“The assassination attempt changed my perspective. It helped me realize that I have to help unite our nation. And that starts with uniting our party,” Trump could have said. “Which is why I asked Nikki Haley to join me in this effort. I want all factions of our party to unite, and I want Nikki to be my partner in bringing all corners of our nation together.”
The GOP could have built a heck of a general election strategy around this message. And putting a woman on the ticket would have helped with the suburban female vote he’s losing. Sure, it’s unrealistic to think Trump could have stuck to the script, but this is what I mean by making a pick that drives a particular narrative.
Marco Rubio would also have been a compelling choice for Trump as a young, telegenic figure who’d appeal to Hispanics (though there were Electoral College issues given that he and Trump both live in Florida). Doug Burgum or Tim Scott would have been fine too. Burgum was a successful businessman before going into politics and would have comforted middle of the road voters; Scott would have helped the party’s efforts to expand its outreach to Blacks.
You could also make an argument for others. On the other hand, the narrative around J.D. Vance is more connected to the desires of the MAGA base, so unless he can help attract even more working class voters in the upper Midwest than Trump already does, well, the choice isn’t one that much expands the party’s electoral opportunities.
Which brings me to Harris’ options. I think she has two directions she could go, each of which would drive a particular narrative, which I’ll get to in a moment. But first …
Not happening. (Or shouldn’t be happening.)
A lot of names were thrown around initially, many of whom were never going to work. Gavin Newsom, for instance. Aside from having the same state residency issues that a Trump-Rubio pairing would have faced, can you imagine trying to make an argument for two San Francisco liberals on a national ticket? Ugh.
Similarly, Wes Moore, Raphael Warnock, or Corey Booker. I’m sorry, they are all legitimate future presidential contenders and someday the nation may be ready for two people of color to lead a national ticket, but now is not that time. (You can say this is wrong, but I’m merely trying to objectively consider what would be more or less likely to win a national election.)
Interestingly, however, there is another individual whom I dismissed early on but who is reportedly still on the shortlist: Governor J.B Pritzker of Illinois. He has supporters pushing for him, including numerous CEOs, but I can’t imagine him being the choice. A Black-Asian woman from San Francisco and a billionaire from Chicago? Perceptions may not be fair, but they do matter. I’m sorry, again, but that combo is not going to win over middle America. And if you want to win a national election, you do have to win over middle America.
An all-female ticket. This isn’t happening, but maybe it should have?
Speaking of perceptions, the Harris team has apparently dismissed the possibility of an all-female ticket. But this one I’m not so sure of. I actually think Americans would be open to voting for two women — and I’m not the only one — more so than they’d be open to two people of color. Obviously, I’m not privy to the polling that has surely been done. And even many women dismiss this possibility because they think it’s a step too far for voters in the middle who’ll be deciding the election.
But I still think a Kamala Harris-Gretchen Whitmer ticket would have electrified the country. And it would have likely locked down Michigan, one of the two most important states that Democrats need to win in November.
Whitmer did seem to take herself out of the running early, of course. But in that case I would have at least thought about Amy Klobuchar. Somehow people have forgotten that she ran a pretty darn good presidential race in 2020. Which also means she’s been vetted nationally. She’s experienced, likeable, has experience winning over moderate and rural voters in the upper Midwest, and was atop many people’s lists of running mate options for Biden four years ago.
Nevertheless, unless Harris is keeping a very big surprise under wraps, this isn’t happening in 2024.
Five contenders on the Harris shortlist
That brings us to five names who, as of today, are reportedly under consideration by the Harris campaign: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. They all have pros and cons, but none of them is a bad choice. All the tea leaves and betting markets are pointing to Shapiro as the likely pick, but it may not be as much of a slam dunk selection as many are suggesting.
In any case, I think these names can be sorted into two buckets. There is some overlap between the two, but in general I think each of these themes drives a somewhat different narrative about the fall election …
#1. A new generation and a new era for Democrats
This would be a stark contrast from what the Democratic campaign looked like just a few weeks ago, when Joe Biden was still atop the ticket. Pairing Harris with any of these three men — Shapiro, Buttigieg, or Beshear — would present the image of a new generation of leaders ready to take America into the future. But each one would present a somewhat different take on the message.
