The entire media establishment missed something quite significant in Kamala Harris’ selection of Tim Walz as her running mate in their quest for the White House. This hidden force is worth thinking about in these weeks before the election. It may play a role in who emerges as the winner. A subtle dynamic is at work here, and it deserves widespread attention at this point of national decision making.

Simply put, this force is an emphasis on quality relationships, something almost all Americans are concerned about, and wish for improvement. Hunger for better relationships in families, neighborhoods and communities, I believe, is strong and is seeking an outlet. The outcome of the 2024 presidential election may hinge on it.

When Harris introduced Walz as her running mate and, in her actions since, she has highlighted the importance of lightness, positivity and complementary spirit as they have undertaken their work together. When she did her first media interview, Walz joined her. When speaking on the same stage with him, she exemplifies the value of partnership, both professional and personal.

Certainly, to be considered for the role, Walz needed to present acceptable policy credentials, be a forceful speaker, offer a quotient of political savvy and sway, and pass successfully through the appropriate background screens. But a capstone criterion for Harris was the extent to which the two of them would come across as mutually reinforcing and cooperative public personalities. At stake for her clearly was how they would jibe, whether the energy they projected together could exceed what they would present individually.

My hunch: this high priority on quality relationships is more likely to come from a woman than a man. Why not accept this leaning as a bonus on top of electing someone of considerable skill and ability? For a man, the choice of a running mate tends to bend more to purely transactional, bread-and-butter concerns like the ones noted above.

The norm for past presidential-vice-presidential pairings has been purely transactional. This was apparent in Trump’s choice of Vance. Yet it must also be noted that the bond between the two of them has been wide of the mark of a quality relationship. For the most part, it has been herky-jerky and at times conflictual.

Illustrations of the unfolding Trump-Vance relationship are worth noting. Vance came into the political arena voicing vitriol about Trump: “an idiot,” “Hitler.” He eventually changed his tune, but it left a strong odor. The most salient public conflict between the two has been over the purity of their positions on abortion. Where Trump has publicly waffled, Vance has not. Finally, they rarely appear together on the same stage. Perhaps it is because Trump’s ego uneasily tolerates the presence of another personality appearing beside him. Nonetheless, it leaves one with more questions than answers about the quality of their relationship.

It is possible of course that the unrequited longing for fresh air in the dynamics at work between people of all stripes distorts my perspective here. But I believe that what is at play is not just a burst of enthusiasm for the new and vibrant in the make-up of those who seek to lead us. It is the need we all have for healthy, positive relationships of consequence. Seeing threads of it in a prospective leadership duo offers some hope that we all can realize it in our own lives.