William Henry Harrison, a British-born figure who etched his name as the ninth leader of the United States, was the last President hailing from the Whig Party. His claim to fame? An inaugural address that dragged for almost two hours, and sadly, the shortest tenure as President, abruptly halted by his demise merely 31 days into his term. An interesting tidbit from the annals of history brings to light that Harrison was the final political figure to lose his initial presidential battle, only to emerge victorious in the succeeding one. Not an encouraging precedent for Kamala Harris.
Weaving this narrative further back into history, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson accomplished this feat before Harrison. Richard Nixon’s defeat was eventually followed by success further down in his political timeline. Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump uniquely navigated the trajectory of victory, defeat, and then another victory. The rest? Well, they grappled with defeat in their first attempts and suffered the same fate in subsequent elections too.
The crusade of enduring political hopefuls portrays a repetitive pattern of defeat. Democratic Party’s Adlai Stevenson and Republican’s Thomas Dewey tasted defeat not once, but twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan consistently found themselves on the losing end thrice consecutively. A pattern molded by the voters’ clear disdain for those who lose. Predictably, the implications look gloomy for Kamala Harris.
Recently, Harris declared she won’t be contesting for the governorship of California. This decision has fueled fresh speculation about another potential White House run. However, the scenario is grim. The Democratic Party faces severe unpopularity, a stark favorability deficit (-30 points) being almost triple that of the GOP’s (-11 points). Worse still, the Democratic Party struggles amidst its worst unpopularity phase in over three decades.
The ire of the Democrats is twofold, partly due to their crushing loss to Trump and partly because of their inability to confront him effectively now that he’s assumed office. And while it’s not entirely her doing, Harris unmissably embodies the Democratic Party’s growing unrest. This dissatisfaction, however, takes different forms within the Party.
From a progressive perspective, the issue lies in the Democrats’ perceived passivity. The centrist faction, contrarily, believes the Party is waging wars on the wrong front, veering excessively towards cultural and identity politics. Besides ideological disagreements, both factions share a deeply rooted ambition to win.
The question of Harris’ potential as the 2024 nominee hangs in the balance, with her previous inclusion primarily owing to diversity considerations. Joe Biden was clear that he wanted a female and African American running mate. However, Harris’ race and gender are not her downfalls. Rather, her Achilles’ heel lies in her lack of voter appeal that can broaden the Democratic coalition.
For a Democrat victory, they require a figure eager and able to win over the Trump camp. Harris’ loss is less attributed to low Democratic voter turnout and more linked to her failure to engage a transforming electorate. Her rhetoric echoes the tone of a dean at a small progressive, liberal arts college – a description unlikely to resonate with the diverse American populace.
Harris’ convictions, apart from her stance on reproductive rights, appear to be the outcome of focus group feedback rather than deep-seated beliefs – a move criticized in an era when voters demand authenticity. Unfortunately, she also surrendered to Joe Biden’s demand for loyalty and refrained from creating a distance from him.
Thought-provokingly, Harris chose ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert as the platform for her first interview post-resignation. While it’s apparent that her appearance was well received by Colbert’s ideologically aligned viewerships, this isn’t the demographic that Democrats need to woo to triumph.
It brings us to contemplate whether a second nomination of Harris would be the right move for the Democrats, especially in light of the election history we’ve revisited. If that were to happen, she could potentially be remembered as merely a trivia answer rather than a notable political figure.
And the trivia question could be something like this, ‘Who was not the 48th president of the United States?’. The narrative’s tone appears bleak when considering the optics around Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, seemingly caught between a rock and a hard place.
The sinuous journey of political ambitions and defeats underscores the tough reality of aspirations and the zeitgeist’s impact on them. While the outlook appears grim for Harris and Biden, it highlights their struggle to resonate with the masses.
Ultimately, the lesson to draw from this winded narrative is not to ridicule individuals but to critically engage with the political landscape, its players, and the electorate’s will. The winding course of political history and fortune continues to unravel with each passing election cycle, and one can only speculate on the eventual outcomes.
The post High Stakes, Low Odds: Harris’ Unlikely Second Bid for Presidency appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
