William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, was the last incumbent to be born on the British soil and the first from the Whig Party to secure a victory in the presidential elections. Intriguingly, he delivered the longest inaugural address, spanning almost two hours, only to serve the briefest presidency, passing away a mere 31 days into his term. Harrison holds the unique distinction of being the last candidate to rebound from an initial presidential defeat and clinch victory in the subsequent elections. Past presidents including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson achieved the same feat before him, while Richard Nixon had to bide his time before turning the tables.
The accrued presidential race experience reveals an evident trend: aspirants who failed in their inaugural election and persevered to contest in the ensuing election fell short yet again. Notable examples include the Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, both enduring defeat despite their persistent efforts. Furthermore, other candidates like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan saw no change in their luck, even after running thrice consecutively. This trend provides food for thought regarding the electoral appeal of attempting to bounce back from initial failure.
This apparent voter distaste for comeback attempts projects grim prospects for Kamala Harris, who recently declared her decision not to run for the California governorship. Raising eyebrows, insiders and analysts are contemplating Harris’ potential aspirations for another stint in the White House. The speculations are further clouded by the dwindling popularity of the Democratic Party, currently at its lowest in the last three and a half decades. An all-time low net favorability score amplifies the party’s crisis.
Seemingly, the simmering resentment within the Democrats, both from the Trump defeat and failure to present a formidable challenge to the Trump government, cannot be overlooked. Harris finds herself in a predicament, becoming a symbol of the widespread discontent within the party. The nature of the discontent, however, varies across the spectrum with the progressives arguing that the party is not fighting fiercely enough, and centrists raising concerns about excessive left-wing indulgence in cultural and identity politics.
Despite these disagreements, an overwhelming sense of unity prevails in the party’s strong will to secure a win. The speculations involving Harris as a nominee for the 2024 elections primarily stemmed from her being a diversity choice. Biden had transparently declared his intention to choose a female, preferably African American, running mate hence, casting Harris into the spotlight.
Hence, the issue with Harris does not rest on her racial or gender identity; instead, it’s her inability to broaden the Democratic coalition and resonate with the voters. For any Democrat to triumph in the race, there is an urgent requirement to charm the Trump voters. Harris, despite her spirited attempts, could not make a compelling case for her candidacy to an evolving electorate.
Her downfall can’t entirely be pinned to the lack of Democratic turnout; instead, her failure to inspire an increasingly diverse voter base proved to be a major detriment. Harris was critiqued for her lack of authenticity, with her beliefs resonating as the product of calculated focus groups. This was amplified when it seemed as though she complied with Biden’s desire that she closely align herself with his political stance.
Although Harris did make a conscious effort to distance herself from Biden’s influence, her choice of platform indicates otherwise. Opting for ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her first interview after leaving the White House was a clear indication of her preference for an ideologically inclined audience.
Whilst being a crowd-pleaser for Colbert’s audience, this choice reflects negatively on her intentions to cater to a broader audience, the group the Democrats urgently need to appeal to and convert. It also underscores why her being nominated again would likely yield similar unsatisfactory results.
The potential repeat nomination of Harris suggests the Democrats are unwilling or unable to learn from their past. The resulting perception could cause Harris to be remembered merely for her unsuccessful presidential bid, much like many before her who dared tread the tricky path of political comebacks.
If this trend fulfills itself, Harris won’t be lauded as the 48th president of the United States. Instead, her legacy will likely be reduced to a tidbit of political trivia. This possibility serves as a sobering reminder of the unforgiving nature of politics and potential pitfalls of ignoring voter sentiment.
It is important for the Democrats to consider this trend before paving the way for potential candidates. It reinforces the need for a candidate with broad appeal, who can bridge the polarizing divide, and lure the Trump voters as well. Only then will there be a serious chance to overturn the table in favor of the Democrats.
Despite the tough lessons from the past and an uncertain political landscape lying ahead, one thing remains clear: the Democrats must decisively wage a fight that not only captures the imagination of their existent voters, but also makes a persuasive case to the undecided and the opposition voters. Making the right choice of representation can determine whether they manage to overcome their past failures or succumb to yet another bitter defeat.
The post Democratic Party’s Crisis: Kamala Harris as a Symbol of Discontent appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
