William Henry Harrison, whose claim to fame in America’s presidential history is his ‘shortest tenure’ title as a president, offers a historical study that may not be very appealing to Kamal Harris. Harris, who shooting for the White House once again despite her previous failure, may want to take notes as history doesn’t look kindly on repeat runners, especially presidential hopefuls who have a loss under their belt. As Harrison shows us, you don’t get many second chances.
Harrison’s presidency was not only short-lived due to his untimely death a mere 31 days into his term, but he also holds the prestige of delivering the most long-winded inaugural address in history, clocking in at nearly two hours. Harris could do well to remind herself that long speeches and extreme persistence aren’t enough to impress the populace, especially when the party backing you is languishing in unpopularity.
Harris’ decision to abstain from the California gubernatorial race has led political pundits to conjecture that she’s setting her sights on the presidency again. However, considering the track record of politicians like Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey, who both had the misfortune of losing again after their initial defeat, Harris’ decision seems far from prudent. One might argue that history is against her.
Wouldn’t it be wise for Harris to reflect on the ill-fated presidential runs of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, who despite their relentless attempts, couldn’t secure the top spot? But it appears as if lessons from history are being conveniently ignored here. The American voter body has a simple rule: they don’t fancy losers. This doesn’t bode well for Harris.
The Democrats find themselves in a precarious position. Their favorability has plummeted, sitting at an alarming minus 30 points. Even more concerning is the rising discontent within the party, which paints a bleak picture for anyone from the Democratic Party looking to get into the Oval Office, Harris included.
Party dissatisfaction isn’t confined to a particular faction. From the more radical progressives who yearn for a tougher fight to the centrists who feel that the party’s focus has deviated significantly, everyone appears to be unhappy. Harris finds herself emblematic of this widespread dissatisfaction, a position no presidential hopeful wishes to be in.
Much of the dissent can be attributed to the belief that the Democrats, entrapped in their so-called ‘culture war’ and identity politics, have strayed too far to the left. The fact that they are failing to put up a significant opposition to Trump has only added to the flak they are receiving, partly explaining why they’re more unpopular now than in the past three and a half decades.
Harris’ chances in the 2024 race were mainly down to the diversity card that Biden promised to play. Having announced that his running mate would be a woman and preferably of African American descent, Biden essentially made Harris a natural choice. But the issue isn’t with Harris’s race or gender; it’s her apparent incapability to broaden the Democratic coalition that seems to be the biggest obstacle.
Finding a candidate who can sway Trump’s voter base seems to be the Democrats’ biggest challenge. It isn’t a lack of Democratic turnout that sunk Harris’ ship the first time; rather, her rhetoric and approach did little to attract the evolving electorate. She must realize that sounding like a college dean won’t cut it in the unforgiving realm of politics.
Perhaps the crucial point where Harris faltered was when she decided to go in line with Biden’s suggestion of not creating distance between them. This undying loyalty to Biden and her lack of authenticity seemed to be her greatest downfalls. Today’s voters are not interested in candidates that adhere to the bylines of focus groups.
What sealed Harris’ fate was her choice of platform for her first interview post-office – Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’. Yes, she may have won some applause from Colbert’s faithful following, but she surely lost the admiration of those the Democrats desperately need to win. A blunder, indeed.
If the Democrats decide to field her again, they would only be setting themselves up for a disappointment. And sadly, the trivia question won’t be about her being the 48th president of the United States. Considering these circumstances, perhaps it would be best for Harris to wield her efforts towards something more achievable.
While Harris might argue that she’s different and capable of rewiring the narrative, it’s important to remember that history has a strange way of repeating itself. And as it stands, the odds seem stacked against her. Maybe it’s time for the Democratic Party to find a new, more compelling face if they want to have a shot at reclaiming the White House.
The narrative seems clear: Negative perceptions and unfruitful past experiences have a weight that’s hard to shake off. And in politics, infamously unforgiving and ruthless, second chances are seldom on the table. Unfortunately for Kamala Harris, she’s caught up in a situation that seems more set up for failure than success.
The post Harris Thumbs Her Nose at History, Prepares for Inevitable Second Defeat appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
