Progressives certainly lobbied hard against Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and are now celebrating a victory of bigotry over principle.

What role did Shapiro’s Jewishness have in his not being selected as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate? We will never know the answer with certainty, because we do not have access to the workings of Harris’s mind. On paper, though, it seems clear to many that Shapiro was the obvious choice to help Harris’s electoral prospects.

He is, after all, the popular governor of the most important state on the electoral map for Democrats. He is more to the center than Harris, thus expanding her base and potentially attracting more independents and moderates. Many knowledgeable observers think that if Shapiro’s name had been, say, Jim Shepard instead of Josh Shapiro, he would have been selected.

Yet, woke progressives mounted a campaign against him, focusing on his Zionism, his support for Israel, and his opposition to some of the post-Oct. 7 protests. In these respects, he was no different than the other potential candidates, including Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota. Indeed, in an effort to placate the anti-Israel progressives, Shapiro went out of his way to exaggerate his criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu, calling him “one of the worst leaders of all time.”

No reasonable critic of Netanyahu would categorize him with past leaders such as Stalin, Castro, and Arafat. Shapiro also seemed to apologize for his teenage activities on behalf of Israel, claiming that he was young. None of these attempts to pander to the hard left have worked.

Some defenders of Harris’ selection argue that it was about the Chicago convention, at which anti-Israel protests are expected. They believe that this problem would have been exacerbated by the selection of the Jewish vice-presidential candidate and that the selection of Walz will help mute these protests.

Whatever the precise reason or reasons, the rejection of Shapiro was a victory for the anti-Israel and often anti-Jewish elements of the progressive left of the Democratic Party. It was a defeat for moderates who hoped to broaden Harris’ base of support.

In that respect it was the mirror image of what many people believe is former President Donald Trump’s mistake in selecting Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio to be his running mate — instead of selecting someone closer to the center who might attract moderates who voted for former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — Trump doubled down on his attempt to appeal to right-wing elements within the Republican Party. The likelihood that this choice may hurt him in the general election did not seem to influence Trump.

Both presidential candidates have selected running mates that move them away from the center and closer to the more extreme elements of their parties. The big losers are the vast majority of Americans who are moderate and who support centrist policies.

The difference is the feeling among Democratic moderates that Shapiro’s religion may have played a role in his rejection. For some that would be a determining factor: They could not vote for a presidential candidate who gave in to the bigotry of woke progressives who simply did not want to see a Jewish Zionist on the ticket. For those who suspect — but can’t be certain — that Shapiro’s religious affiliation may have played a disqualifying role in his rejection, the issue is more cloudy but still a concern.

There can be, in any event, absolutely no doubt that there are elements within the progressive left of the Democratic Party that did not want Shapiro to be the nominee precisely because he is perceived to be a Jewish Zionist. Some of these progressives are simply Jew haters. Others are Israel haters. They lobbied hard against Shapiro and are now celebrating.

There can also be no doubt that these voices had some influence in the decision to reject Shapiro. Precisely how much and what kind of influence they had is subject to debate. What is also subject to debate is how unbigoted Democrats should evaluate the complexities that went into the decision to reject Shapiro.

It was a decision to reject Shapiro. Walz was selected, at least in part, because he is not Shapiro. He may be a good candidate, and he appears to be a decent man. Yet, he would not have stood a chance against a non-Jewish, equally popular governor of Pennsylvania. That is the sad reality that decent voters now have to face.

Alan Dershowitz’s latest book is “War Against the Jews: How to End Hamas Barbarism.” Stein is a former president of the New York City Council.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

(Featured image credit: Screen Capture/CSPAN)