When I was a little girl, I witnessed the rise of the Beatles, and I've never seen a cultural phenomenon as powerful since. I keep wishing that we'd see the return of that kind of energy that would just bowl over the fascists with its power, charisma and charm. And they had good messaging too.
And whoever becomes the new leader of the Democrats, they have to denounce the genocide in Gaza and promote peace and environmental and social justice. I think this can be done in a way that Republicans can hear if it's done in a way that appeals to their humanity and concern for kids and grandkids.
Anyways, I'm not American, but just felt like sharing those thoughts.
The first I heard of the news that Biden was stepping away from the nomination, I was watching Sam Seder make the breaking announcement. He said that just about any and all possible considerations for the top of the ticket all are to the left of Biden with regards to Israel (except for Shapiro, he said). So there’s that, at least.
I don’t know how that shakes out in terms of campaigning. I know that Trump, in his debate, tried to position himself as being even more hawkish than Biden on the Gaza conflict, so he’ll probably continue to do that. I think that’s partly because he senses that a significant portion of the liberal left in this country are still incensed over our government’s policies — but the issue would not be an albatross around the new candidate’s neck (except, perhaps, for Harris, who might be seen as continuing Biden’s policies unless she explicitly says otherwise).
As for the next best thing since the Beatles, I don’t know if we’ll ever get that in the music industry. And if that’s the case, we may never see anything like that in politics. Obama was the nearest thing I saw to an organic grassroots groundswell, with Bernie’s runs a close second.
As I write, Biden has just announced that he’s dropping out, so the issue of whether Harris will be the new candidate takes on new salience. If Harris becomes the new nominee, I don’t think Republicans will use the Jezebel or Sapphire stereotypes, except in unofficial racist memes. They’ll go hard on the “Kamala is a diversity hire” thing, since the specter of professional Black people having authority over whites seems to be the new scare right now. Well, not really new, since it’s been a fear ever since Reconstruction. But it feels like every time something has gone wrong as of late that conservatives blame “DEI” and “diversity hires” for causing said problems. I believe I read that Biden is endorsing Harris as his replacement, but I guess we’ll have to see what happens next.
Yes, Biden stuck his foot in the process just as he was stepping away. He wants to maintain personal control over some of this -- which I kind of understand, given that Harris has been his understudy, but his thumbing the scale is just the worst thing he could have done at this point in the process.
The sneering use of "DEI" is definitely the new slur among a certain, shall we say, khaki-pants crowd. That goes directly to my point of Harris bringing out the racists. They will escalate their attacks and begin to truly call her out of her name. It won't take long.
The Jezebel stereotype will show up when it comes to references to her relationship with Willie Brown, as I mentioned in the footnotes. I already saw a comment to that effect just last night. Sapphire will relate back to her time as a DA. It's going to get ugly.
We'll see how things shake out over the next 2-3 days. There will be pushback to Biden's self-appointed anointing.
Heh. I do hope that those in DNC leadership are not blinded by our own ideology. I do fear that may be what is in the works, that people will insist that it's Harris's "turn." We're in an emergency and have an opportunity to tailor the ticket to fit that emergency.
A thoughtful, beautifully written analysis. Thank you for this. You make an excellent case. I read this as your proposing that the fascists are amenable to being seduced away from Trump. Is that in fact what you're saying? I don't think--at the moment--that is possible, only because Trumpism is not just fascism but a cult. I'm not sure we have enough time for a new cult leader to sway the devoted. Nevertheless, I agree with your conclusions, and allies of Black women must do everything to stand with and confront the increasing oratorical--and I fear, physical--horrors that will descend.
I think, at this stage of MAGA, there are probably at least two segments of the movement: early stagers and late stagers. Those of the early stage are probably baked in and will not be able to be dislodged unless the entire movement collapses spectacularly. A catastrophic loss of faith could cause this.
I’m pitching my strategy here in this article toward what can be done to draw some of the late stagers, some of whom only recently may have gotten involved in the movement. There are different paths into MAGA — for example, because it has a strong Christian nationalist base, a substantial segment will have arrived via church strongholds. This being an election year, though, I suspect a lot of the greener recruits are joining because it’s time to pick one of the two major “teams”.
