The ambitious Josh Shapiro asked about his role as vice president. The battle-tested Mark Kelly was already seen as a third option. And the go-lucky Mr. Walz promised to do anything for the team.
When Vice President Kamala Harris gathered some of her closest advisers in the dining room of the Naval Observatory on Saturday, they had more choices than time.
Her team had just wrapped up the fastest, most intensive vetting of potential running mates in modern history, a blitz of paperwork and virtual interviews that had concluded only on Friday. The advisers were there to present their findings on a list that still technically ran six deep to Ms. Harris, who had less than 72 hours to sift through it to make her final decision.
One by one, the circle of her most trusted confidants ran through the pros and cons of each possible No. 2. The sessions went long enough to be broken up with sandwiches and salads as the team eventually focused on the three men she would meet the next day for what would prove to be pivotal in-person interviews: Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.
Polls had been conducted. Focus groups had been commissioned. Records reviewed. And the upshot, Ms. Harris was told, was this: She could win the White House with any of the three finalists by her side.
It was the rarest of political advice for a political leader at the crossroads of such a consequential decision. And for Ms. Harris, a vice president who had spent much of her tenure trying to quietly establish herself without running afoul of President Biden, the advice was freeing rather than constricting.
She could pick whomever she wanted.
On Tuesday, she did just that, revealing Mr. Walz as her running mate after the two struck up an easy rapport in a Sunday sit-down at her residence, forming a fresh partnership that will define the Democratic Party in 2024 and potentially beyond. The story of how Ms. Harris came to pick Mr. Walz was told through conversations with about a dozen people involved in the selection process, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe deliberations and discussions that were intended to remain private.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
