David Marcus suggests that Kamala Harris' decision not to choose Josh Shapiro as her running mate was based on antisemitism, a claim that is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. His argument posits that Shapiro's Jewish identity played a central role in him not being selected as the vice-presidential nominee, drawing on various reactions and statements to suggest a broader context of antisemitism. However, it relies heavily on assumption and correlation without direct proof, making the conclusion about the role of Shapiro's faith and ethnic background in the decision-making process highly conjectural.

1. weak man • While some Democrats may have seen Shapiro as less desirable because of his being Jewish, there are other reasons that left-wing Democrats objected to Shapiro for VP, as reported in USA Today:

They point to his support for the dismissal of University of Pennsylvania president Elizabeth Magill amid campus protests earlier this year; his comments suggesting that people wouldn’t tolerate “people dressed up in KKK outfits” and therefore shouldn’t tolerate campus antisemitism; his support as Pennsylvania attorney general for using an anti-BDS law to end state contracts with Ben & Jerry's for refusing to sell ice cream to Israeli settlements in the West Bank; and an update to the code of conduct for state employees earlier this year that barred “scandalous or disgraceful” behavior, which raised concerns among First Amendment advocates and pro-Palestinian protesters.

This shows there were more nuanced policy disagreements and substantive critiques of Shapiro's specific actions and rhetoric from progressive Democrats, rather than just blanket bigotry against his faith.

So by reducing the objections to merely being about Shapiro's Jewish identity, Marcus constructs a weaker, more easily dismissible version of the critics' arguments to knock down, rather than grappling with the full scope of their actual stated concerns over Shapiro's positions.

2. loaded language • Although the author does not use a lot of loaded language directly, he quotes a third party doing so, and uses the quotation to support his position. This happens when he quotes Representative Ritchie Torres saying:

"These hypocrites are full of s--- and their antisemitic dog whistling should be given no veto power over the selection of a presidential running mate."

The use of emotionally charged words like "hypocrites" and "full of s---" is designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction rather than present a reasoned argument. The author could have quoted the latter part of the statement about not being given "veto power," without taking up the loaded language.