Vice President Kamala Harris appears to have energized Democrats in the early days of her candidacy, with the surge in warm feelings extending across multiple groups, including some key Democratic constituencies that had been tepid about President Joe Biden.
Those risks were indeed real, but they were also much, much less likely than you feared because the DNC is not the democratic institution it pretends to be.
Support was always going to immediately solidify behind Harris because she’s an incumbent, has access to Biden’s PAC, and the DNC chairperson is a Biden appointee. If there was another candidate who could have contested Harris they’d have already contested Biden during the aborted primary.
Right now, the election is still a toss-up, but it won’t stay that way. The next couple of weeks will show Harris on track to come out just ahead in the electoral college, and the results of the election depend on whether or not the Republicans can reclaim the initiative in time to swing the needle back.
The real question, regardless of who wins, is the Republican party establishment itself. Tensions between the party’s wealthy financiers and the right-wing culture warriors they depend on for electoral relevance have never been higher. Winning the presidency might prolong the status quo a little longer, but I don’t see how they can resolve this fundamental conflict amicably. How long can the house stand divided against itself, and who will rise to challenge the Democrats from the Left once they’re gone?
this sounds a bit like survivorship bias. Because the outcome has been good does not mean risks where less likely. That being said for myself it was not about risk per se but more I just liked him over any realistic possibility including harris. that being said I see little difference between voting for harris as vice president or potential president given the age and directly for president. so ultimately its fine.