According to renowned pollster Nate Silver, Vice President Kamala Harris may have made a crucial misstep in her bid for the presidency.
In an analysis posted on his website, Silver suggests Harris squandered a significant opportunity to appeal to centrist voters by selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate instead of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.
Daily Mail reported that this assessment comes in response to a recent New York Times/Siena poll showing former President Donald Trump leading Harris nationwide.
Silver argues that choosing Shapiro could have helped Harris counter perceptions of being too liberal, a concern shared by half of the voters surveyed in the NY Times/Siena poll.
The pollster believes the progressive backlash against Shapiro's potential selection could have actually worked in Harris' favor as the campaign enters its final stretch.
Silver's critique focuses on Harris' decision to prioritize a more progressive candidate over one who could have potentially broadened her appeal. While Walz was seen as a boost for Midwestern states, Silver contends that Shapiro might have provided a crucial advantage in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.
The pollster notes that Shapiro has faced criticism from progressives for his stance on certain issues, including the conflict in Gaza.
However, Silver suggests this could have been an asset for Harris, who has been burdened by her own liberal positions from her 2019 presidential campaign.
Silver wrote:
Harris is limited by her own past progressive policy positions. So the strategic aim is probably to fight this liberal/conservative question to a draw, and then win on having considerably more favorable personal attributes than Trump. She is a more talented politician than she showed in 2019, and it's shame that her campaign that year was run by people who seemingly thought Elizabeth Warren was a right-winger.
The pollster's assessment raises questions about Harris' overall campaign strategy and her ability to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Silver argues that by choosing Walz, Harris may have missed an opportunity to signal a more centrist direction for her potential presidency.
Silver acknowledges that Walz was a "decent enough pick" on his own merits. However, he criticizes Harris for reverting to what he calls "2019 mode" when presented with a chance to offer a tangible signal of her presidency's direction.
The pollster's critique comes at a critical time for Harris' campaign, as recent polls show a tightening race between her and Trump. With the election still months away, Harris' ability to attract centrist voters could prove crucial in key battleground states.
Silver's analysis underscores the delicate balance Harris must strike between appealing to her progressive base and reaching out to moderate voters. The vice presidential pick represents just one aspect of this challenge, but it could have lasting implications for her campaign's success.