I’m glad you brought up the cult aspect, because that figures into why I think some people may have gravitated to the movement only recently. This relates back definitely to Trump’s brush with death, which he himself is making out to be a sign from the heavens. That kind of messianic fervor can overwhelm a person; and, if others in that person’s social circle are all on board the MAGA train, they can jump on because it feels like the natural course of things.
I think those people can still be reached. I don’t have data to that effect. I can only draw upon sociological theory and what I’ve learned by studying cultic groups as well as political movements. As far as one main concern of this essay, racism, I think because that’s adopted through signs that are communicated among members of an in-group, if we can reach these new recruits before they become entirely enmeshed we might be able to peel them off, or at least get them to equivocate. (Sexism is much more ingrained and would be harder to neutralize, but theoretically it’s still possible, especially if the person is pried away from the movement via another lever.)
At any rate, I again thank you for reading. I do think we’re in for a time of concentrated racist and misogynistic dreck just absolutely raining down on us, so I think (given that Harris is now the odds-on favorite for nomination) we should hunker down and prepare for the onslaught.
Another brilliant post. It’s sad that you’re right—It’s obvious to me (and to millions of others), that Obama’s election brought the racists out of the woodwork. But whom would you suggest? In my more hopeful moments, I think a Harris/Sanders ticket could win easily. But your argument shows me they probably couldn’t. Is there anyone who could?
It also largely explains the surge in support for Robert Kennedy Jr., doesn’t it? I believe he attracts at least as many Trump voters as Biden voters. I prefer Stein, De la Cruz, and Kishore for their humanism, passion, and intelligence, but it seems none of them have a true chance to win. Kennedy, for all his many flaws, does. I can’t support him because he’s so bad on Palestine, but millions will ignore that.
I think that TPTB (the Powers that Be) will not permit Sanders onto any Democratic ticket. In fact, the first weekend following Biden's debate debacle, there were a flurry of articles at the New York Times, one of which was written by Jonathan Alter. He once held a cache of influence in the party. He said in his article that in whatever mini-primary the Democrats might quickly construct, the people invited to participate should not be anyone from the Left. And it should specifically not include Sanders or Warren, because of their age. It was really infuriating to read that, if for no other reason than it promotes the ageism that saturated the entire discussion about Biden. (As I've said all along, it's not Biden's age that I've objected to, and I think that ageism is a pervasive form of discrimination in our culture that is hard to recognize, much less tackle.) But he disqualified "the left" out of hand. That was pretty eye-opening.
Well, the potential candidates that would fit the parameters I've laid out here have all rushed to endorse Harris, so the question is somewhat moot. Harris says that she'll still "compete" for the nomination, but if the strongest competitors to the slot are intentionally sitting it out, not wanting to go against someone they would later need to work with in order to get government business done, then I'm not sure what mettle she's proving. Newsom was my ideal candidate, and I named some others that I think would not fall into the "favorite fascist target" camp. Mark Kelly, former astronaut and current senator from Arizona, is getting favorable comments, though I was less than impressed with his defense of Biden's Gaza policy. Gov. Shapiro of PA has some good qualities, but I know that Trump and some of his surrogates will make implicit (or possibly even explicit) note of Shapiro's Jewish background.
Some people have floated Gov. Beshear as a possible candidate / running mate. I think he's a solid politician but he wouldn't be a good counter to the fascist draw. In terms of imagery, Beshear reminds me of a dad. Right? Dependable, respectable -- but not exciting. I was just reading about how college-aged men were turning toward Trump because they see him as a strong man. I think Beshear doesn't provide enough of a contrast to such an image.
All that to say, it's hard to say how the Democrats seriously consider an alternative to Harris when all of the best contenders have fallen in line. We're at an impasse.
