In the days leading up to Kamala Harris’s selection of her vice-presidential running mate, a leading theory held that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro would be the pick to blunt attacks that Harris is a radical, San Francisco liberal who would coddle Hamas-friendly activists on the far left. In addition to his credentials as a supporter of Israel, the Shapiro theory also held that his selection would reassure centrist voters that Harris would not pursue a ban on fracking, which is vital to Pennsylvania’s economy. 

In 2019, then-presidential candidate Harris told a CNN town hall, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”

Harris’s campaign has reversed course and said she would not ban fracking. 

Harris went a different direction and selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. 

>>>READ: The GOP Energy Consensus: Dominance is Decarbonization 

VP picks are neither monumental nor trivial. But the reality is, in a close election (like 2016 and 2020), any factor can be decisive. A good decision or unforced error that moves the needle a few thousand – or hundred – votes in either direction can be determinative. More importantly, VP picks provide important clues about how the principal candidates view the race. 

Harris’s decision offers two important insights about the state of play. 

First, both Harris and Trump have underscored the importance of appealing to working-class, rural voters. Trump selected Ohio Senator JD Vance to reinforce his appeal to disaffected voters in the Rust Belt while Democrats are touting Walz’s folksy, happy warrior charm and ability to connect with those same rural, working-class voters. Trump prevailed in 2016 and nearly in 2020 because he won hundreds of counties in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin that Barack Obama carried in 2012. 

Second, the Walz pick shows that Harris is not overly concerned about being tagged as a climate radical who has flip-flopped on fracking. That should concern conservatives who believe energy abundance will do more to grow the economy and help the planet and its people than government-imposed energy poverty and supply cuts. As a member of Congress and Governor, Walz established himself as a conventional progressive and faithful disciple of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act framework.

In 2023, Waltz signed a bill into law that requires Minnesota to acquire all its electricity from wind, solar, and other carbon-free energy sources by 2040. Although Minnesota has two nuclear power plants, it is one of 11 states with a ban on new nuclear builds. Walz called for lifting that ban in 2009 but has failed to end it as governor. Walz also adopted California’s tailpipe emissions standards and implemented a $2,500 rebate for electric vehicles. To his credit, Walz has advanced permitting reform in his state. In June, he signed a permitting bill into law that will reduce approval times for renewable and transmission projects by 9-12 months. 

Democrats are praising Harris’s pick because Walz is lefty enough to make activists swoon but dispositionally moderate enough to not scare centrist voters. 

With the Walz pick, Harris’s campaign displayed not just an awareness of Walz’s strengths but also her opponent’s flaws. Campaigns – and all competitions – are about seeing and exploiting comparative advantages. On climate and energy policy, conservatives have a major comparative advantage. A poll from our sister organization, C3 Action, found that 71 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats support an “all of the above” strategy and that far more Democrats support fracking (49 percent) than oppose fracking (32 percent).  

The poll also found that the conservative approach of deploying technology through permitting and regulatory reform is far more popular with the electorate than the Biden-Harris-Walz top-down IRA subsidy model. Our poll also found that 76 percent of Republicans and Democrats are not willing to pay more than $10 a month to fight climate change.

>>>READ: Energy Policies a Potential Trump-Vance Administration Should Prioritize

On climate and energy, conservatives don’t have a policy problem. They have a politician problem. The politician on point for making their case unfortunately has proven himself incapable of staying on message. After Biden announced he wasn’t running for re-election, Trump made a major unforced error by focusing on Harris’s race rather than his race and campaign. If the news media isn’t going to be inclined to focus on Harris’s radical energy policy and fracking flip-flop, why make it easy for them to avoid this substantive issue by fomenting controversy about her ethnicity? 

Moreover, at a rally this past weekend in Georgia, Trump decided to attack popular incumbent Republican Governor Brian Kemp for being disloyal and relitigated his claims about the 2020 election being stolen. How does attacking Kemp and focusing on the past educate swing-state voters about how Harris’ radical agenda will undermine their future? 

With her VP pick, Harris felt confident doubling down on conventional, unpopular and ineffective progressive climate and energy policy because she believes her opponent is not disciplined enough to define her views as radical and harmful to working Americans. In the campaign’s final weeks, Trump will be Trump. Republicans in competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races will be on their own. Democrats may well be united around Harris-Walz but their agenda is unpopular. Increasing energy prices for poor people through heavy-handed mandates and virtue signaling is not environmental justice, but that’s the Harris-Walz agenda. Any candidate with the patience to counter that agenda will help themselves come November.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.