Kamala Harris is seen as the least “electable” candidate among potential Democratic replacements for Joe Biden in the 2024 election, according to top writers from the New York Times. The analysis, released on Monday, highlights a perceived lack of a democratic process within the Democratic Party to select a new nominee, potentially nullifying the approximately 14 million votes cast for Biden during the primary. Some critics view the move to replace Biden as akin to a “coup,” especially after Biden announced his decision to step aside following pressure from top Democrats who reportedly considered invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, according to sources cited by the New York Post.
The Times’ analysis characterizes Harris as the “most risky” and least viable option, while suggesting that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro might be the most likely to succeed against 45th President Donald Trump. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is labeled the most “exciting” candidate, whereas Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker are seen as more “meh” options.
Other potential candidates, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, and Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, are ranked somewhere in between.
The evaluation uses two metrics to assess potential candidates: one measuring their chances of defeating Trump, rated from 0 to 10, and another gauging their ability to inspire enthusiasm, also on a 0 to 10 scale. Ross Barkan, a writer for the Times, rated Harris’s electability as a five and her ability to generate excitement as a six. He notes, “Harris has a feeble electoral track record — she struggled badly in 2020 and barely, before then, won her first attorney general race in California — but she’ll benefit from a likely unified Democratic establishment, and she can forcefully press the case against Trump on abortion rights.” Barkan adds that Harris’s historic candidacy as a potential first female president and second nonwhite president might also play a role.
Longtime Democratic adviser Doug Sosnik points out that seven states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina—are crucial in determining the outcome of the presidential election. Harris’s path to victory becomes challenging if Trump wins one or more of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Additionally, Harris faces hurdles in winning over voters in the Blue Wall states and the Sunbelt, where her policies and candidacy may not resonate as strongly, particularly among minority and younger voters. A Quinnipiac poll found that Harris holds a 55 percent unfavorable rating among voters aged 18-34.
A Democratic operative close to Harris commented on her potential electoral strategy, saying, “The Midwest is not where the opportunity is for her. The opportunity with her … is going to be Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania. And however those four states go, the rest of the country will follow.”
When Kamala had her sexual affair with SF Mayor Willie Brown, the local papers called her “A woman of the night.” (A whore). Her claim to fame as DA in SF was Prop47 in 2014 which changed a ‘felony’ to a ‘misdemeanor’ and the result is an avalanche of $950 theft that is driving CA companies out of business. This is the same DA who refused to give thousands of black prisoners their freedom so she could use them at $2.00 per hour to fight forest fires and collect garbage along our freeways…Careful who you select as your new president…
Viability does not matter – what matters is her ability to do what the Soro’s organization tells her to do. Period. Nothing changed.