Born as a British subject, William Henry Harrison, the United States’ ninth president, was the last of such to lead the nation and the first from the Whig Party to secure a victory. Known for his intentionally verbose inaugural address, which went on for close to two hours, he served the shortest presidency, passing away just a mere month after his inauguration. Harrison, uniquely, lost a presidential election before clinching a victory in the next. His feat was notably replicated much later by Richard Nixon, while Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump each experienced a win, a loss, and another win at the helm of the nation. Each other candidate who lost their first election and attempted a second run met the same initial fate.
Kamala Harris, however, may find these historical precedents discouraging. The Vice-President announced that she wouldn’t be pursuing the gubernatorial race in California, leading some to surmise that she harbors another aspiration for the White House. Yet, Harris and the Democratic party are facing an uphill battle of popularity. With a dismal net favorability at minus 30 points, the Democratic Party is staring down at its lowest popularity in more than three decades, almost three times less favorable than the Republican party’s score of minus 11 points.
The party’s slump isn’t just a result of external perceptions, the Democrats are battling friction within. They face a profound disappointment from within their ranks for failing to mount a significant challenge to Trump, both at the ballot box and during his incumbency. This internal discord isn’t affording any favors to Harris, who has come to represent the intra-party dissatisfaction.
This discontent within the Democrats is a complex tangle. Progressive members regard the party as not militant enough in their stand, while the centrists view it as being overly focused on the left-leaning cultural and identity politics. The only element uniting these two conflicting wings is their shared thirst for a victory.
The crux of Harris’ strait is not her gender or race; it is her failure in enlarging her party’s appeal base. Despite being selected as Biden’s running mate on a diversity ticket, she has not succeeded in mobilizing a significant number of voters for the Democratic cause. If the Democrats are to see a win again, they would require a leader who can attract previous Trump voters.
Harris didn’t falter due to a lack of Democratic support. Instead, her inability to resonate with an evolving electorate played a crucial role in her political setback. Her speeches, seeming like they were meticulously curated by focus groups rather than radiating veritable conviction, came across as more fitting for a college dean than an experienced politician.
As if her struggle as a candidate was not significant enough, it was exacerbated by her decision to stand by Joe Biden unswervingly. Clearly, this strategy didn’t win the hearts of the electorate, instead making her seem inauthentic and disconnecting her further from the voters. Harris committing to an interview on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ as her first public engagement post leaving office could be viewed as safe playing to appease Colbert’s ideologically-aligned audience, rather than reaching out to a broader, more politically-diverse group.
However, appeasing die-hard fans is a strategy that holds little appeal in winning larger audiences, a lesson the Democrats need to learn. Despite their determination to appear unified and committed to their cause, the requirement to win elections is much more profound—it necessitates effectively capturing the ever-evolving sentiments of a wide-ranging electorate. This is where Harris has, in many ways, stumbled.
If she is chosen again as a Democratic candidate, she quite likely stands to be remembered more as an odd fact in a trivia game than as an effective leader of the Free World. The question won’t be, ‘Who was the 48th President?’ Instead, it might be, ‘Who was the Vice President who aspirationally ran for president, despite her party’s plummeting popularity and failure to resonate with a diverse electorate?’
The narrative indeed paints a grim picture for Harris, highlighting the Democratic party’s disarray and her consistent failure to serve as a strong rallying figure. However, the bigger question remains: will the Democrats fail again or heed the lessons of the past?
The issues that the party and their potential front-runner face are vast. They range from internal divisions, a lack of clear and compelling messaging, to the inability to attract varied voter demographics. Now more than ever, the party faces a test of resilience and adaptability.
Whether or not Harris will manage to reboot her connection with the population and offer a compelling narrative remains to be seen. Yet, the odds and the shadows of history seem to be stacked against her. Repeating the past mistakes will hold the party back, and Democrats must realize this fact sooner rather than later.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, so too must the strategies and the figures that aim to navigate it. A fixation on unyielding notions of identity and ideological purity may have been counterproductive in Harris’s case, building walls where bridges were needed.
Ultimately, only time will tell if Harris and the Democrats can set aside their historical shortcomings, rise above their internal struggles, and resonate with an increasingly diverse and discerning electorate. However, the clock is ticking, and history, it seems, isn’t keen on repeating itself.
The post Kamala Harris: High Aspirations Against a Torrent of Low Popularity appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
