Over the past weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris embarked on a mission to interview potential vice-presidential nominees, a competitive and divisive event that left the Democratic party further fragmented. This process has exposed and amplified the split within the party, primarily held behind closed doors. Each faction is considering the political limitations of their respective candidates, making the selection process primarily a vehicle for intra-party political rivalry.
Three candidates – Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Vice President Kamala Harris – were the main contenders. The final decision, according to the Harris campaign, was due by Tuesday. The whole process risks widening cleavages within the party and possibly alienating some supporters – hardly a positive step for a Vice President desperately in search of public accolade.
Left-leaning factions within the party took aim at Kelly, accusing him of holding too conservative viewpoints on pressing matters. Union leader Shawn Fain, president of the United Automobile Workers union, voiced concerns, specifically dismissing Kelly’s commitment to pro-labor legislation. In the political chess game of the Democrats, disagreement is a common occurrence, but its extent in this vice-presidential hopefuls’ nomination process speaks volumes about the disarray in the party.
Noteworthy Democratic benefactors expressed approval for any of the candidates that made it into Harris’s shortlist. However, significant clashes present within these supposedly unified donors highlight a troubled party: factions within the Democratic givers exist, with each group lobbying hard for their favored candidate.
An email group exclusive for the Democracy Alliance exhibited strong sentiments against a contender, Mr. Shapiro, mainly from left-wing contributors. Further, another progressive activist group, venting through an email group called Gamechanger Salon, lined up against Shapiro, pressuring its membership to emphasize Shapiro’s stance towards Israel’s campaign in Gaza.
The email threads quickly escalated into a heated debate that took an unfortunate turn towards possibly antisemitic remarks. An organizer sought to cool the tensions and rebranded the email thread, stressing that Shapiro should not be the VP candidate. Appeals were also made by some members to back Walz, who had been viewed favourably by the party’s most liberal donors.
In an email shared with The New York Times, Billy Wimsatt, part of a liberal donor group, warned that Shapiro could negatively affect voter turnout among key progressive groups concerned about the conflict in Gaza. Walz, on the other hand, was glorified as the “perfect Harris VP unicorn for this moment”, showcasing the Biden administration’s desperate attempts to cater to far-left ideologies.
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, well-known for his discord with Shapiro, voiced his discontent about Shapiro’s potential elevation to a national ticket. It is worth noting that one of Fetterman’s advisors reportedly called up the Harris campaign to officially express their opposition to Shapiro. Politico first reported this development, indicating the increasing negative undercurrents within the Democratic party.
Shapiro was defended by some moderates within the party and some media personalities, most notably Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” host. Scarborough deemed the attacks on Shapiro as harmful and extremist, framing them as manifestations of antisemitism and jealousy from colleagues potentially locked out from the ‘presidential sweepstakes’.
Over time, leftist donors have put weight behind Tim Walz in an attempt to boost his chances. An extensive memo advocating for Walz, titled ‘The Case for Tim Walz for Vice President’, was circulated, seeking to swing Harris’s decision. Simultaneously, a similar campaign was made for Pete Buttigieg last week, disproportionately wooing donor interests.
In a social media post that was shortly after deleted, Kelly vaguely hinted that he might retreat to focus more on his home state of Arizona. Kelly’s nebulous message and subsequent retraction reflect the indecisive nature of political alignments within the current administration.
Seeing an opportunity in the partisan divide, centrist candidate Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky emerged as a potential compromise candidate. Enjoying support from both liberal and centrist contributors, Beshear’s candidacy could appease the warring factions. Beshear’s potential nomination serves to highlight the inability of the Democratic party to maintain its unity amid varying political stances.
While not known to have taken part in Harris’s final interviews, Beshear was seen with his dog by the governor’s residency. When asked about his day’s plans, he responded nonchalantly, reinforcing the notion of politicians brushing off serious matters.
The tumultuous day concluded with Beshear and Walz appearing at competing fundraisers for Harris. While Walz’s event was sold out, tickets were still available for Beshear’s gathering held in Chicago. Afresh the lack of coordination and unity within the Democratic party.
There were expectations that Harris’s decision, whoever the Vice Presidential choice was, would have been made public by Monday. But with internal warfare and divisive factions, reaching a decision would likely be a turbulent journey for the vice president.
The entire nomination process, from behind-the-scenes maneuvers to public criticisms, underscores the disjointedness of the Democratic party. As reflected in this Vice Presidential race, divisions run deep, further fragmenting the party and potentially affecting future policies and elections.