Once the White House was led by William Henry Harrison, our ninth president, a figure birthed under British sovereignty and the inaugural winner affiliated to the Whig Party. His rather extensive inaugural declaration, stretching close to the two-hour mark still echoes in the hallways of American history. However, his presidency was dramatically cut short, lasting only for a whisker over a month and earning him the record of the first commander in chief to pass away during tenure. A detail not widely known is Harrison’s initial defeat during his first pursuit of the presidential chair, becoming one of the handful politicians to lose their first battle, only to grasp victory in their subsequent bid.
Nixon followed suit, though the cycle of win, lose, and regain was yet only shadows on the wall during his era. The only two figures to honor such a cycle were Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump. It appears there is some apprehensiveness in the voters towards politicians who lose and dare a second attempt at presidency; history hasn’t been kind to these brave hearts.
The narrative of second-time losers includes Democrats Adlai Stevenson and republican Thomas Dewey. The instances of consecutive losses are not rare, with three-time unsuccessful contenders like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan further proving this point. It seems the electorate has a certain distaste for accepting losers back into the race.
This enumeration appears to dim the lights on the political ambitions of Kamala Harris who recently announced her decision not to step into the governor’s race in California. Normal circumstances would lead to speculations about possible future plans, but the currently dismal reputation of the Democratic Party is a striking blow. The party’s net favorability has plummeted significantly, standing about three times worse than that of the Republicans.
The current state of the Democratic Party isn’t attributable to the aftermath of any recent event but shows resentment building over time. There’s significant discontent among Democrats, in part due to their failure to trump Trump and their continuous ineffective opposition to his tenure. However, it would be unfair to place the entirety of blame on Harris, since she represents merely a fragment of the collective Democratic disillusionment.
Stemming from the disappointed mob of Democrats are two primary divergent points of concern. The leftist camp blames a lack of adequate resistance from their party’s side, whereas the more moderate members argue that the party’s priorities have shifted too far to issues of cultural wars and identity politics.
Linking both side’s frustrations is their shared yearning for success at the ballot box. Some might argue that Harris’s potential allure towards the 2024 Democratic nomination rises primarily from her being a diversity choice. Biden had made his intentions clear about a female African American for a running mate, but that isn`t the sole issue dogging Harris.
Harris, no matter her racial or gender identity, still needs to cultivate her appeal to voters and assemble a more expansive Democratic coalition, a feat she’s yet to prove she’s capable of. Winning the electorate would naturally require pro-Trump voters to switch their allegiance, a happening that doesn’t look likely for Harris.
Harris’s lacklustre appeal isn’t merely because Democratic supporters didn’t turn out on her side; it’s because she couldn’t inspire a broad spectrum of an evolving electorate. Her speeches often bore a semblance to those delivered by heads at minor liberal arts colleges, making her fail to connect with real-world scenarios.
More disturbing was the inability of Harris to present distinct views not mirroring those of Biden. She wasn’t perceived as an independent identity but rather an echo of Biden’s established rhetoric. This lack of authenticity did not sit well with voters, with many feeling her political perspectives were moulded by focus group responses rather than genuine conviction.
In a perceived political misstep, Harris decided not to distance herself from Biden, causing further erosion of her individual identity. Her decision to opt for ‘The Late Show’ hosted by Stephen Colbert for her first post-office interview was indicative of these missteps. This undoubtedly was music to the ears of Colbert’s pre-determined audience, however more strategic thinking would have been required to reach out to the democrats crucial for victory.
Given her current standing and the audience she appeals to, Democrats will need to think twice before choosing her as their nominee again. If she’s put forward, history might remember her as mere trivia than a notable chapter in the annals of American Presidency.
The Democratic Party appears to be circling down a drain of unpopularity, with an undercurrent of inevitable defeat. And despite the party’s desperation for victory, it appears to be losing grips with the reality of what voters desire.
Harris’s inability to resonate with a wider demographic, her lack of unique convictions, and her apparent synchronization with Biden’s views present significant hurdles in her path. The Democratic party, at this point, requires fresh thinking that can balance the wishes of both its progressive and more centrist wings.
The current narrative suggests that putting forth Harris in an electoral race could turn out to be a self-defeating endeavour for the Democrats. It is pivotal for the party to select a contender who can sway former Trump supporters and unite fragmented Democratic sentiment.
So, if Democrats decide to back Harris for another run at presidency, they are making an uphill fight even steeper. She would likely be remembered not as the 48th president of the United States, but rather, as a fruitless trivia answer.
The post Harris’s Futile Dream: History and Performance Both Against Her appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
