New York Times columnists say other Democrats more ‘electable’, ‘exciting’ than Kamala Harris

The article critiques Kamala Harris's candidacy using biased language and authority appeals, citing opinion columns to bolster its argument without independent analysis. The portrayal of Harris as a weak candidate often drifts into ad hominem attacks, questioning her competence based on past performance without substantive evidence. A false dilemma is implied, suggesting that the Democratic Party must choose between Harris and other candidates deemed more electable by the Times staffers, ignoring potential nuances and broader political strategies. While the reasoning has some basis, the reliance on these fallacies undermines the strength of the argument.