William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. President, interestingly, was the last one born a British subject. He is known for his record-breaking long inaugural address, which lasted nearly two hours. However, he famously held the shortest presidency, as he was the first sitting president to die in office, a mere 31 days into his term. Harrison was also the last politician to lose his initial presidential bid, only to secure victory in the subsequent election.
His political journey was a rarity, as most politicians like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, who experienced initial failure, only won their place in the Oval Office in subsequent attempts. Richard Nixon, another example, also taste victory after a previous defeat, although it was far down the line.
Case histories like those of Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, who both enjoyed mixed successes, are however, exceptions to this trend. These peculiar leaders managed to win, lose, then win the presidency again. Unfortunately, such a comeback story did not replicate itself for most others. Politicians who were unsuccessful in their first attempts and proceeded to contest in the successive elections mainly faced defeat once again.
The loss record of Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey is noteworthy here. Both of these men made two unsuccessful bids for the White House. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan fared even worse, each losing three consecutive times. It appears that the public sentiment doesn’t favor returning ‘losers’.
Looking through this lens, one must question Vice President Kamala Harris’ future political aspirations. She recently announced that she would not contest for the governor’s seat in California, leading to conjectures about her possible return to the presidential race.
Unfortunately for Harris, the Democratic party she represents is experiencing severe disapproval, with its net favorability sinking to a low of negative 30 points, nearly triple that of the GOP’s negative 11 points. This paints a rather bleak picture of the Democrats, proving more unpopular than any time in recent history spanning three and a half decades.
The discord within the Democrats is not solely Harris’ making, though she has become somewhat emblematic of the disruption. The varying degrees of dissatisfaction are conspicuous. Progressives opine that the Democrats aren’t battling with enough fervor, whereas, the more moderate members believe the party is championing wrong causes, pivoting too far left concerning cultural issues and identity politics.
An intense desire to succeed seems to be the only unifying factor amongst the quarreling factions. An interesting fact is that Harris was deemed fit as a 2024 nominee majorly because she checked the diversity box. President Biden openly stated that he aimed to choose a female, and subsequently, an African American running mate, leading to Harris’ selection.
However, Harris’ problem doesn’t originate from her racial or gender identity; rather, the challenge lies in her inability to resonate with voters in a way that enhances Democratic support. The need of the hour for Democrats is a candidate who can persuade Trump supporters to switch sides, a feat that Harris has so far failed to achieve.
Her loss wasn’t attributed to a lack of Democratic participation during elections. Instead, her inability to connect with the evolving electorate and her tiresome, uninspiring commentary were the chief reasons. It, unfortunately, made her come across like a college dean delivering a monotonous lecture at a small liberal arts institution.
Further criticism springs from her apparent lack of personal conviction. Aside from her concerns about reproductive rights, her ideas seemed engineered by focus groups, which was disappointing for voters yearning for genuine authenticity from their potential leaders. Adding to the pile of misjudgments, Harris decided to agree to President Biden’s demand that she shouldn’t distance herself from him.
These facts combined with other missteps, like choosing ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert, for her first interview post leaving her office, shows poor judgment in her attempts to connect with the demographic that Democrats need to secure victory. This move appealed to Colbert’s dedicated audience but failed to resonate with the broader electorate the Democrats need for their success.
So, considering all these missteps, if the Democrats decide to back Harris again for the top job, her future seems predictably dismal. The historical trend and the current discontent within the Democratic party compound her challenges.
In summary, it may not be hyperbolic to claim that should Democrats risk Kamala Harris for another round, she may end up being relegated to the status of a trivia question, rather than being remembered as a noteworthy leader. This trivia question will definitely not relate to her potential ascendance as the 48th President of the United States.
Therefore, in light of these somber predictions, the Democratic party and Kamala Harris need to seriously introspect on the road ahead. A more realistic approach and understanding of the electorate’s sentiment seem to be of paramount importance moving forward.
Ultimately, only time will tell whether Kamala Harris and the Democrats decipher the historical lessons and adjust their strategies or continue down the current path, risking repeated failures.
The post Harris’ Political Aspirations: A Bleak Future and Diminished Hope appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
