William Henry Harrison, the ninth United States president and a British-born citizen, marked history as the last of the U.S. leaders belonging to the Whig party. His infamous inaugural address, stretching nearly two hours in length, is fittingly juxtaposed with his short-lived presidency. Harrison succumbed to death a mere 31 days into his presidency, making his reign the shortest in U.S. history.
In an interesting turn of events, Harrison remains the last politician to lose an election, only to claim victory in a subsequent one. This feat places him in the same league as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. This sequence was somewhat repeated by Richard Nixon, although his winning streak didn’t follow immediately after a defeat. Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump are noted exceptions to this pattern, having experienced a win, a loss, and then another victory in their political journeys.
However, the narrative reveals a somewhat unpromising trend for politicians who’ve faced defeat in their initial run and endeavor for a second chance in the upcoming election. Their aspirations commonly result in subsequent failure, as evidenced by the political trajectories of Adlai Stevenson, a Democrat, and Thomas Dewey, a Republican. Both attempted the presidential race twice and succumbed to defeat twice.
The saga of persistent defeat continues with the likes of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, with each making unsuccessful presidential runs three consecutive times. Essentially, the demographic data suggests that voters have a strong distaste for second-time losers, forming an ominous backdrop for the ambitious Kamala Harris.
Recently, amid speculations of another White House run, Kamala Harris announced her decision to not contest the gubernatorial race in California. However, this step doesn’t appear to favor her, considering the grim reputation of the Democratic Party. Recording a striking unfavorability net of minus 30 points, the party’s popularity is nearing its three-and-a-half-decade low.
The discontent within the Democratic Party itself is palpable, as they grapple with the bitter reality of losing to Trump previously and struggling to hinder his actions in his current office. Though it wouldn’t be just to lay the entire blame on Harris, she has unfortunately emerged as the face of prevailing dissatisfaction within the party.
There’s undoubtedly a diverse range of discontent in the Democratic Party. On one hand, progressives argue that the party isn’t putting up a strong enough fight. The more moderate section of the party, on the other hand, believes that the Democrats are waging battle on the wrong fronts, having excessively leaned towards the issues of culture war and identity politics.
The common sentiment binding the divergent factions within the party is an urgent hunger for electoral victory. Harris’ positioning as the potential nominee in the 2024 election was mainly due to her status as a diversity choice. Biden explicitly stated his intent to elect a female and later an African American as his running mate.
Yet, for Kamala Harris, the issue isn’t her gender or ethnicity. Her foremost obstacle lies in her ineffectiveness at attracting voters to broaden the Democrat’s coalition. If the Democrats aspire for triumph, their candidate needs to captivate and convert the Trump-leaning electorate.
Harris didn’t suffer a defeat due to a lack of Democratic support. Instead, her loss can be attributed to her lack of charm to the evolving voter base. Her language and demeanor often resonate more with the academic settings of a small-sized liberal arts college than a diverse public electorate.
In spite of the changing political spectrum that demanded candidly held convictions, Harris seemed to align more with formation-by-committee ideals than personal beliefs. Her standpoints, with the sole exception of reproductive rights, gave an impression of being meticulously shaped by focus groups rather than stemming from genuine understanding.
Perhaps, the most detrimental decision of her political path was her obedience to Biden’s request to not distance herself from him. This restraint became glaringly evident in her maiden interview post-leaving office, on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’. Her segment may have enthralled Colbert’s ideologically driven audience but didn’t appeal to the wider demographic necessary for an electoral victory.
The catastrophic results of Democrats’ nomination of Kamala Harris are seemingly inevitable if repeated. She’s at serious risk of having her legacy remembered as a historical trivia answer rather than a leader of note. Notably, the trivia question won’t be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’
Thus, the Democratic Party, burdened by their historical unfavorable favorability ratings and the general aversion to their extreme left leanings, faces an uphill struggle towards electoral success. With figures like Kamala Harris symbolizing the prevailing dissatisfaction within the party, the path forward seems increasingly arduous.
The post Kamala Harris Fails Again: A Battle Lost Before It Began appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
