Out of all the presidents the United States has seen, William Henry Harrison left an unusual mark. Being the first Whig party member to secure the presidency, he holds the record for the longest inaugural address, lasting for about two hours. However, his presidency was the shortest ever recorded, lasting only 31 days. His narrative was defined by a unique electoral phenomenon—he lost his initial presidential run only to come back and claim victory in the subsequent race.
This peculiar electoral success suggests an interesting trend. Other politicians such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson preceded Harrison in losing their initial presidential election only to win the next one. Richard Nixon also followed a similar trajectory but after a longer interval. Only Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump have the distinction of winning, losing and winning again. The norm throughout history, however, has been repeated losses for those who lost on their first try and decided to contest again in the immediate next election.
This pattern of electoral losses provides a disheartening perspective for Kamala Harris. Recently, Harris announced her decision not to run for governor in California, a move which has sparked rumors of a potential second White House bid. Given the observed electoral pattern, and her past run, she might need to rethink her ambitions.
Moreover, the Democratic Party’s unpopularity, at its peak for the last 35 years, poses another hurdle for Harris. A net favorability downturn as stark as minus 30 points, nearly three times that of the Republican Party, indicates disillusionment not just among the opposing side, but also within the party itself. Disappointed tenfold with their party, the Democrats have been criticized for their lack of effective opposition to Trump.
However, the blame doesn’t wholly rest on Harris’s shoulders. She merely represents the growing frustration among Democrats. Differing factions within the party are unhappy – the progressive wing feeling the party isn’t battling fiercely enough, while the centrists fear the party is battling unwisely on cultural and identity battlefields. Uniting these factions is a burning desire to triumph, yet, the battle lines drawn within the party are creating more chaos than unity.
Harris’s positioning as a potential 2024 nominee was largely driven by her tick in the Democrats’ diversity box. Biden was firm about choosing a female running mate of African American descent, which led to Harris’s selection. But, this seemingly ‘woke’ move doesn’t automatically equate to votes. Harris’s predicaments go beyond her race or gender – it’s her inability to generate voter appeal and broaden the Democratic Party’s reach that hampers her potential success.
To emerge victorious, the Democrats must find someone who can court and convert Trump’s supporters. Harris’s failure did not stem from a lack of Democratic turnout. Quite the contrary, she was unable to resonate with an evolving voter base, which was the main cause behind her downfall. Her political stance resembled that of a dean at a minute liberal arts college and this did not resonate well with the voters.
Further hampering her appeal was her inclination to echo focus group-crafted convictions, apart from reproductive rights, at a time when the electorate was seeking authenticity. Compromising her own viewpoints further, Harris bowed down to Biden’s insistence to remain aligned with him, limiting her own political uniqueness and potential draw.
Her choice of venue for her first post-office interview sent a problematic message that may have further estranged vital constituents. Choosing Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’, a program with a committed ideological audience, as a platform indicated a disconnection with the more diverse audience that the Democratic Party needs to sway to secure victory.
While Colbert’s audience may enjoy this type of discourse, it is certainly not representative of the wider voting populace. If the Democrats are to regain their footing and win, they need to cater to a wider spectrum of voters, an aspect that seems to elude Harris.
Nominating her again would just serve as a testament to the Democrats’ failure to learn from their past. If this were to happen, Harris stands a high chance of becoming a mere trivia question in the annals of history, instead of becoming the 48th president of the United States.
Certainly, the Democratic Party needs to understand the necessity to evolve their strategies. Pinning hopes on symbols of diversity like Harris, while neglecting the pressing need of resonating with their own divided factions and the opposing voter base, is an equation for recurrent political failure.
While the feat of Harrison, losing his first presidential election and then winning the next, remains unique and notable, it looks highly improbable in Harris’s case. The critical differences lie in their contexts – the nation’s political climate and the public’s perception of their respective parties vastly differ.
This sheds light on the complexity of political dynamics in the contemporary world. One cannot simply re-live historical precedents without acknowledging fundamental shifts in voter sensibilities and multi-faceted political landscapes. For someone like Harris, it would require an overhaul of her approach and the party’s strategy to stand a real chance of taking the White House.
In conclusion, while speculations about Harris’s political future continue to circulate, much introspection is needed by the Democrats. Painting negative figures in winsome colors of diversity, repeating failed strategies, and disregarding the growing discontent within their own factions will only prolong their struggles. And surely, they can do without becoming a repeated trivia question in American history.
The post Kamala’s Failures: A Stumble Towards Another Presidential Run? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