So, I actually haven't sat down and specifically given thought to RFK, Jr.'s candidacy, because I always saw him as a sideshow. However, I recently saw that he complicates about 20% of the race, which is significant. I'm surprised that more support hasn't fallen away from him in recent weeks, with the news of his unfortunate brainworm infestation (for real!) and his apparent (or at least possible) collusion with Trump as revealed by a released recording that RFK, Jr.'s son uploaded. I still see him mostly as a spoiler, as he's been propped up by Republican-sourced funding for much of his campaign. He was there to siphon votes from Biden and has ended up eating into Trump's support as well.
The American system is not set up for third parties to succeed. That's a structural problem that I don't see getting attention any time soon, because those in power like things just the way they are. I think there is more value in attempting to organize and reform the Democratic Party from within (though that too is a prospect with little likelihood of whopping success). I know a lot of Substackers are thinking of voting for Stein; I hadn't heard of De la Cruz's or Kishore's candidacies before now. I do think the structure of American politics has to be reworked for those people to even have a modicum of electoral success.
This makes sense. I thought pretty much opposite. I figure not going with Harris if Biden steps down would be surrendering to the racists who don’t want her because she is a black woman.
But this take makes sense. Sadly. And just as an exercise, I googled, “most handsome politicians”. I think we are screwed. Ron Kind popped up on the list. I know nothing about him but he is a Democrat. The list I got from Google did have some good looking men but most of them are not Americans.
Is it unbelievable that we are picking candidate based on their physical attributes and aesthetics?
This entire chapter of our existence is equally sickening and unbelievable.
I think our smart move, because it is so late, is to stick with Biden. If there was some blonde-haired, blue-eyed, 6’4, 220 lb, perfect jaw lined guy who could understand the issues and lead, I guess it would be smart to put them at the top of the ticket. But who would that be?
Well, I didn't put it in so many words, but what we need is a candidate who is the "whole package" -- and we have several -- who can put forth image as well as substance.
But, this time around, image should be an explicit consideration.
If you had asked me ten, twelve years ago whether we should run a Black female candidate, not only would I have said 'yes' but I would have been indignant about it, probably. Of course, sixty years after the advent of the modern feminist movement and after the civil rights movement, we have advanced enough that we can seriously consider a Black female contender.
I also grant that, were Harris to enter into this year's contest, she would have institutional support, and that would go a long way. Many people, especially in the Democratic party, are open to her ascending to the top office. She wouldn't encounter headwinds from every direction.
Yet, because this race will be won at the margins, it's the attitudes of those people we should consider if we want to peel off those voters. I'm not saying we capitulate to those folks, but we should be mindful of the forces that are helping to further fascism in the first place. These are cultural forces that act upon everyone, some more than others.
The activation of latent stereotypes is one of those forces, and it's a project in which the far-right has been engaged for years. It was evident even in the battle for Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court. One could see it also in the discussion about SCOTUS's overturning of race-based considerations in the college application process. Throughout that, it was implied that Black women in particular were "stealing" spots. That wasn't too long ago, and that kind of activated resentment promises to come back full force if Harris is conferred the nomination.
I do have my preference as to whom should be at the top of the ticket. Though, I must note that I'm more comfortable with this pick than apparently many in the party; I'm quite to the left, so a Gavin Newsom candidacy seems not only viable but one that could be quite successful. There's also Gov. Shapiro, though he's a little scripted and doesn't fit the mold as I've laid out here. Gov. Whitmer is extraordinarily talented, though she would face the same anti-woman headwinds as Hillary Clinton did in 2016 (I think she does retail politics better than Clinton did, however). Gov. Moore of Maryland is of the "quarterback" type, and his background is buttressed by his military service -- he really is the whole package, though some will be instantly turned off by his skin color (again, this takes nothing away from his qualifications).
Now, perhaps I've put forth too restrictive of parameters here. (Gov. Pritzker, for example, wouldn't check off the boxes of criteria I've put forth, but he may be better suited toward going head-to-head with Trump.) All I mean to do here is set the groundwork for a reconsideration and a better understanding of the gale forces that will be in play.