Josh Shapiro
Pros: Popular governor of maybe the most important state for Democrats to win in November. Shapiro has a reputation for being bipartisan and working across the aisle. And for getting things done. He’s also the best orator in this field and was discussed as a future presidential contender even before the veepstakes. And with the possibility of helping push this state into the Democratic column, well, that might be enough by itself to make him the choice.
Cons: First off, I don’t think being Jewish will hurt Shapiro except with voters who’d never vote for Harris anyway. So I don’t take that as much of a con (though some Jewish leaders do have concerns about a potential rise in antisemitism if Shapiro were to win). What might hurt him, however, is his strong condemnation of protesters amidst the Israel-Gaza crisis this year, which turned a vocal left wing against him. That’s not the worst thing in terms of a general election when you want to appeal to moderates, of course. But, in this case, Michigan is home to a fair number of Arab Americans who oppose Shapiro over this issue, and that could possibly tilt a close election in an important state.
Additionally, this might not make a difference, but Shapiro is from outside Philadelphia. And a presidential ticket from San Francisco and Philadelphia screams coastal elite, which is part of what middle America dislikes about Democrats. It may not matter, as I said, but vibes can be important.
Pete Buttigieg
Pros: Outside of Whitmer, this would most electrify the Democratic base. Mayor Pete (now Secretary Pete) retains a lot of popularity from his 2020 campaign when, like Klobuchar, he ran a good race and was vetted nationally. Buttigieg may also be the best political athlete of any Democrat. He is fearless and incredibly quick on his feet. He goes on Fox News regularly and never gets tripped up. He was in the Navy Reserve and served in Afghanistan. He is from Indiana and now lives in Michigan, so he understands the Midwest. And he’d make history as the first gay person on a national ticket.
Cons: Same as the pros … he’d make history as the first gay person on a national ticket. We’ve discussed having two women on a national ticket, and two people of color. This is the same conundrum. If you need to win swing voters who are more culturally moderate, can you do so with a Black woman and a gay man, or is that too much change too soon? Also, a Harris-Buttigieg ticket would include two current members of the Biden administration, so it would bring the most baggage in terms of what voters feel about the last four years. He’s also the youngest of these contenders and I’m not sure he exudes as much gravitas as some others do. He may be best served by running for Michigan governor when Whitmer leaves office in two years.
Andy Beshear
Pros: A governor who has won multiple statewide elections in Kentucky, Beshear is that rare Democrat who speaks to and wins votes from moderate and rural Americans, including the Appalachian voters whom Vance also claims to represent. He is the second youngest of these candidates after Buttigieg and would not only be a fresh, young face for the party, but one who appeals to voters who might otherwise vote Republican. He also has support from labor leaders, as United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain named Beshear and Walz as his favorite picks.
Cons: He is not well known and lacks some of the strengths of other candidates. He’s not as accomplished of an orator as is Shapiro, nor is he the governor of an important state (Kentucky would stay red even with Beshear on the ticket). He also isn’t as nimble on his feet as is Buttigieg. And though he’s a governor and former Attorney General of his state, like Buttigieg he doesn’t seem to bring the same amount of gravitas as some other candidates do. But could he be a future Attorney General in a Harris administration? Sure.
#2. We’re not just coastal elites, Democrats also understand working class America
Mark Kelly and Tim Walz are 60 and don’t have the same youthful look as the other three, making them less representative of a new generation of leadership. However, recent polling shows Harris has gained ground among young people and voters of color but is struggling to maintain Biden’s popularity among white working class voters who’ll be crucial swing voters in November. And while all these candidates have varying degrees of ties to moderate voters, Kelly and Walz present an image that makes them more natural fits for appealing to those working class Americans who voted for Biden but are still unsure about Harris.
