Shapiro was the frontrunner for VP. Pennsylvania is a key state. It's fair to ask what made Walz the choice over him.
Sure.
I don't know if he was the "frontrunner" but he was absolutely on the short list and a top contender.
Asking why she made the choice she did is fine.
But that's not what we are discussing.
We are discussing that you can't use "The Right pushing Shapiro" as some kind of "proof" that not picking Shapiro was the right call.
The GOP were always going to raise questions about her pick and imply she should have picked someone else and they are glad with who she did pick.
It may or may not be true, but that tactic ("Oh! This is great! We can't wait to run against this guy! We would have been worried if she had picked that other one!" ) is pretty standard.
It just doesn't tell us much of anything.
We all know that Democrats don't want to throw any more fuel to the fire that is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict going into the convention. Additionally, there seems to be some controversy following Shapiro over a multiple stabbed woman that was ruled a suicide. Something you don't want be explaining in this 90 day window.
I am sure that all of that was part of the discussion.
One of the major issues with a VP pick is to minimize downside risk and I am sure the fact he seemed to have the most organized opposition in the coalition was a factor.
By the same token, all of us can say "why didn't Trump just select Rubio or Scott?" They would be better selections against Harris-Walz.
Exactly.
It just doesn't say very much about the real choice to have people going "Oh! We're so glad they didn't pick that other guy!" because people always say that.
You and I have been saying that while VP selections are great political entertainment they really are oversold as to their ability to win Presidential elections.
I think we are in firm agreement on that.
It's mostly about avoiding any major downside and hope for some marginal upside.