New book sheds light on Harris decision to pick Walz as her running mate over Shapiro: 'Went with her gut'
"2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America," released Tuesday by journalists Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of The New York Times and Isaac Arnsdor of The Washington Post, described a vetting process that came down to three finalists: Walz, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly.
All three candidates did a final interview with Harris at her residence, the book explains, adding that when asked what they wanted to drink, Shapiro and Kelly chose water while Walz chose Diet Mountain Dew.
Appeal with rural voters was a top priority for the Harris ticket and the book states that Harris's advisors felt that Walz was the best candidate to do that.
"Pelosi privately pushed for him too, because she'd worked with him in Congress," the book said about the former House speaker. "The pitch for Walz was straightforward: He could appeal to white voters across the Blue Wall states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) and hopefully help Harris with male voters. He'd never lost election."
While most political experts felt Shapiro, governor of a key swing state, was the most logical choice, the book states that the interview with Harris and Shapiro "revealed the two were not a perfect match."
"He came across as overly ambitious, pushing Harris to define what his role would be. He also conceded it would not be natural for him to serve as someone's number two, leaving Harris with a bad impression," the book states.
Conversely, the authors explain that Walz was "deferential" while "showing no interest in himself" and "flatly denied any interest in running for president."
"He went so far as to proactively volunteer reasons why she might not want to pick him," the book says. "In his interview that Friday, he said he had never used a teleprompter before. On Sunday, he told Harris, 'I would understand if you went with someone else because I'm really nervous about the debate, and I don't think I'll do well.' Still, the vetting team did not fully appreciate his tendency to misspeak, his folksiness sometimes tipping into factual imprecision."
Walz would ultimately draw intense scrutiny on the campaign trail for his "folksiness" with a series of blunders, including his characterization of his military service and a claim he was present at the Tiananmen Square massacre.
The book says Harris "struggled" deciding between Shapiro and Walz, believing that she had a better "rapport" with Walz but understood the importance of Pennsylvania. Harris' team, according to the book, told her that polling did not offer a clear answer as to which of the two candidates would help the ticket more.
"There was no empirical evidence that Shapiro would deliver Pennsylvania and with it the White House," the book said.
As Shapiro was being considered, many pundits speculated that his staunch support of Israel could be an issue given the progressive wing of the Democratic Party being vocally pro-Palestinian, resulting in protests, sometimes violent, across the country after Oct. 7.
The book said the Harris campaign was aware of that issue.
"Much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party declared war on Shapiro, largely because of his support of Israel," the book said. "Some Shapiro allies saw the criticism as deeply unfair and borderline antisemitic, since the governor was an observant Jew, but his positions on the Palestinian conflict broadly aligned with the Biden administration and the other vice presidential contenders. The lawyers vetting Shapiro did flag some comments they viewed as more incendiary, particularly as it related to pro- Palestinian protests on college campuses after the October 7 attacks."
"One that caught their attention was his commentary on CNN from April: 'We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities.'"
Ultimately, the book says Harris "went with her gut" and chose Walz believing he was the "better fit" in a decision her staff was "unanimously behind."
Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Walz and Shapiro for comment.
After losing every battleground state and ultimately the presidency to Donald Trump, critics were quick to judge the Walz pick as a misstep by Harris.
"The choice of Walz was only one of many disastrous mistakes but symptomatic of one larger problem – the Democratic Party leadership is too scared to say no to the hard-left progressive wing of the party," Julian Epstein, longtime Democratic operative and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital shortly after the election.
Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of The Daily Signal, told Fox News Digital in November that Harris picking Walz "proved to be a disastrous decision that doomed Kamala Harris from the moment she made it."
