Opinion | Is It a Mistake for Democrats to Go All In on Harris? Four Columnists on the Party’s Moves.

Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation with the Times Opinion columnists Ross Douthat, David French, Michelle Goldberg and Lydia Polgreen to discuss where Democrats go from here — whether the party should coalesce unreservedly around Kamala Harris as its presidential nominee, what her strengths and weaknesses are, how she should run against Donald Trump, what it will take to beat him and who the Democratic V.P. nominee should be this year. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Patrick Healy: Michelle, Lydia, Ross and David, I’ll cut to the chase: Is the Democratic Party making a mistake by quickly going all in on Kamala Harris as its likely presidential nominee?

Michelle Goldberg: This is a hard question, because for the party to do otherwise would mean trying to restrain the passions, enthusiasms and calculations of its members. The instant flood of endorsements for Harris demonstrated that there is both a great deal of support for her among Democrats and, maybe more important, an enormous hunger to finally come together and go after Donald Trump.

Healy: Did that flood of support seem organic to you, Michelle, or orchestrated by Harris’s campaign?

Goldberg: It felt organic, for sure. No doubt Harris and her allies had a strong whip operation — which speaks well of their abilities — but there was also a spontaneous bandwagon effect that no decision maker could have held back. And the fact that Harris was the object of that outpouring of exhilaration and relief suggests no other candidate could compete or unify all the party’s factions as quickly.

Ross Douthat: It’s a mistake to go all in on Harris, obviously, because she’s still the exceptionally weak candidate whose weaknesses made President Biden so loath to quit the field for her. Potential rivals like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan are throwing away an unusual opportunity because they imagine some future opening for themselves — in 2028 and beyond — that may never materialize. And the party clearly has an interest in having a better-situated nominee: A swing-state governor who isn’t tied directly to an unpopular administration would be a much, much better choice for a high-stakes but still winnable race than a liberal Californian machine politician with zero track record of winning over moderate to conservative voters.