But that's why I'm advocating for an open convention, as many of these considerations would "come out in the wash," as the saying goes.
Coming back to Harris, I will say that I'm actually neutral toward her as a politician, though as a fellow Black woman I am proud of her achievements. She's a role model, and I admire her. But the same traits that she has relied upon and honed in order to get where she is -- namely, her ambition and her tenacious focus -- will be weaponized against her. And that's even before you get to the stereotypes that have lurked in American culture for decades going on centuries. She even has, remarkably, notable unfavorability ratings in the Democratic electorate itself, which is extraordinarily unfortunate and demonstrates how much her presidential run would be starting off at a handicap.
I just think people are content to think that this cycle is comparable to those in the recent past, and I think that is unrealistic. The fascism element must be taken into account, and I see very, very few political analysts and commentators gaming out how that's going to be a factor.
Well, obviously, I don't think so. I didn't come to this position lightly, and I've supported my argument. (In fact, there's a lot I left on the table, so that the essay was not overly long.)
This country has regressed in many, many ways. One of those ways is that of a resurgence of racism and sexism. If the Democrats put forth Harris as their nominee, I'm not guaranteeing that she will lose, but she almost certainly is not the most optimal candidate if the goal is to defeat Donald Trump and prevent the advent of fascism.
What I'm hoping is that a bevy of polling firms head into the field and actually do shoe-leather polling of likely voters regarding their support of a possible Harris candidacy -- with special attention paid not to Democratic voters (though their opinion is obviously quite important) but to swing voters and independents. As I said in the essay, this election will be decided on the margins, and if those voters are turned off by her candidacy, then we're spinning wheels and congratulating ourselves in a completely empty way.
Let me know what your feelings are at this time. As your response here was terse and contrary, I assume you have a lot more that you aren't saying!
So who would that be exactly?
When I was a little girl, I witnessed the rise of the Beatles, and I've never seen a cultural phenomenon as powerful since. I keep wishing that we'd see the return of that kind of energy that would just bowl over the fascists with its power, charisma and charm. And they had good messaging too.
And whoever becomes the new leader of the Democrats, they have to denounce the genocide in Gaza and promote peace and environmental and social justice. I think this can be done in a way that Republicans can hear if it's done in a way that appeals to their humanity and concern for kids and grandkids.
Anyways, I'm not American, but just felt like sharing those thoughts.
Thanks for posting.
We need a JFK.
Thanks for weighing in, Diana.
The first I heard of the news that Biden was stepping away from the nomination, I was watching Sam Seder make the breaking announcement. He said that just about any and all possible considerations for the top of the ticket all are to the left of Biden with regards to Israel (except for Shapiro, he said). So there’s that, at least.
I don’t know how that shakes out in terms of campaigning. I know that Trump, in his debate, tried to position himself as being even more hawkish than Biden on the Gaza conflict, so he’ll probably continue to do that. I think that’s partly because he senses that a significant portion of the liberal left in this country are still incensed over our government’s policies — but the issue would not be an albatross around the new candidate’s neck (except, perhaps, for Harris, who might be seen as continuing Biden’s policies unless she explicitly says otherwise).
As for the next best thing since the Beatles, I don’t know if we’ll ever get that in the music industry. And if that’s the case, we may never see anything like that in politics. Obama was the nearest thing I saw to an organic grassroots groundswell, with Bernie’s runs a close second.
I think the best would actually be Jamie Raskin. He's very smart, articulate and strong. And he has a compassionate view of the Palestinians.
Gavin Newsom, but he and his govenorship of California have been a target of the fascists for a long time.
As I write, Biden has just announced that he’s dropping out, so the issue of whether Harris will be the new candidate takes on new salience. If Harris becomes the new nominee, I don’t think Republicans will use the Jezebel or Sapphire stereotypes, except in unofficial racist memes. They’ll go hard on the “Kamala is a diversity hire” thing, since the specter of professional Black people having authority over whites seems to be the new scare right now. Well, not really new, since it’s been a fear ever since Reconstruction. But it feels like every time something has gone wrong as of late that conservatives blame “DEI” and “diversity hires” for causing said problems. I believe I read that Biden is endorsing Harris as his replacement, but I guess we’ll have to see what happens next.