"Not only was Walz ill-prepared for the national spotlight and media scrutiny, but Harris passed over several better options," Bluey said. "Given how little Americans knew about Harris or her policy positions, they were right to question her judgment on this big decision."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Copper Prices Plunge as Trump Tariffs Exclude Refined Metal
(Bloomberg) -- US copper prices collapsed by more than 19% in minutes after US President Donald Trump excluded the most widely imported form of copper from his planned import tariffs. The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Tariffs of 50% will apply to imports of semi-finished copper products from Aug. 1, but not to imports copper ore or cathodes, the White House said on Wednesday. The move sent shockwaves through the global copper market, after months in which US copper futures have been trading far above the rest of the world in anticipation of Trump's import tariffs. US copper futures on Comex tumbled by more than 19% after the announcement, the largest intraday fall on record. Until Wednesday afternoon, US copper prices had been trading around 28% above benchmark copper futures on the London Metal Exchange, as traders anticipated the tariff would be applied to all refined metal imports. The move to exclude refined copper — known as cathodes — from the tariffs is likely to further upend global trade flows of the metal, which plays a crucial role in the global economy thanks to its widespread use in electrical wiring. Traders have shipped huge volumes of copper to the US in recent months in an attempt to front run the tariffs — a huge stockpile that now may be re-exported. US copper miner Freeport-McMoRan Inc. dropped more than 8%. Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs order implementing additional 40% tariff on Brazil, White House says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order implementing an additional 40% tariff on Brazil, bringing the total tariff amount to 50%, the White House said on Wednesday, citing Brazil's recent policies that the Trump administration disagrees with. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
16 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Fed holds interest rates steady despite Trump's push for cuts
The Fed's decision Wednesday leaves its key short-term rate at about 4.3%, where it has stood after the central bank made three cuts last year. Chair Jerome Powell has said the Fed would likely have cut rates already if not for Trump's sweeping tariffs. Powell and other Fed officials say they want to see how Trump's duties on imports will impact inflation and the broader economy. So far the duties have lifted costs of some goods, such as appliances, furniture, and toys, and overall inflation has risen a bit, though less than many economists had expected. There were some signs of splits in the Fed's ranks: Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman voted to reduce borrowing costs, while 9 officials, including Powell, favored standing pat. It is the first time in more than three decades that two of the seven Washington-based governors have dissented. One official, Governor Adriana Kugler, was absent and didn't vote. The choice to hold off on a rate cut will almost certainly result in further conflict between the Fed and White House, as Trump has repeatedly demanded that the central bank reduce borrowing costs as part of his effort to assert control over one of the few remaining independent federal agencies. Trump argues that because the U.S. economy is doing well, rates should be lowered. But unlike a blue-chip company that usually pays lower rates than a troubled start-up, the Fed adjusts rates to either slow or speed growth, and would be more likely to keep them high if the economy is strong to prevent an inflationary outbreak. Earlier Wednesday, the government said the economy expanded at a healthy 3% annual rate in the second quarter, though that figure followed a negative reading for the first three months of the year, when the economy shrank 0.5% at an annual rate. Most economists averaged the two figures to get a growth rate of about 1.2% for the first half of this year. Some of the disagreement likely reflects jockeying to replace Powell, whose term ends in May 2026. Waller, in particular, has been mentioned as a potential future Fed chair. Bowman, meanwhile, last dissented in September 2024, when the Fed cut its key rate by a half-point. She said she preferred a quarter-point cut instead, and cited the fact that inflation was still above 2.5% as a reason for caution. Waller also said earlier this month that he favored cutting rates, but for very different reasons than Trump has cited: Waller thinks that growth and hiring are slowing, and that the Fed should reduce borrowing costs to forestall a weaker economy and a rise in unemployment. There are other camps on the Fed's 19-member rate-setting committee (only 12 of the 19 actually vote on rate decisions). In June, seven members signaled that they supported leaving rates unchanged through the end of this year, while two suggested they preferred a single rate cut this year. The other half supported more reductions, with eight officials backing two cuts, and two — widely thought to be Waller and Bowman — supporting three reductions. The dissents could be a preview of what might happen after Powell steps down, if President Donald Trump appoints a replacement who pushes for the much lower interest rates the White House desires. Other Fed officials could push back if a future chair sought to cut rates by more than economic conditions would otherwise support. Overall, the committee's quarterly forecasts in June suggested the Fed would cut twice this year. There are only three more Fed policy meetings — in September, October, and December — and some economists forecast that a cut will occur in September. Wall Street investors also expect cuts in September and December, according to futures pricing. When the Fed cuts its rate, it often — but not always — results in lower borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards. Some economists agree with Waller's concerns about the job market. Excluding government hiring, the economy added just 74,000 jobs in June, with most of those gains occurring in health care. 'We are in a much slower job hiring backdrop than most people appreciate,' said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, said in a note to clients this week if the pair were to dissent, 'it would say more about auditioning for the Fed chair appointment than about economic conditions.' The Fed's two-day meeting comes after a week of extraordinary interactions with the Trump White House, which has accused Powell of mismanaging an extensive, $2.5 billion renovation of two office buildings. Trump suggested two weeks ago that the rising cost for the project could be a 'firing offense' but has since backed off that characterization. Notably, Trump argues that the Fed should cut because the economy is doing very well, which is a different viewpoint than nearly all economists, who say that a healthy, growing economy doesn't need rate cuts. 'If your economy is hot, you're supposed to have higher short-term rates,' Porcelli said.
