The annals of American presidency remember William Henry Harrison as the last leader who was born a British subject and as the first member of the Whig Party to achieve the ultimate seat of power. His inaugural address clocked nearly two hours, a record that still stands, but his tenure in the White House was infamously brief. He passed away just one month into his term, earning the dubious honor of having the shortest presidency. Remarkably, Harrison was the last politician to lose his initial presidential election and then triumph in the subsequent one.
This rare feat of bouncing back from initial defeat was previously accomplished only by illustrious figures like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The case of Richard Nixon stands apart as he suffered a defeat only to secure his victory many years later. Only two leaders, namely, Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, have achieved the extraordinary trifecta of winning, losing, and then winning again. The general trend since Harrison’s era suggests that those who fail in their initial presidential runs struggle to win in their subsequent attempts.
The political landscape is littered with the unfortunate tales of Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, who both ran for presidency twice and faced defeat on both occasions. In the relentless pursuit of the coveted seat, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan suffered repeated defeats in three consecutive races. These patterns of defeat suggest that voters hold a rather disdainful view of those contenders who’ve tasted failure before, illustrating a harsh environment for Kamala Harris.
In the light of her recent decision to not seek the governorship in California, we see tell-tale signs of her setting sights on the presidency once again. However, Mrs. Harris should keep in mind the exceedingly poor favorability of the Democratic Party, which has sunk by a whopping 30 points. In fact, this represents a level of unpopularity that hasn’t been witnessed in more than three decades.
The overall discontent with the Democratic Party stems from accusations of not standing up to Trump as efficiently as expected during his term. However, Harris shouldn’t shoulder all the blame. Her unfortunate circumstance is her status as a symbol of this widespread dissatisfaction with the party.
These feelings of dissatisfaction aren’t uniform across the party. For the progressives, the grievance is found in the perception that the Democrats haven’t put up a vigorous enough fight. For the centralists, the concern hinges on the shift towards what they perceive as the wrong battles, particularly the sprint towards the left on matters of cultural warfare and identity politics. Although these factions are united in their desire for victory, their discordance could prove the party’s downfall.
One of the few reasons for Harris being touted as the potential nominee in 2024 can be attributed to her being a diversity pick. Biden explicitly mentioned his preference for a woman and, in due course, an African American running mate. Nonetheless, Harris’ difficulties don’t lie in her race or gender, but rather in her inability to communicate and resonate with voters in a way that expands the reach of the Democratic coalition.
Any prospects for a Democratic victory hinge on attracting Trump’s voter base. Harris’s defeat was not the result of reduced turnout from Democratic supporters, but rather, her failure to appeal to the evolving electorate. Often, her utterances resonate more with the administrative staff at a small liberal arts college than they do with the general population.
Unfortunately, aside from her stance on reproductive rights, her beliefs often seem superficial, perfected in focus groups rather than emanating from deep-seated convictions. Worse still, her agreement to not dissociate with Joe Biden, as per his insistence, has not worked in her favor.
A glaring example of this was her decision to use Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her first interview since leaving office. While such appearances may appeal to Colbert’s dedicated viewers, they do nothing to sway voters crucial to a Democratic victory.
History is riddled with the tales of those who tried, failed, and faded into oblivion. Given the odds stacked against her, if Kamala Harris is nominated once again by the Democrats, her future may not be much different.
If not steeled by substantial transformation, she is destined to enter the history books as an incidental trivia question rather than as a remembered leader.
In such a scenario, it’s highly unlikely the question would be ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’
The post Harris Decided to Ignore Historic Consequences – What’s Next? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
