Vice President Kamala Harris is the favored candidate to win the Democratic presidential nomination after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race. While anything could happen between now and the Democratic National Convention in August, the vice president appears to have enough support to become the party’s standard bearer in the upcoming election.
However, opinion columnists at the New York Times do not seem as enthused about shilling for Harris as they would with other candidates. In a recent column, the news outlet had eight of its columnists and contributors chime in on each potential contender for the nomination using two metrics: How “electable” and “exciting” the candidate is.
The columnists rated Harris’ electability at 4.6 out of 10 and her ability to excite voters at 5.8. Every other candidate was rated higher than Harris in terms of electability.
Ross Barkan noted that Harris “has a feeble electoral record,” “struggled badly in 2020,” and “barely” won her first attorney general race in California. However, he pointed out that Harris would “benefit from a likely unified Democratic establishment” and could “forcefully press the case against Trump on abortion rights.”
Josh Barro said the vice president “has no demonstrated appeal to swing voters” and would not be able to “run away from the Biden-Harris record on inflation and immigration. “Her best arguments are that she’s not old and she’s not Trump. And those might be enough to win,” he wrote.
Jamelle Bouie had the most glowing assessment of Harris’ possible candidacy, calling her “the only contender for the nomination” and “a stronger, more confident campaigner than you remember.”
“If Democrats are united behind her coming out of the convention – and the enthusiasm for her is already palpable – then she will be formidable going into the fall.”
Jane Coaston wrote only one lackluster sentence in favor of Harris. “She’s got the energy of ‘not very elderly,’ and she’d be competing in front of a nation that has long called for a ‘not very elderly’ presidential option,” she wrote.
Ross Douthat gave the lowest ratings for Harris, referring to her as “A mediocre politician from a deep-blue state with low national approval ratings.” “Relief at Biden’s exit will generate a lot of professed enthusiasm, but it will be fake,” he wrote.
Michelle Goldberg argued that the vice president “can bring a shellshocked party together quickly.”
A delusional Patrick Healy said former President Donald Trump “sees Harris as a threat if she can be bold” and indicated that if Harris goes on the offensive on abortion, healthcare, and jobs, “he will have to spend time and money rebutting her and antagonizing abortion opponents and other MAGAites.”
Pamela Paul gave the most scathing review.
Even Biden fans see Harris as one of the weakest elements of his administration. A country desperate for change would bristle at the feeling that once again, real democratic choice is being sidelined in favor of the most deserving insider. And Harris is a fundamentally weak candidate. She fizzled out early in her first presidential run and floundered in the vice presidency.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer received better appraisals. Barkan highlighted her supposed success as governor, while Barro brought up her large-margin victories in a swing state.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was already looked at favorably, with Barkan discussing his flashy debate style. However, Barro referenced Newsom’s personal scandals and suggested that nominating him could be a mistake.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker was described as being largely unknown outside of the Midwest. However, the writers highlighted his wealth, which could prove instrumental in funding a potential campaign.
The article looks at several other candidates, including Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Each of these potential candidates was rated more electable than Harris.
These results are not too surprising. Even Democrats know that Harris is a deeply flawed candidate, given her performance during the 2020 primaries and her substandard stint as vice president. Douthat is right – if Harris receives the nomination, all of the supposed enthusiasm she receives will be manufactured and fake.
If this column is any indication, the New York Times will certainly shill for her if she is nominated, but they won’t be as gung-ho about it as they would with other candidates. This could also be the case with other left-leaning media outlets. Without the full-throated support of the once-vaunted Fourth Estate, it will be that much harder for Harris to win the level of support she needs to win in November.