Yes, Biden stuck his foot in the process just as he was stepping away. He wants to maintain personal control over some of this -- which I kind of understand, given that Harris has been his understudy, but his thumbing the scale is just the worst thing he could have done at this point in the process.
The sneering use of "DEI" is definitely the new slur among a certain, shall we say, khaki-pants crowd. That goes directly to my point of Harris bringing out the racists. They will escalate their attacks and begin to truly call her out of her name. It won't take long.
The Jezebel stereotype will show up when it comes to references to her relationship with Willie Brown, as I mentioned in the footnotes. I already saw a comment to that effect just last night. Sapphire will relate back to her time as a DA. It's going to get ugly.
We'll see how things shake out over the next 2-3 days. There will be pushback to Biden's self-appointed anointing.
Nova, you have incisively analyzed exactly what I feel intuitively. Now just send your essay to the DNC leadership!
Heh. I do hope that those in DNC leadership are not blinded by our own ideology. I do fear that may be what is in the works, that people will insist that it's Harris's "turn." We're in an emergency and have an opportunity to tailor the ticket to fit that emergency.
Thanks for the feedback & for reading. :)
A thoughtful, beautifully written analysis. Thank you for this. You make an excellent case. I read this as your proposing that the fascists are amenable to being seduced away from Trump. Is that in fact what you're saying? I don't think--at the moment--that is possible, only because Trumpism is not just fascism but a cult. I'm not sure we have enough time for a new cult leader to sway the devoted. Nevertheless, I agree with your conclusions, and allies of Black women must do everything to stand with and confront the increasing oratorical--and I fear, physical--horrors that will descend.
Thanks, Val, for reading and responding.
I think, at this stage of MAGA, there are probably at least two segments of the movement: early stagers and late stagers. Those of the early stage are probably baked in and will not be able to be dislodged unless the entire movement collapses spectacularly. A catastrophic loss of faith could cause this.
I’m pitching my strategy here in this article toward what can be done to draw some of the late stagers, some of whom only recently may have gotten involved in the movement. There are different paths into MAGA — for example, because it has a strong Christian nationalist base, a substantial segment will have arrived via church strongholds. This being an election year, though, I suspect a lot of the greener recruits are joining because it’s time to pick one of the two major “teams”.
I’m glad you brought up the cult aspect, because that figures into why I think some people may have gravitated to the movement only recently. This relates back definitely to Trump’s brush with death, which he himself is making out to be a sign from the heavens. That kind of messianic fervor can overwhelm a person; and, if others in that person’s social circle are all on board the MAGA train, they can jump on because it feels like the natural course of things.
I think those people can still be reached. I don’t have data to that effect. I can only draw upon sociological theory and what I’ve learned by studying cultic groups as well as political movements. As far as one main concern of this essay, racism, I think because that’s adopted through signs that are communicated among members of an in-group, if we can reach these new recruits before they become entirely enmeshed we might be able to peel them off, or at least get them to equivocate. (Sexism is much more ingrained and would be harder to neutralize, but theoretically it’s still possible, especially if the person is pried away from the movement via another lever.)
At any rate, I again thank you for reading. I do think we’re in for a time of concentrated racist and misogynistic dreck just absolutely raining down on us, so I think (given that Harris is now the odds-on favorite for nomination) we should hunker down and prepare for the onslaught.
Another brilliant post. It’s sad that you’re right—It’s obvious to me (and to millions of others), that Obama’s election brought the racists out of the woodwork. But whom would you suggest? In my more hopeful moments, I think a Harris/Sanders ticket could win easily. But your argument shows me they probably couldn’t. Is there anyone who could?
It also largely explains the surge in support for Robert Kennedy Jr., doesn’t it? I believe he attracts at least as many Trump voters as Biden voters. I prefer Stein, De la Cruz, and Kishore for their humanism, passion, and intelligence, but it seems none of them have a true chance to win. Kennedy, for all his many flaws, does. I can’t support him because he’s so bad on Palestine, but millions will ignore that.
