Kamala's electoral price was not choosing Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as VP - opinion

In the aftermath of Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat, Democratic strategists are busy dissecting the myriad reasons behind her loss. Among the most compelling – and contentious – explanations for Trump’s decisive win is that Harris’s choice of running mate, Tim Walz, over Josh Shapiro, was a strategic misstep influenced by an undercurrent of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment within certain Democratic factions. If true, which there is ample reason to believe, this prejudice came at a price regarding electoral strategy and moral integrity.

Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s governor, was a potential strategic masterstroke for the Democratic ticket and, in many ways, the obvious choice. As a popular governor, his presence would have helped capture a crucial swing state. Harris missed an opportunity to solidify support across the Rust Belt, where Shapiro’s local roots could have swayed undecided voters. His appeal extended beyond typical Democratic urban strongholds to suburban and rural areas – key groups for building a winning coalition nationally.

Beyond geography, Shapiro offered distinct political appeal. As a centrist known for his balanced yet progressive approach, he has built a reputation as a bridge-builder, capable of winning over moderates and independents. Selecting Shapiro would have created a ticket with a broad appeal. Selecting Shapiro, one of the nation’s few high-profile Jewish governors, would also have sent a strong message against antisemitism. Choosing Shapiro would have conveyed that the Democratic Party stands firmly against hate in any form, potentially uniting moderates and progressives wary of the anti-Israel and increasingly antisemitic rhetoric coming from members of the Democratic Party.

But far-left factions within her party vociferously opposed Shapiro, and Harris capitulated. In choosing Walz, a predictably progressive Governor from a predictably Democratic state, Harris may have played it safe but paid a heavy price.

By sidelining Shapiro, the Democratic Party reinforced the perception that it is beholden to its loudest and most extreme voices. While progressivism need not equate to prejudice, the tolerance of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric isolated Jewish voters and, more importantly for elections, drives away moderates. Ignoring this fact has consequences, as the Harris-Walz ticket demonstrated. The price of prejudice is not merely theoretical – it translates to tangible losses in enthusiasm, trust, and support.

The current Democratic strategy is duplicity. The party is tailoring messages to different audiences, effectively speaking out of both sides of its mouth. While aimed at maintaining a broad coalition, this approach is a losing strategy in an age where words can go viral. Every speech, every campaign moment, is amplified and dissected for inconsistencies. The inconsistency in messaging will surface and invariably lead to accusations of insincerity, particularly on social media platforms where political discourse is immediate and unforgiving. Voters are tired of calculated hedging; they want authenticity and conviction.

Catering to extreme elements

The Democratic Party’s inclination to cater to its more extreme elements, particularly those with anti-Israel and increasingly antisemitic leanings, can alienate the broader electorate. Recent elections have shown that ambiguity comes at a steep cost. In critical states, voters can sense when candidates hedge their bets, and they respond with apathy or opposition. The Harris-Walz ticket failed to ignite enthusiasm precisely because it symbolized this reluctance to confront division. The price of prejudice here was a lackluster campaign and a disengaged base.

The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads. Its strategy to cater to its more extreme elements – contradictory messaging – must be replaced with clear, principled stances, even at the risk of alienating some elements of its base. This isn’t about abandoning progressive values but applying them consistently and inclusively. To be truly inclusive and credible, the party must confront hate and prejudice wherever it resides, including the antisemitism within its ranks. The success of far-right populism demonstrates the galvanizing power of clarity even when it is dangerous. Democrats, too, must unify around a coherent and genuine message or risk being seen as opportunistic and insincere. Elevating leaders like Shapiro, who embody Democratic values and bridge-building, is essential to building a broad, resilient coalition.

The Democratic Party must now decide whether to continue paying it through strategic missteps and moral ambiguity about virulently anti-Israel and antisemitic factions of its party or to embrace a strategy of genuine representation and clear policy commitments. The price of continuing to decide wrongly is high – i.e., not just electoral defeat but the loss of the principles that should guide a party committed to progress and justice.

The writer is a distinguished senior fellow at the Holocaust Memorial and Tolerance Center of Nassau County, and a professor at Stony Brook University (SUNY).