Editor's Notes: Kamala’s mistake: Ignoring Josh Shapiro cost her the White House

Imagine Josh Shapiro on the morning after the election, bleary-eyed, coffee in hand, scrolling through the results. Perhaps he’s thinking, What if I’d been on the ticket? He’s the guy who made Pennsylvania hum with his no-nonsense attitude. He’s the governor who got the cracked-up Interstate 95 patched in record time. And he’s the one who dared to add challah on the Friday night dinner table in a political landscape where faith isn’t usually advertised. And yet, here he is, sidelined—watching from the bleachers as the VP pick he wasn’t part of comes up short.

For those of us who watched the Harris campaign’s struggle to connect in places like Pennsylvania, it’s hard not to think Shapiro might have brought a bit of grit to the ticket. As reported by The Forward, political insiders like Daniella Greenbaum Davis are echoing the sentiment on social media: “If Kamala had chosen Josh Shapiro, this night might have gone very differently.” It’s a thought that’s been swirling through the minds of disappointed Democrats, especially Jewish voters who feel the party didn’t quite “get” them this time around.

Antisemitism and a controversial campaign

Now, to be fair, Shapiro’s path to the VP shortlist wasn’t without bumps. By early August, critics had coined him “Genocide Josh” over his support for Israel—an outrageous moniker that made its way into public discourse thanks to the progressive left. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that Shapiro shrugged off these attacks, telling reporters, “Antisemitism played no role in the dialogue I had with the vice president.” But as we well know, not everyone bought that line. Even US Rep. Jake Auchincloss from Massachusetts voiced concerns, saying there was a “strong undercurrent of antisemitism” in the critique Shapiro faced from some factions within his own party, according to The Hill.

Shapiro’s detractors weren’t exactly holding back. Social media was flooded with rhetoric targeting his stance on Israel, his religious identity, and his “pro-police” policies from his time as Pennsylvania Attorney General. Progressive activists, many of whom campaigned for Shapiro’s competitors, argued that his support for school vouchers and policing reforms made him a divisive figure. But one can’t help but wonder: Would they have said the same about a non-Jewish candidate with similar views?

In a race as tight as this one, could Shapiro have been Harris’s ticket to winning Pennsylvania? Polls in September from FOX 29 Philadelphia showed Shapiro’s approval ratings eclipsing both Harris and Trump. Nate Silver’s analysis, as reported by The Forward, bluntly stated that Harris “blew one big opportunity to tack to the center.” In the end, it seemed Harris’s decision to sidestep Shapiro may have cost her more than just Jewish votes—it cost her a unique link to Pennsylvanians across the board who trusted Shapiro’s steady hand and relatable persona.

And let’s face it, Harris’s actual pick, Tim Walz, had a decent political resume but didn’t quite resonate in Pennsylvania. The choice left many Pennsylvania voters, particularly Jewish ones, feeling like they’d been handed a well-meaning substitute when they’d really wanted a hometown hero who understood them. Harris had a chance to lock down the Jewish vote in a state where it mattered most, but in choosing Walz, she alienated a critical base at a critical moment.

Shapiro’s brand of Jewish identity

Shapiro isn’t just a politician who happens to be Jewish. He’s Jewish in a way that resonates with people across religious lines. As reported by CNN, Shapiro speaks openly about his faith and has brought his observant Jewish identity into his public life in ways that are rarely seen on the national stage. He’s the first governor to make the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion kosher, after all. This authenticity—paired with his pro-Israel stance—could have energized Jewish voters in Pennsylvania, a state where the Jewish population might be small but wields influence beyond its numbers.

In Pennsylvania, Shapiro’s faith has made him a figure of unity, admired by Black ministers, Catholic leaders, and even a notable Muslim community leader who penned an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer lauding Shapiro’s inclusivity. And while some saw his vocal Jewishness as a liability on the national stage, for many voters, it was precisely what made him relatable.

As pundits and political strategists dissect Harris’s loss, the absence of Shapiro on the ticket stands out. As political analyst Amy Spitalnick told The Forward, Harris’s campaign may have underestimated the appeal of a moderate Jewish voice at a time when antisemitism is surging across the US in bypassing Shapiro, Harris missed the chance to embrace a candidate who embodied the values of unity, integrity, and resilience—qualities that Pennsylvanians respect, no matter their background.

And let’s add a dash of irony here. Trump, always quick to seize an opportunity, didn’t hold back in leveraging Shapiro’s exclusion to his advantage. At a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump quipped, “They turned him down because he’s Jewish,” despite his own complicated history with Jewish issues. According to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Shapiro fired back, calling Trump the “least credible person when it comes to speaking out against antisemitism.” The drama was almost Shakespearean, a case of “I told you so” from an unlikely source.

The future of the Democratic Party

So, where does this leave Shapiro? As political dreams go, he may have missed the VP boat this time, but his prospects aren’t dim. In fact, some analysts see him as a potential 2028 candidate. For now, Shapiro’s focus remains on Pennsylvania, where his approval ratings remain enviable. He’s proven that he can bridge divides and appeal to people across faiths and political affiliations—qualities that will likely serve him well in the coming years.

Harris’s choice may be behind us, but the lesson lingers. In a deeply divided nation, the Democratic Party needs leaders like Shapiro, who aren’t afraid to embrace their identities and stand firm in their beliefs. By choosing not to bring him onto the ticket, Harris may have lost more than just the Jewish vote in Pennsylvania. She may have missed an opportunity to connect with Americans seeking authenticity, faith, and a leader who’s not just “for the people” but of the people.

The question now isn’t whether Shapiro will find his place on the national stage but when—and whether the Democratic Party will realize its misstep in time to correct course. Harris’s loss may just be the spark that ignites a future where Shapiro’s values of faith, pragmatism, and inclusivity are front and center, not sidelined.