The New York Times "asked eight Opinion columnists and contributors to assess the field of potential contenders" and Vice President Harris wasn’t their first choice.
The New York Times’ columnists and writers don’t believe Vice President Kamala Harris is the most electable or exciting option to sit atop the Democratic Party’s presidential ticket.
President Biden stepped aside on Sunday and offered his "full support and endorsement" for Harris to take over as the party's presidential nominee. The Times "asked eight Opinion columnists and contributors to assess the field of potential contenders" and Harris wasn’t their first choice. In fact, Gray Lady staffers feel nine different candidates would have a better chance of defeating former President Trump.
The Times asked its staffers "to give scores on two dimensions: For the first, on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 means the person would have no chance of beating Trump; 10 means he or she would crush him. For the second, 0 means the person would inspire no enthusiasm; 10 means people would love him or her."
KAMALA HARRIS' PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN RAISES NEARLY $50 MILLION SINCE BIDEN ENDORSEMENT
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was seen as the most "exciting," receiving an average score of 7.1 compared to 5.8 for Harris. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Sen. Mark Kelly, R-Ariz., and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shaprio were all seen as more exciting than Harris by the Times staffers, too.
Harris finished dead last among the 10 Democrats when it came to "who would beat Trump."
Harris received a dismal 4.6 from the media outlet's opinion section in the "electable" category, compared to a 7 for Shaprio and 6.6 for Kelly. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear received a 6.5, while Whitmer landed a 6.4.
Warnock, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were all also deemed more likely to beat Trump than Harris.
"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," Times columnist Pamela Paul wrote.
Times columnist Ross Douthat called Harris a "mediocre politician from a deep-blue state with low national approval ratings."
"She may find a way to win, but she would be nobody’s top choice were she not the top choice of the president. Relief at Biden’s exit will generate a lot of professed enthusiasm, but it will be fake," Douthat wrote.
Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, one of the Times staffers most excited about Harris’ potential, believes the sitting vice president is the only "serious" option.
"The party, it appears, is already falling in line. She is a stronger, more confident campaigner than you remember, and 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," Bouie wrote.
