William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, holds multiple historical records, including being the first to represent the Whig Party in the Oval Office, as well as being the last born under British rule. His inaugural speech was the longest-ever, spanning almost two hours. Ironically, his term was the shortest – the first-ever president to pass away during his term, a brief spell of just 31 days.
Harrison also stands as the last politician to swing back from an initial loss in presidential elections and secure a victory in the subsequent one. Prior to him, this fate was only seen in the cases of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Richard Nixon too experienced loss, but his ultimate victory came considerably later. Only Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump managed to hit a hat-trick of winning, losing, and winning again, while rest, after an initial loss, lost again in the race.
These historical facts ooze a disheartening tone for Kamala Harris. Especially considering her recent announcement about not vying for the governor’s post in California, which essentially has stoked the rumor mills about her potential ambitions for the presidential suites. It seems she might follow the path of politicians like Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey, both of whom tried their luck twice with no success. Even the endeavors of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, who tried thrice without a break, were futile.
It’s not a good time for the Democratic Party either, considering the current lack of public favor, which stands at an unprecedented low in nearly four decades. With a favorability deficit of 30 points, they are almost three times as unpopular as the GOP. It signifies a broad dissatisfaction of the Democrat supporters, both for their defeat against Trump and also for their inability to effectively oppose him during his office tenure.
While Harris cannot be held solely responsible for the sinking popularity of the Democrats, she has sadly become a symbol of the party’s internal disarray. There’s a growing dissatisfaction among party members about their chosen strategies.
Progressive party members are unhappy that the Democrats are not standing up strongly enough for their causes. On the other hand, their centrist members complain that the party is predominately focusing on the wrong issues, by leaning too far towards topics of cultural war and identity politics. What does bring these divided factions together is the mutual, compelling urge to emerge victorious.
Harris was seen as a strong contender for the 2024 presidential nomination, primarily because of her potential appeal to the diverse voter base. Biden was quite clear in his intentions of electing a female, preferably an African-American, running mate. However, Harris’ problem doesn’t lie in her race or gender, but rather in her inability to broaden the Democratic coalition.
For the Democrats to assert their dominance, they need someone who can convert Trump’s electoral base. Harris couldn’t manage that in the previous election, and it was not due to a lower Democratic turnout. She simply couldn’t resonate with the evolving American electorate.
Her communication, more like that of a student dean at a small liberal arts college, failed to inspire. Her opinions seemed artificially manipulated, appearing to echo the findings of focus groups over any genuine conviction, at a time when authenticity is highly craved by voters.
In what can be considered a grave misstep, Harris gave in to Joe Biden’s demand and chose not to distance herself from his unpopular decisions. Her strategy to have her first post-office interview on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ may have found favor with Colbert’s loyal viewers, but that surely doesn’t represent the larger, more significant voter-base. The Democrats certainly need more than an ideologically committed audience to win.
So if the Democrats decide to take a gambit again and nominate Harris, she might just end up as a trivial memory in political history.
Past generally indicate the future trends and the history of American politics does not favor those who lose a presidential election. The electorate, it seems, develops a disinterested stance towards the ‘losers’, making it harder for such candidates to draw support in consequent elections.
The stark unpopularity of the Democratic Party and the seemingly disconnected approach of Harris, indeed, dents any formidable chance that she may potentially have for a successful run in the forthcoming presidential race. Her inability to woo the changing American electorate spells disaster more than it suggests redemption.
In opting not to run for governor, Harris seems to have an eye on another presidential run, but her past performance and the present political climate could mean this ambition is more fantasy than realistic expectation. Her public image doesn’t assert confidence, instead, it fuels speculation about potential failure.
While much remains uncertain in the shifting sands of American politics, one thing is quite clear: If Kamala Harris’ political aspirations include making a historical synonymy with the title ‘the 48th president of the United States’, the road ahead is fraught with substantial challenges.
The post Harris’ Presidential Aspiration: A Future Trivial Memory? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