Thank you for the kind words, Mary.
I think that TPTB (the Powers that Be) will not permit Sanders onto any Democratic ticket. In fact, the first weekend following Biden's debate debacle, there were a flurry of articles at the New York Times, one of which was written by Jonathan Alter. He once held a cache of influence in the party. He said in his article that in whatever mini-primary the Democrats might quickly construct, the people invited to participate should not be anyone from the Left. And it should specifically not include Sanders or Warren, because of their age. It was really infuriating to read that, if for no other reason than it promotes the ageism that saturated the entire discussion about Biden. (As I've said all along, it's not Biden's age that I've objected to, and I think that ageism is a pervasive form of discrimination in our culture that is hard to recognize, much less tackle.) But he disqualified "the left" out of hand. That was pretty eye-opening.
Well, the potential candidates that would fit the parameters I've laid out here have all rushed to endorse Harris, so the question is somewhat moot. Harris says that she'll still "compete" for the nomination, but if the strongest competitors to the slot are intentionally sitting it out, not wanting to go against someone they would later need to work with in order to get government business done, then I'm not sure what mettle she's proving. Newsom was my ideal candidate, and I named some others that I think would not fall into the "favorite fascist target" camp. Mark Kelly, former astronaut and current senator from Arizona, is getting favorable comments, though I was less than impressed with his defense of Biden's Gaza policy. Gov. Shapiro of PA has some good qualities, but I know that Trump and some of his surrogates will make implicit (or possibly even explicit) note of Shapiro's Jewish background.
Some people have floated Gov. Beshear as a possible candidate / running mate. I think he's a solid politician but he wouldn't be a good counter to the fascist draw. In terms of imagery, Beshear reminds me of a dad. Right? Dependable, respectable -- but not exciting. I was just reading about how college-aged men were turning toward Trump because they see him as a strong man. I think Beshear doesn't provide enough of a contrast to such an image.
All that to say, it's hard to say how the Democrats seriously consider an alternative to Harris when all of the best contenders have fallen in line. We're at an impasse.
So, I actually haven't sat down and specifically given thought to RFK, Jr.'s candidacy, because I always saw him as a sideshow. However, I recently saw that he complicates about 20% of the race, which is significant. I'm surprised that more support hasn't fallen away from him in recent weeks, with the news of his unfortunate brainworm infestation (for real!) and his apparent (or at least possible) collusion with Trump as revealed by a released recording that RFK, Jr.'s son uploaded. I still see him mostly as a spoiler, as he's been propped up by Republican-sourced funding for much of his campaign. He was there to siphon votes from Biden and has ended up eating into Trump's support as well.
The American system is not set up for third parties to succeed. That's a structural problem that I don't see getting attention any time soon, because those in power like things just the way they are. I think there is more value in attempting to organize and reform the Democratic Party from within (though that too is a prospect with little likelihood of whopping success). I know a lot of Substackers are thinking of voting for Stein; I hadn't heard of De la Cruz's or Kishore's candidacies before now. I do think the structure of American politics has to be reworked for those people to even have a modicum of electoral success.
This makes sense. I thought pretty much opposite. I figure not going with Harris if Biden steps down would be surrendering to the racists who don’t want her because she is a black woman.
But this take makes sense. Sadly. And just as an exercise, I googled, “most handsome politicians”. I think we are screwed. Ron Kind popped up on the list. I know nothing about him but he is a Democrat. The list I got from Google did have some good looking men but most of them are not Americans.
Is it unbelievable that we are picking candidate based on their physical attributes and aesthetics?
This entire chapter of our existence is equally sickening and unbelievable.
I think our smart move, because it is so late, is to stick with Biden. If there was some blonde-haired, blue-eyed, 6’4, 220 lb, perfect jaw lined guy who could understand the issues and lead, I guess it would be smart to put them at the top of the ticket. But who would that be?
