SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
I actually think Harris would by default expose the deep racism and misogyny inherent to Trump and the MAGA party—they wouldn’t be able to stop it from consuming the campaign, as we are even seeing with J.D. Vance’s wife right now.
And she is far, far smarter than Trump, Vance, and most of the MAGA politicians at the forefront of that campaign, so would also highlight the idiocy and chaos of the “movement” at pretty much every point without even really trying.
I think Whitmer would also be a great pick from a competence standpoint, but I am not sure she will disrupt the Trump campaign in the same way.
I am still to be convinced by Newsom, if I am honest, but I should probably not go in to my reasons right now.
Otherwise, as usual, you and I generally agree on the ramifications of this decision.
All of that said, I think I’ll just go for that nap I mentioned before I go down the rabbit hole with other posters actually sharing very questionable opinions! ;-)
I think it’s a good observation, they won’t be able to stop the rabid idiots on their benches from talking about her being a black woman and saying unsavoury things. I guess it comes down to whether that puts off more people voting GOP than there are people who are unenthusiastic about Harris on the blue side. Which of these groups is bigger… hard to predict how it will unfold.
And Newsom is a lot more of a divisive firebrand type so it might speak to me but perhaps he’s not the cool collected leadership that the US needs at the moment.
I think there are better, more popular potential future presidents out there than Harris - Mark Kelly for example - the question is whether the fight to crown one of them would do more harm than good and I genuinely won’t pretend to know the answer to that. I hope there’s a team of data scientists doing a tonne of scenario analyses for the Dems behind the scenes.