William Henry Harrison, the United States’ ninth president, stands unique in our history, the last commander in chief who was born a British subject and the initial representative of the Whig Party to gain occupancy of the White House. His majestic inaugural speech holds the record for the lengthiest, delivering it for close to two hours, contrasting starkly with the brevity of his presidency. He set another precedent by being the first sitting President to pass away during his term, which occurred merely a month into his administration.
Harrison carved out a niche among politicians as the last one to face defeat in his first presidential election before victoriously emerging in the following one. This feat was previously accomplished by political giants such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Finding another example in modern times means looking at Richard Nixon who, despite initial defeat, found glory quite a few elections later.
(Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump are notable exceptions in the annals of US Presidential history – they descended down the path of victory, defeat, and then victory again.) Following Harrison’s era, those who braved a subsequent election after a first-time loss did not receive a favorable verdict from the voters, revealing a stark pattern in the electorate psyche.
Losing twice in a row were Democratic stalwart Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey. Even more disheartening were the successive losses of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, who regrettably faced defeat three consecutive times. This brings into stark relief that the electorate has little sympathy for political underdogs. If political history is to repeat, things are not looking bright for Kamala Harris given her recent foregone opportunity to run for governorship in California, inciting speculations of another presidential run from her side.
The Democratic Party finds itself in a grim situation, sinking in a quagmire of unprecedented unpopularity, their net favorability sinking deep into the negative (30 points), almost triple that of the GOP (at 11 negative points). This is the most unpopular the Democratic Party has been in the last three and half decades.
The party’s dismal position is a reflection of internal discontent among their supports, with much of the ire directed at the party’s sloppiness against Trump and the failure to mount substantial opposition now that he is in office. While Harris has had her share of mishaps, the brunt of the blame for the party’s standing can’t be singularly thrust upon her.
The discord within the Democratic Party’s ranks symbolizes Harris’ conundrum. Yet, this discontent isn’t uniform across the party. The progressive bloc criticizes the party’s lack of rigorous opposition, while the centrist wing sees the party’s problems rooted in its misplaced battles over cultural and identity politics.
While their perspectives may differ, there’s one commonality permeating the Democratic ranks – an unrelenting desire to triumph. Ironically, Harris’ presence in the 2024 nomination has been largely attributed to diversity demands. Biden had made it clear that he would choose a running mate who was both a woman and African American.
Therefore, it’s not Harris’ race or gender that comprises her cardinal problem. Instead, it’s her inability to broaden the Democratic coalition. For the Democratic Party’s resurgence, they need a candidate with potential to nod Trump voters their way. Yet, the downfall of Harris can be attributed to her inability to captivate a progressive electorate.
She didn’t lose based on low Democratic support, but due to her failure to mobilize a new wave of voters. The rhetoric she deployed often made her come across as a priggish administrator at a minor liberal arts college. Aside from her stance on reproductive rights, her beliefs seemed to have been created in research labs, completely lacking the authenticity voters were yearning for.
Adding fuel to the fire, Harris acted overly submissive towards Biden, who insisted that she never distance herself from him. This failure to assert her independence may have cost her dearly amongst her potential voters.
The choice of ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her first interview since stepping down from office was significantly revealing. Colbert’s audience, with their strong ideological leanings, devoured every word. However, this isn’t the audience the Democrats need to convince if they are looking to regain their strength.
If the Democrats choose to ignore the signs and nominate Harris again, it’s highly likely that she’ll be remembered more as a trivia answer, rather than a significant figure in American political history.
And the query for that trivia won’t ring, ‘Who was the United States’ 48th president?’
The post Harris’ Second Run: History Promises a Grim Outcome appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
