William Henry Harrison, known as the ninth U.S. President, holds the record of being the last leader born as a British subject and the inaugural member of the Whig Party to secure a victory in the White House. His claim to fame includes delivering the lengthiest inaugural address ever recorded, a speech that stretched across two hours. Yet, his term remained the briefest, as he passed away 31 days into his presidency, being the first sitting president to meet such an unfortunate end. Harrison was the final politician to endure defeat in his primary presidential run only to secure victory in the subsequent attempt, a political achievement that Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were known for.
In the annals of U.S. politics, only Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump have managed to win, then lose, and triumph again. Post-Harrison, all who suffered a loss in their first run and aimed for the presidency in the following election met with defeat once again. This trend was experienced by Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, who campaigned twice and lost on both occasions. Further, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan embarked on a three-times-campaigning-and-losing streak. Evidently, voters do not support those who have lost previously.
For Kamala Harris, this pattern does not bode well. Despite speculation that she may make another attempt at the White House after announcing her decision not to run for governor in California, the unfavorable history of second-chance campaigners looms large. The Democratic Party’s critical favorability standing, which is a staggering negative 30 points compared to the GOP’s negative 11 points, further exacerbates the scenario. Their unpopularity has sky-rocketed to a point unseen in the past 35 years.
Democrats have found themselves growing increasingly discontent with their party. Their dissatisfaction with losing to Trump and failing to present a significant challenge to his regime runs deep. This discord within the Democratic camp is not uniform; it varies across its broad spectrum. The progressive faction contends that the Democrats’ struggle has not been sufficiently fervent. Simultaneously, the party’s centrist wing argues that they have overly swung to the extreme left on cultural warfare and identity politics.
However, a shared desire across all factions for victory is undeniable. The only factor that had placed Harris in pole position to be the nominee in 2024 was the diversity she embodied. It was clearly stated by Biden that he would opt for an African American female running mate. Consequently, Harris’s inability to appeal to a broader demographic and expand the Democratic coalition is her real dilemma, rather than her race or gender.
To grasp victory, the Democrats require a figure capable of swaying Trump voters. Harris’s defeat wasn’t a consequence of insufficient Democratic turnout; it was a result of her not being engaging to an evolving electorate. Her rhetoric made her appear more apt for the dean of students at an obscure liberal arts college than for president. Even her articulation of reproductive rights seemed to be the output of focus group sessions rather than genuine conviction, a turn-off for voters seeking authenticity.
In addition, she succumbed to Biden’s demand to not segregate herself from him, another critical mistake on her part. The choice of ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert as the platform for her initial interview post the office exit can be seen as an indicator of her struggle. Colbert’s fanbase might find that appealing, but that’s not the demographic Democrats need to convert to win.
Regrettably, if the Democrats repeat their mistake and nominate Harris again, she will risk becoming merely an answer to a political trivia question. ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ — it is highly doubtful that the answer will ever be Kamala Harris.
Democrats have shown themselves susceptible to losing the confidence of voters when they coursed too far to the left in recent years. Their commitment to hard-line stances on cultural battles and identity politics rather than focusing on broader, more universally relatable policies, has been a significant factor in their recent failings.
As a consequence, they have steadily lost ground with the electorate. Voters’ overwhelming rejection of candidates who have lost before also paints a grim picture for any Democratic candidate seeking to make a triumphant return, including Harris.
The harsh reality of the Democrats’ political situation reveals an invaluable lesson for aspiring members and leaders. If they wish to capture the White House, they must prioritize the ability to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, including those who previously supported Trump. One such strategic miscalculation was their reliance on focus-group-derived ideas that lacked authenticity.
The case of Kamala Harris serves as a stark reminder of where the Democratic Party may have lost its way. While token gestures of diversity are commendable, they must not come at the expense of broader appeal and substantial policy. Harris’s lack of connection with the American people was stark and detrimental to her candidacy.
The futility of Harris’s rhetorical pandering to a very niche audience underscored the essential truth that Democrats must reconnect with a broad span of voters if they want to move beyond their currently dismal standing. Only then can they hope to surpass the appeal of the GOP and reclaim the presidency. If they continue to put forward candidates like Harris, they risk further eroding their voter base and bringing the party to the brink of political insignificance.
The post Harris’s Presidential Dreams Dashed by Democrat Disarray appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
