The ninth U.S. President William Henry Harrison marks a significant point in history due to several reasons. One being the last president to be born under British rule and notably the first White House tenant to represent the Whig Party. His inaugural address went on record as the lengthiest ever delivered, but ironically, his stint in power was extremely brief – the briefest in fact, ending in just 31 days due to his demise while in office.
Another interesting fact about Harrison is that he was the last politician to lose his first presidential election but win in the subsequent one. Prior to him, only Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had managed to turn the tables in such a manner. On the other hand, there were those like Richard Nixon who only found victory much later in their political timeline. Curiously, the only examples of winning, losing, and then regaining the presidency have been Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump.
In generally, individuals who suffered defeat in their first presidential race, and then ventured again in the immediate next election, ended up once again on the losing side. Notable examples include Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, both unsuccessful even after their second attempts. Similarly, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan underwent defeat after running in three successive elections. Evidently, the electorate tends to have a negative view of unsuccessful contenders.
Looking at these lessons from history, the future doesn’t look promising for Kamala Harris either. Speculations have risen about her political career as she recently announced abstaining from running for governor in California. Is she eyeing the White House for a second time? Such a move doesn’t seem a smart choice in light of her party’s declining popularity.
Currently, the Democratic Party primarily grapples with widespread unfavourability, which has amplified to an alarming degree, at minus 30 points, compared to GOP’s negative 11 points. This dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party is at its most significant in 35 years. There is an increasing disillusionment among Democrats towards their party due to its consecutive failure against Trump and its inability to cause substantial hindrance to his administration.
It would be unfair to attribute this collective disappointment with the Democratic Party entirely to Harris, but it’s undeniable that she’s become its symbol. The discontent, however, is not uniformly distributed. Various factions within the Democratic Party hold diverse objections. While the progressives criticize the party for not battling strenuously enough, the moderate wings assert that the Democrats are confronting the wrong issues.
The centrists argue that the Democrats have overreached themselves on aspects of the culture war and identity politics. The sole unifying factor among the dissenting factions is a deep-rooted desire for victory. It’s worth noting that Harris crudely served as a token of diversity, which was the very reason she was at the forefront for the 2024 nomination.
Joe Biden publicly committed to choosing a female African American as his running mate. However, the so-called ‘diversity choice’ has been a misfire – Harris’ issue hasn’t been her race or gender; it’s her incapacity to broaden the Democratic voter base. For the Democrats to triumph in any significant manner, they need a candidate who appeals to the Trump voters, a feat Harris hasn’t achieved.
Regrettably, she failed not due to abysmal turnout by Democratic voters, but owing to her inability to resonate with an evolving populace. Her style of communication was more suitable to an academic institution than for a diverse and complex electorate. Her stances, save for reproductive rights, appeared contrived and inauthentic, a feature unbecoming in an era where electorates crave genuine representation.
Certainly not helping her cause is her acquiescence to Joe Biden’s insistence that she remain closely allied with him. Choosing ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her first post-office interview appears to be a misguided strategy, catering more to a convenient audience instead of the critical ones needed for significant electoral victories.
Such steps only serve to reinforce the perception that Democrats are simply pandering to their ideologically committed base rather than seeking to engage with a broader section of society. This trajectory, if continued, will likely relegate her to a footnoted historical figure – notable only as a failed candidate rather than a leader.
If the Democrats decide to rally behind her again, it’s probable she will merely be remembered as an interesting trivia fact in political history. And that trivia question would likely not be about her successful presidency.
In conclusion, the prospect of Kamala Harris gaining a second chance at the presidency seems unpromising considering the Democratic Party’s abysmal reputation and her own inability to expand the voter base. Without a significant shift in strategy and performance, history might remember her, but not as the 48th President of the United States.
The post Facing an Unpromising Future: Kamala Harris’ Second Run for Presidency appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
