William Henry Harrison’s term as America’s ninth president, born under the sovereignty of the British, stands distinguished for various reasons. His notorious reputation was established through a brief marriage with power but an enduring influence within the Whig Party. Decorated with the record of having delivered the longest-ever inaugural address, he is marked indelibly in historical memory for his rather abrupt farewell amidst his incumbency – merely after 31 days in the presidential suite.
His unique position in history is not solely due to the abrupt dissolution of his presidency but extends to his electoral journey too. He was the last statesman who conceded the initial presidential race but claimed victory in the subsequent one. This is a legacy shared by earlier leaders like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, while Richard Nixon took a lengthier route to accomplish a similar feat. The rare and triumphant sequel of Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump – winning, losing, and reclaiming power – is watched with intrigue.
However, the pattern of repeating the presidential run post an initial failure tends to result in disappointment. Consider the narratives of Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey; their bids for the presidential office were quashed twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan had an even terser encounter with the electorate, losing out thrice consecutively. With voters showing an apparent disliking for figures associated with failure, the wheel of politics seems to spin in unanticipated circles.
The recent announcement from Kamala Harris, unmistakably hinting at another bid for the highest office, has stirred up considerable speculation and doubt. The Democratic Party’s plummeting popularity reflected in a -30 point net favourability score, almost tripling that of the GOP, sets a grim backdrop for Harris’ political aspirations.
The Democrats’ plunge into unprecedented unpopularity – a 35-year nadir – paints a bleak picture for Harris. Muted fury bustles within the party, fuelled by an embarrassing defeat against Trump combined with their ineffective resistance against him in office. Though it’s unfair to entirely shoulder Harris with responsibility for this disfavour, her image undoubtedly represents the thriving discontentment.
Harris is more than merely a symbol though – her political dilemmas extend to doing justice to different fringed factions within the Democrats. Progressives express discontent with Democrats, pushing for a more combative stance, while centrists argue the party has wandered far into the left field on sensitive cultural and identity issues. These diverse objections coalesce around a universal craving for victory.
Much of the early hype surrounding Harris in the 2024 nomination race was largely because she ticked the boxes of diversity – a feature Joe Biden clearly sought for in his running mate. Biden publically expressed his desire for a woman, ideally an African American, to be on the ticket. Yet, these demographic traits are overtaken by Harris’ glaring inability to sway voters and amplify the Democratic coalition.
The Democratic Party needs to draw in those who supported Trump to notch a victory. Harris, unfortunately, in her earlier run, was seemingly unable to lure this demographic despite a healthy Democrat turnout. Her loss, therefore, is largely attributed to her lack of magnetism for a diversifying electorate.
Often ringing with a tone similar to a college administrator at a private liberal arts institution, Harris’ rhetoric often lacked the ring of authenticity voters yearn for. It seemed as though the pillars of her political beliefs were erected by focus groups and not genuine conviction, with the sole exception possibly being the sphere of reproductive rights.
A grave misstep observed in Harris’s prior attempt was her compliance with Biden’s request to avoid creating any political distances between them. This underscored her already scrutinised authenticity, raising questions about her independence and political strength.
Choosing to make her public appearance on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ post-departure from her office was another telling sign of safety over innovation. While this choice resonated with Colbert’s dedicated audience, it is clear that those aren’t the demographics the Democrats need to convince to win.
Faced with the reality of a party in disfavour and an electorate seeking authenticity, it appears Harris might be heading towards a potentially tough road. Repeating her bid for the presidency could lead to her becoming an isolated and trivial historical footnote, rather than making her mark as the 48th ward of the Oval Office.
Should Harris decide to run again and receive the Democrats’ nomination, history suggests her fate may be similar to that of past political figures who have sought a second chance. Under her leadership, the Democratic Party risks cementing its status as the less popular choice and further estranging the electorate.
In light of these challenges, it must be reiterated that Harris’s potential comeback largely depends on her ability to evolve her political narratives and strategies. She must strive to bridge the divide within her party, rally her base and captivate those outside of it.
To obtain victory, Harris will need to blend her political and personal attributes in a manner that meets the voters’ expectation for authenticity and resolve. It will also require shifting focus from the ideological promises to delivering tangible results for the people.
However, it’s worth noting that successful comebacks are never easy, nor are they predictable in the ever-evolving landscape of politics. Regardless, the inevitable repercussions of Harris’s decisions will have a profound impact not only on her career but also on the Democratic Party’s future.
The post Harris Walks on Thin Ice: A Second Presidential Bid Spells Disaster appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
