The New York Times’s Nate Cohn, for example, says Walz “doesn’t help compensate for what figures to be [Kamala Harris’s] core weakness with swing voters: her … staking out progressive positions.”
Cohn goes on to assert that Walz
“unexpectedly became the veepstakes favorite for many progressives, who were often outright opposed to Mr. Shapiro or Mr. Kelly” and that “the fight was sufficiently intense for Mr. Walz’s selection to be seen as a material win for progressives.” As a result it “won’t assuage concerns that she’s too far to the left.”
This is utter rubbish. Who is concerned that Kamala is too far to the left? Cohn imagines that the typical voter is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. But there’s no longer a middle. When the Republican Party has adopted authoritarian fascism, what does it mean to be “too far to the left?”
Rekt. Good on RR for calling out Cohn's naked laundering of partisan bias into mainstream journalism. His article was mealy-mouthed establishment horseshit, as was his navel-gazing follow up.
.