Mark Kelly
Pros: The best biography, by far. The son of two police officers. A military veteran and decorated Navy pilot who flew 39 combat missions during the Gulf War. An astronaut and the commander of two space shuttle missions. Married to Gabby Giffords, a former Congresswoman who was nearly killed in a 2011 assassination attempt. A Senator from a border state, he is one of the party’s best messengers on immigration issues. And he’s a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter who advocates for smart gun control.
Kelly’s stature would also bring gravitas to the ticket. Can you name another contender whom you could so easily see staring down Vladmir Putin, for instance? And if you want to inoculate yourself against the strength vs. weakness frame that’s been adopted by the GOP (and which is leading many young men to support the Republican ticket), uh, are Trump or Vance gonna accuse Kelly of being weak? Heck, if Kelly were a Republican they would have already turned him into Captain America by now.
Cons: Kelly may be the least gifted communicator of the five Democrats on this list. He’s not a liability exactly (after all, he did just take down Martha McSally and Blake Masters in back to back Senate races in Arizona), but he doesn’t have the level of oratorical skills as the other candidates. There is a question about whether he’d excel as a messenger on the national campaign trail. Also, his Senate seat is up in two years. The governor would appoint a Democratic replacement, but that person would have to run in a special election in 2026, an off year contest that often breaks against the president’s party. None of the other candidates bring the risk of losing a Senate seat.
Tim Walz
Pros: I admit, when I first thought about Harris’ veepstakes, every name on this list came to mind … except for Tim Walz. The Minnesota governor has climbed the list rapidly for someone who was relatively unknown nationally. But he’s done so with a folksy and endearing communication style. He is Minnesota Nice in the same way as Amy Klobuchar. Walz comes across as an everyman, but an everyman who is the governor of Minnesota, a former six-term Congressman, and an Army veteran.
In Congress, he represented a rural Minnesota district and has demonstrated appeal to moderates in the upper Midwest. Interestingly, he is also a former high school social studies teacher who is conversant in Mandarin, as well as a former football coach who led his team to a state championship. Not only that, but as a football coach in a rural district he served as the faculty advisor of the school’s first gay-straight alliance back in the 1990s because he thought it would foster a more inclusive atmosphere and stop the bullying that he saw these students subjected to at the time.
Walz may not have the gravitas of a Kelly, or the potential future president glow of a Shapiro, but he has shown a unique ability to relate to voters in the middle with a folksy, common man persona. He might be a safe choice who does just enough to win over moderates in the upper Midwest to ensure a victory.
Cons: Walz was until recently almost unknown nationally. He’s only one year older than Harris but looks much older, and is less likely to energize voters who are attracted to the idea of a new generation of Democrats. He might give a good interview and bring fun vibes to the race, but still not be capable of swaying the voters that Harris needs to win over. And he doesn’t bring a vital electoral state like Shapiro, nor does he have the biographical cachet of Kelly. Also, fair or not, while he was governor, Minneapolis was the site of some of the worst rioting after the George Floyd murder in 2020, so that would become part of the Harris-Walz narrative if he’s chosen.
What do you think?
So, which should it be? It’s a big decision, and one that Harris is having to make on a compressed schedule. Few of these candidates have been vetted in a national campaign. J.D. Vance is now finding out what that’s like. But unless something surprising emerges, I don’t think any of them are bad choices for Harris. For what it’s worth, a few GOP strategists I’ve seen seem to think that either Shapiro or Kelly would be most helpful to the Harris ticket.
Ultimately it may come down to a combination of two factors: which person Harris is personally comfortable with (if she wins, after all, she’d have to work with him for the next 4-8 years), and which narrative she wants to drive about the 2024 election.
In the end, I think Walz may be a safe pick, but Shapiro and Kelly have the most upside to impact the race. Personally, I’d go for Kelly over Shapiro. With Walz as an honorable mention. However, I’m not the candidate and I don’t have access to information about all the factors that Harris is considering. Either way, we’re going to find out very soon.
What timing! With the announcement of Walz today, I was wanting more information about him. You came through again. Thank you!
What Craig said! Thanks!