Well, I didn't put it in so many words, but what we need is a candidate who is the "whole package" -- and we have several -- who can put forth image as well as substance.
But, this time around, image should be an explicit consideration.
If you had asked me ten, twelve years ago whether we should run a Black female candidate, not only would I have said 'yes' but I would have been indignant about it, probably. Of course, sixty years after the advent of the modern feminist movement and after the civil rights movement, we have advanced enough that we can seriously consider a Black female contender.
I also grant that, were Harris to enter into this year's contest, she would have institutional support, and that would go a long way. Many people, especially in the Democratic party, are open to her ascending to the top office. She wouldn't encounter headwinds from every direction.
Yet, because this race will be won at the margins, it's the attitudes of those people we should consider if we want to peel off those voters. I'm not saying we capitulate to those folks, but we should be mindful of the forces that are helping to further fascism in the first place. These are cultural forces that act upon everyone, some more than others.
The activation of latent stereotypes is one of those forces, and it's a project in which the far-right has been engaged for years. It was evident even in the battle for Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court. One could see it also in the discussion about SCOTUS's overturning of race-based considerations in the college application process. Throughout that, it was implied that Black women in particular were "stealing" spots. That wasn't too long ago, and that kind of activated resentment promises to come back full force if Harris is conferred the nomination.
I do have my preference as to whom should be at the top of the ticket. Though, I must note that I'm more comfortable with this pick than apparently many in the party; I'm quite to the left, so a Gavin Newsom candidacy seems not only viable but one that could be quite successful. There's also Gov. Shapiro, though he's a little scripted and doesn't fit the mold as I've laid out here. Gov. Whitmer is extraordinarily talented, though she would face the same anti-woman headwinds as Hillary Clinton did in 2016 (I think she does retail politics better than Clinton did, however). Gov. Moore of Maryland is of the "quarterback" type, and his background is buttressed by his military service -- he really is the whole package, though some will be instantly turned off by his skin color (again, this takes nothing away from his qualifications).
Now, perhaps I've put forth too restrictive of parameters here. (Gov. Pritzker, for example, wouldn't check off the boxes of criteria I've put forth, but he may be better suited toward going head-to-head with Trump.) All I mean to do here is set the groundwork for a reconsideration and a better understanding of the gale forces that will be in play.
But that's why I'm advocating for an open convention, as many of these considerations would "come out in the wash," as the saying goes.
Coming back to Harris, I will say that I'm actually neutral toward her as a politician, though as a fellow Black woman I am proud of her achievements. She's a role model, and I admire her. But the same traits that she has relied upon and honed in order to get where she is -- namely, her ambition and her tenacious focus -- will be weaponized against her. And that's even before you get to the stereotypes that have lurked in American culture for decades going on centuries. She even has, remarkably, notable unfavorability ratings in the Democratic electorate itself, which is extraordinarily unfortunate and demonstrates how much her presidential run would be starting off at a handicap.
I just think people are content to think that this cycle is comparable to those in the recent past, and I think that is unrealistic. The fascism element must be taken into account, and I see very, very few political analysts and commentators gaming out how that's going to be a factor.
You’re wrong
Well, obviously, I don't think so. I didn't come to this position lightly, and I've supported my argument. (In fact, there's a lot I left on the table, so that the essay was not overly long.)
This country has regressed in many, many ways. One of those ways is that of a resurgence of racism and sexism. If the Democrats put forth Harris as their nominee, I'm not guaranteeing that she will lose, but she almost certainly is not the most optimal candidate if the goal is to defeat Donald Trump and prevent the advent of fascism.
What I'm hoping is that a bevy of polling firms head into the field and actually do shoe-leather polling of likely voters regarding their support of a possible Harris candidacy -- with special attention paid not to Democratic voters (though their opinion is obviously quite important) but to swing voters and independents. As I said in the essay, this election will be decided on the margins, and if those voters are turned off by her candidacy, then we're spinning wheels and congratulating ourselves in a completely empty way.
Let me know what your feelings are at this time. As your response here was terse and contrary, I assume you have a lot more that you aren't saying!