William Henry Harrison stands as a unique figure in American history, assuming his position as the ninth U.S. president as the final individual born a British subject. His singular role extends beyond birthright, as he was the initial representative of the Whig Party to capture the presidency. His term in office, however, was marked by tragedy; Harrison passed away just 31 days following his inauguration, becoming the first U.S. president to succumb while in office. His lengthy inaugural address, clocking in at approximately two hours, brings forth another historical first for Harrison.
Voters seem to display a penchant for rejecting presidential candidates who make subsequent bids after an initial loss, as evidenced by Harrison’s track record. Despite losing his initial attempt at the presidency, Harrison reversed his fortunes in the following election cycle, a strategy success not emulated since by others except for a way-down-the-road victory by Richard Nixon. The candidacies of Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump are exceptions to this pattern, with both men capturing the presidency, experiencing a loss, and then triumphing once again.
Several political figures, however, have proven unsuccessful in repeating Harrison’s strategic move. Adlai Stevenson of the Democratic Party and Thomas Dewey of the Republican Party each experienced two successive runs for presidency and two successive losses. Equally unsuccessful were the campaigns of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, with both men facing rejection thrice consecutively. It appears that for voters, there’s a distinct sense of distaste for electoral defeat.
Kamala Harris places herself in the murky political territory with her recent announcement that she won’t contend for governorship in California – a move that’s taken as an implicit sign of her presidential ambitions. The Democratic Party, however, is sagging under the weight of public opinion, as unfavorable responses outpace favorable ones by nearly 30 points, nearly three times the GOP’s unfavorable score of 11 points.
Most damaging is the Democratic Party’s unpopularity within its circles – a public sentiment more negative than any point in the past 35 years. This disappointment emerges from Democratic dissatisfaction with the party’s multiple failures: one, its defeat to Trump; and two, its lack of substantial resistance to Trump now that he is in position.
While Kamala Harris can’t shoulder all the blame, she unfortunately embodies the internal unrest and unsatisfaction within the Democratic Party. Progressive and centrist factions within the party are united in their sentiment of disappointment, however, their reasons for dissatisfaction diverge significantly. For progressives, the gripe lies in alleged lack of intense battles from the Democrats.
Centrists, meanwhile, voice worries about the party swaying too far left on issues tied to cultural warfare and identity politics. Despite differences, both groups share a mutual frustration and a shared hunger for electoral victories.
Harris managed to inch closer to a potential 2024 nomination primarily due to her expected appeal to diverse voter demographics – a factor Joe Biden openly acknowledged while choosing her as his running mate. Ironically, the problem isn’t associated with Harris’ racial or gender identity. Rather, her inability to attract a broader coalition of Democratic support serves as her main impediment.
To clinch victories, Democrats need a leader capable of attracting Trump’s former voters, a reality Harris failed to recognize. Her loss did not stem from low Democratic participation; her electoral defeat projected a disconnection to an evolving electorate.
Harris’ appeal, bedecked in academic undertones, resembles a college dean from some obscure liberal arts university. Apart from abortion rights, her campaign promises appeared fabricated for the purpose of target marketing, an approach starkly contrasting the public demand for authenticity.
Harris only dug a deeper hole by aligning her position closely with Joe Biden’s, suggesting an absence of individual conviction. Her choice of Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ as her first platform for interview post-resignation spoke volumes regarding her approach.
Appealing to the specific ideological views of Colbert’s audience may secure a dedicated following, but it is far from the diverse spectrum of voters Democrats need to secure electoral victory. If Democrats decide to back her nomination again, her historical contribution would likely be as the answer to a trivia question.
There’s a good chance that when the history books are written, the question won’t be ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ Sadly, the trivia question might rather be ‘Who was the candidate who couldn’t resonate with a changing demographic despite being handed a golden opportunity?’ No matter how the story unfolds, one thing is certain: the Democratic Party needs to rethink its strategy if it hopes to regain favor with the American public.
The post Failed Strategy: Kamala Harris Fumbles Her Golden Opportunity appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
