William Henry Harrison, fondly remembered as the ninth U.S. President, holds quite a few unique records. Not only was he the final President born under British rule, but he also was the initial representative from the Whig Party to occupy the Oval Office. Known for delivering the lengthiest inaugural speech, spanning almost two hours, his tenure was paradoxically the shortest of all time, cut short after just 31 days due to his unexpected death. Harrison’s particular political journey also marks him as the most recent political figure to lose his initial presidential election, only to clinch victory in the succeeding one.
Previous presidents sharing this rocky ride to victory included Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Richard Nixon also eventually managed to secure a win after an earlier defeat, but his triumph didn’t follow immediately. A more intriguing pattern comes to light when considering Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, both of whom managed to bounce back and claim victory after a defeat wedged in between two wins.
However, since Harrison’s saga, others who faced defeat in their primary attempt at the presidency and chose to have another try, have invariably met with the bitter taste of defeat yet again. Two such figures are the Democrat Adlai Stevenson and the Republican stalwart Thomas Dewey, who both contested twice only to be ousted in both the attempts. The story gets more interesting with the failed attempts of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, who relentlessly contested thrice consecutively, only to face the same unfortunate outcome.
It would seem that the voters don’t look favorably upon serial election losers, a sentiment that could spell doom for Kamala Harris. The Vice President, who recently announced her decision not to compete for the California governorship, appears to have her sights on the presidency. Yet, with the Democratic party’s plummeting popularity, standing at a net favorability of -30, nearly triple that of the GOP’s, this could be an uphill climb.
Never before in the last 35 years has the Democratic Party seen this level of unpopularity, much to their chagrin. A significant proportion of this ire stems from within, arising from disgruntled party members upset over their defeat to Trump and their inability to thwart his actions now that he’s in office. While Kamala Harris can’t shoulder all the blame for this predicament, she unequivocally embodies this growing intra-party dissatisfaction.
The root of this dissatisfaction, however, isn’t uniform across the board. Progressives within the party bemoan the fact that their leaders aren’t fighting fiercely enough, while centrist elements believe the party has swung too heavily towards culture wars and identity politics. But there’s one common thread that unites both factions: a burning desire for victory.
Harris’s potential as a 2024 nominee rested largely on the diversity she represented. Biden had explicitly stated that he would opt for a female and, subsequently, an African American Vice-President. Yet, Harris’s problem doesn’t stem from her racial or sexual status; rather, it’s her inability to attract voters in a way that broadens the Democratic coalition.
In order for the Democrats to taste victory, they need a charismatic leader who can sway Trump supporters. Harris’s failure isn’t attributed to lackluster Democratic voter turnout, but her inability to appeal to a diverse voter base. Her choice of rhetoric threw her more in the mix with liberal college student bodies than the average electorate. To a voting public hungry for authenticity, her views seemed too painstakingly contrived by focus groups, barring the exception of reproductive rights.
Complicating matters further, Harris succumbed to Joe Biden’s pressure not to distance herself from his policies. This move was rather telling of her inability to establish her own identity. It made her appear as a mere sidekick to Biden, unable to form distinguished views or attract a broader voter base independently.
Her decision to choose Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her initial interview post stepping down further underscores this point. While Colbert’s committed audience may enjoy such interactions, Harris’s appearance does not help her resonate with the voter base the Democrats desperately need to win over.
If the Democratic party decides to back Harris as their candidate again, the unfortunate outcome could very well solidify her place as a specter in U.S. political trivia, rather than a vital figure. Such an outcome will suggest that the Democrats failed to understand their electorate and their desire for a distinct personality who could lead the country.
Barring her racial and gender credentials, Harris has done little to demonstrate she can appeal to a broader, changing electorate. If she were to run for President, her ability to resonate with the voters who craved authenticity during her vice-presidential tenure will play a crucial role in determining her chances.
To conclude, if the Democrats choose to neglect the historical patterns evident since Harrison and usher Harris as their nominee, they’re just setting themselves up for probable failure. Unfortunately, if that’s the case, the title ’48th President of the United States’ is unlikely to be associated with Kamala Harris.
The post Kamala Harris: Walking towards inevitable electoral doom? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
