I am confused about this fallacy.

Sorry but something is not clicking when i read the page about, "Shoehorning".

It is probably mostly because it sounds like something that has already been covered, trying to, "stuff in" your narrative would sound like:

cherry picking if you are only going to mention the things that make it sound like why this is a part of this.

red herring if the information truly has nothing to do with what you are claiming fits it.

logic chopping if the correlation is so minimal that you choose to, "split hairs" by talking about the smallest link, like for instance if someone says, "Oh so you are eating food x and food x causes a disease called disease x which was highly prevalent in russia during the russian revolution, so therefore you must have something to do with communism!".

no true scotsman If someone is trying to prove that china isn't a country mostly ran by communists because, "A real country ran by real communists would do thing x" this would be called, "shoehorning" the narrative that china isn't a country ran by communists.

Is this like a broad fallacy because so many fallacies can override it, not just 1 or 2, and the examples are extremely long that its hard to spot what the fallacy even is.

I agree with Shawn that this, like many fallacies, has elements of several other fallacies.  

We were discussing recently the relationship between fallacies and biases and that some fallacies are the manifestation of biased thinking.   shoehorning is an extreme manifestation of Confirmation Bias.   You have certain pre-set ways of seeing the world and you interpret evens as confirmation of your political, religious etc narrative.