William Henry Harrison’s legacy as the 9th US President carries intriguing connotations. This historical figure remains the only commander in chief heralding from British roots whilst securing victory for the Whig Party. His inaugural address notoriously extended over a two-hour period, marking the longest on record. His presidency however, was anything but long-lived. As fate had it, Harrison’s tenure was cut short, just 31 days in, marking the shortest term of any in-office president. Harrison’s sequential success record in presidential elections was unique in its own right. Following his lead, only a handful managed to secure a victory after their initial failure. Nixon’s win was far-fetched in contrast.
Unfolding the patterns of presidential wins and losses paints a unique canvas of American political history. After Harrison, it is noteworthy that no candidate lost their first election, only to find success in the immediate next. Stevenson from the Democratic Party and Dewey from the Republican Party suffered a similar fate, losing not once but twice consecutively. Fellow Democrats Clay and Bryan endured a thrice successive defeat. It’s clear as daylight that the public doesn’t entertain political failures.
This spells bad omens for Kamala Harris. Recently in the news for forgoing a chance at the gubernatorial seat in California, Harris has stirred up whispers of another crack at the presidency. Yet, her political family seems to be bearing the brunt of unpopularity. The Democratic Party’s approval rating is reeling backwards, now at a negative 30 points, almost triple that of the GOP’s own plunge.
The Democratic party has evidently become estranged from its own supporters. Failure to trump over Trump, coupled with a lackluster opposition to his present role, has opened up a chasm of resentment. However, all blame can’t be placed solely on Harris’s doorsteps in this situation.
Harris’s vexing issue is that she personifies the disillusionment within the Democratic Party. Contrasting factions within the party hold different gripes with the current state. Liberals are incensed by what they perceive as a lackluster fight, whereas the centrists feel the party has swayed too off-center, focusing on topics that seem to spark division rather than unity. A shared thread weaving these dissatisfied masses together is a deep-seated thirst for victory.
Harris once stood on the precipice of nomination for the 2024 race, almost solely due to being the diversity card. Biden’s promise to secure a female, specifically African American running mate pushed Harris to the fore. However, her predicament is not her ethnicity or gender, but rather her failing appeal to diversify their Democratic voter base. It is quintessential for the Democrats to allure those within the Trump camp to secure victory.
Harris’s defeat was not a result of poor Democratic turnouts. On the contrary, it was due to her lack of impact on the rapidly evolving electorate demographic. When she spoke, she seemed more fit for the role of a small liberal arts college’s dean of students than a future commander in chief. Aside from the subject of reproductive rights, her convictions seemed tailor-made by focus groups, at a time when authenticity was the top demand by voters.
One misstep that Harris could not recover from was her agreement to Biden’s demand that she keep her political identity closely tied to his. Clearly, this strategy did not necessarily translate into widespread popular appeal. People respected independent thoughts and the courage to assert one’s individuality. Harris’s lack thereof had severe consequences.
In a glaringly ill-advised move, Harris chose Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her maiden interview post her exit from office. This might have impressed Colbert’s devoted fans, but unfortunately, these aren’t the voters the Democrats need to woo. If the democrats stick by Harris for future elections, she may likely be remembered for a footnote of political trivia.
With the political climate being what it is, she could have been launching her campaign on a talk show that reached across the aisle, speaking directly to those she needs to convince. Instead, she hunkered down in a safe space, speaking to an audience that already agreed with her.
The real 48th president will be someone who can appeal to a broad base, not just cater to a single side of the political spectrum. If Harris doesn’t reconsider her strategies, history will overlook her, not as the 48th president, but as an interesting anecdote.
For the Democrats, success lies in reaching out to those who swayed towards Trump. Inclusion, not exclusion should be their mantra. Acting otherwise couples risk with their name, steering off into an unfavorable trajectory.
History makes it abundantly clear that voters are less inclined to favor a candidate on his or her second gambit for presidency after a prior failure. But Harris’s circumstances seem further complicated by escalating dissatisfaction within her party and her inability to connect with the right spectrum of voters.
To sum it up, while the spotlight may still be on Kamala Harris, her past strategies and the current public opinion trends portray a grim picture for her future endeavors. She needs to break away from the caricature she has been molded into and work towards broadening the appeal of the Democratic coalition if she hopes to have another shot at the presidency, let alone win it.
The post Kamala Harris: From presidential hopeful to political trivia? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
