Thought this was a phenomenal case statement for Josh Shapiro. It's behind the paywall on the Bulwark, so I won't copy and paste the whole thing, but thought that a part of the article would be great to add to this discussion thread.
"I’ve been somewhat surprised by the level of distrust and angst some people on the left feel towards Josh Shapiro. By my lights, Shapiro is the best-available pick for Harris for the following reasons: Pennsylvania (duh), Youth, Raw political talent, Post-Trump, post-Covid vintage, Centrist political identity.
But let me lay out the best arguments
against Shapiro as I see them.
(1) There’s a better player on the board.
A lot of the anti-Shapiro folks seem to be pro-Tim Walz. The case for Walz goes something like this:
Walz is a blue-collar guy. Served in the Army. Was a teacher for many years. Is great on the stump. Super pro-labor. Should play well with the kind of Rust Belt, economy-first, Trump/Vance voters who aren’t in it for the culture wars. Also: He doesn’t antagonize progressives and might supercharge the populist left. You know those Bernie voters who eventually voted for Trump? Maybe Walz brings them home.
All of this is reasonable and if you deem Walz as a straight-up better pick then Shapiro, that’s fine. To me, it’s the equivalent of taking D-Wade over LeBron, but it’s a judgment call. Your mileage may vary.
(2) Concerns about what other people on the left will think about Shapiro.
This is the meta-argument. Just as there were people who liked Kamala Harris, but worried that voters writ large wouldn’t go for her, there are Dems who like Shapiro, but worry that he would shed some gettable votes on Harris’s left flank.
This is ultimately unknowable, but I’d ask you this:
Do you think that progressives in Michigan will sit out the election of the first black woman—who is running against the guy who attempted a coup in an election largely defined by
Dobbs—because they don’t like her veep’s views on Gaza?
I do not. Anyone who would bail on an argument that thin is a single-issue voter who was going to find
some reason to sit out this election.
(3) The Left sees Shapiro as further evidence that the Democratic party is moving toward the center and away from progressivism.
Eight years ago a Democratic-Socialist almost won a presidential nomination. The year 2016 looked like the beginning of a progressive evolution for the Democratic party. Today it looks like a high-water mark. If you prefer a more progressive Democratic party, then you may find this suboptimal. As a colleague told me on our Slack:
Shapiro being self-consciously centrist, putting a couple of Republicans in his cabinet, talking about welcoming the support of Republicans for Shapiro, joking around with Tim Miller—that’s just normal intelligent behavior for a Dem politician in a swing state. For the left, still smarting from Biden’s win in 2020, it signifies a future of the party that disappoints them. The Squad was supposed to be the future. Or at least orthodox progressives were. A Shapiro pick—and Spanberger, Sherrill, et al—signifies a lot to them.
And the left never trusted Harris either.
This feels right. Over on The Bulwark subreddit, a progressive poster
put it this way:
[T]he Ds have been constantly trying to expand their base to crowds like the Bulwark center Rs.
They're dangerously close to trying to become so much of something to everyone, that they will be nothing to nobody. They're too ill defined.
Kamala has that problem.
I want to validate this concern: Since 2016 the Democratic party
has been moving to the center and they
do risk becoming ill defined.
But also: They have no choice. The fact is that the Electoral College currently makes it possible for Republicans to win the presidency with as little as 47 percent of the vote. The Democratic party does not have a good chance to win the presidency with a vote share under 51 percent. That’s reality. And until this reality changes, Democrats are going to have to keep moving to the center and progressives are going to have to keep compromising on policies that are important to them.
Is this fair to progressives? No. Not particularly.
If I were a progressive, I’d probably say:
Republicans can run on full-MAGA and still have a chance to win the White House but Democrats can’t even go as far as Elizabeth Warren without risking the whole shebang? I hate this.
And yet . . . that’s the world we live in.
Pennsylvania is more conservative than the median blue state. Also: Pennsylvania is an absolute must-win for Democrats nationally. Therefore, a successful Democratic presidential ticket is likely to be more centrist than the median Democratic voter. The nature of coalitions in this political moment creates the following state of play:
- Most Republicans are now MAGA, so they can get everything they want and still have a chance to win the presidency.
- The rump class of Wall Street Journal Republicans has to compromise on most of its preferences.
- In the Democratic party, nearly every part of the coalition has to compromise on some of its preferences:
- Progressives have to make due with moderate leadership.
- Moderates have to meet progressives on enough items to keep them on side.
- Formerly-Republican voters in the suburbs have to give up on some of their priorities—and in return the Democrats move toward them in the middle on other issues.
To my mind, the progressive unhappiness about Josh Shapiro is actually a signal confirming that politicians like him are the future of the Democratic party. Because the only successful future for Democrats is one in which every part of the coalition is at least a little bit unhappy most of the time. Yeah, I get it. This is not a great recruiting slogan. But also: It’s the truth."
And understanding why progressives don't like him.
www.thebulwark.com
