On the matter of Kamala Harris choosing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as running mate, a few observations:

— The primary qualification for vice presidential selection is “Will this person substantially enhance the prospects of the presidential candidate winning the election?” The answer to which, in this instance is: unlikely.

It is difficult to see what Walz brings to the ticket in terms of electability. In selecting him, Harris at least appears to have bowed to the demands of the hard left of the Democratic Party. Granted, Walz has overnight become every Democrats favorite person (except for those residing in Pennsylvania), but that is likely a simple matter of political necessity, like the instant coalescing around Harris in the wake of President Joe Biden’s decision to call it a day. There is simply no time left to be publicly bickering about the VP selection. She could probably have picked Bob Menendez and instantly his sins would have been forgotten.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Which does not erase the inherent political difficulties she has vouchsafed herself by selecting the progressive’s favorite. Harris had another opportunity to steer toward the center, and missed this one as well. It is notable on the same day Harris chose to select the leftward-most candidate for the job, Cori Bush lost her primary to a (relatively) more moderate alternative. In primaries around the country voters are rejecting the more extreme candidates, in both parties. That was clearly the case in Colorado in June. It is remarkable then, the presidential nominees of both parties have selected ideological doppelgangers of themselves. Most Americans have little idea of who Tim Walz is, but they soon will, and his record as governor will be rich fodder for Republicans in the next few months.

The other traditional criteria for VP selection is to help deliver a key constituency or region; but Minnesota was never up for grabs anyway; Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is. Granted, this is becoming less and less a valid consideration, especially as the electorate becomes more polarized, but if Harris loses the election by however many electoral votes Pennsylvania has, she will probably have some bitter regrets.

Which brings us to the question of why not Josh Shapiro? The popular Pennsylvania governor appeared to be the more politically logical pick, and was the option which Republicans, possibly a little too publicly, feared the most. He is an excellent orator, closer to the center than either Harris or Walz, and would have been a good counter-balance to Harris’s more progressive instincts, especially on foreign policy. All this seems to have been too much for the anti-Israel bloc and the teachers’ unions to stomach.

It may have come down to simply chemistry; Harris may just not have liked Shapiro all that much, but such maudlin considerations have conventionally not been permitted to interfere with the political exigencies. Early reports say she simply clicked with Walz, and even though the interview was for vice presidential candidate and not best friend, there is something to be said for philosophical alignment. The last time a VP candidate took issue with the political positions of the top the ticket was Andrew Jackson/John Calhoun. The ideological divide concerning Israel just may have been to great to bridge between her and Shapiro.

There is the so-far unexamined question of Walz’s future political ambitions. Does he see this as a step up to the ultimate prize? It’s hard to say, but few VP candidates aside from Dick Cheney failed to see a president when they looked in the mirror every morning. So what are his prospects? Well, if Harris wins in November she will be the nominee in 2028, presuming the Republic survives for four more years. The crystal ball does not exist to predict who might be in the running in 2032. So what if Trump beats Harris? If that happens, Walz will be a sprightly 64 years of age in 2028, and presumably well-positioned for the nomination. That may have been part of the calculation, gaming out a future race against J.D. Vance, pitting a leftist midwestern populist against a rightist Midwest populist.

In any case, the question on many Americans minds earlier this year still stands: Is this the best we can do? Sadly, the answer is still yes.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.