William Henry Harrison, holding the title of the ninth U.S. President, is remembered for many things, including being the final holder of the highest office in the land to be born a British subject. He was also the first president to emerge from the ranks of the Whig Party. His notoriety doesn’t end there; he gave the longest inaugural address to date, lasting almost two hours. However, the irony is that he held the shortest presidency, as he died just after a month in office.
Harrison was the last in line of politicians to lose their initial shot at the presidency and then make a successful comeback in the subsequent election. This feat was only accomplished before by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Richard Nixon only managed to win after a significant period had pass. Post Harrison’s era, the political scenario changes as those politicians who lost their first bid and tried their luck in the consecutive election ended up losing once again.
A notable few tried their luck more than once in pursuit of the presidency. While Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice unsuccessfully, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan were more persistent, making three consecutive unsuccessful attempts. The historical data paints an unfavourable picture for politicians hoping to reverse a loss. The voting public, it appears, has little taste for back-to-back gambles.
This historical precedent doesn’t cast Kamala Harris in a favourable light. The fact that she recently decided against running for California’s gubernatorial position has stirred up the rumor mill. Speculations are running rife she might be setting her sights on a loftier goal – a renewed run for the presidency.
However, Harris’ potential ambitions against the backdrop of an alarmingly unpopular Democratic Party is a recipe for disaster. With a net favorability score of negative 30 points, nearly tripling that held by the GOP, the Democratic Party’s reputation is at a record low, unseen in over three decades. Democrats themselves contribute largely to this rating, expressing dissatisfaction with their party both for its loss to Trump and for their lackluster opposition following his ascendance to power.
Harris finds herself in a unique but problematic position as she has become a symbol of discontent within the Democratic ranks. While not solely responsible, her presence magnifies the existing issues within the party. This dissatisfaction isn’t uniform across the board. Progressive Democrats feel that the party isn’t battling rigorously enough. Meanwhile, more moderate factions hold the view that the fighting is misguided, too focused on culture wars and identity politics, moving the party significantly further left than they are comfortable with.
A shared sense of urgency to secure victory links both these dissatisfied factions. It’s conceivable that a crucial factor behind Harris being considered a possible 2024 nominee was her potential to bring diversity to the candidacy. It was Biden himself who stated his intentions to choose a female running mate, eventually expanding that requirement to include an African American woman.
However, her problems go beyond race and gender; it’s her inability to appeal to a broad enough demographic to bolster the Democratic coalition that causes concern. For Democrats to secure victory, they need a candidate who can attract previous Trump voters. Harris’ failure to win wasn’t due to tepid Democratic turnout, but because her candidacy failed to galvanise a shifting electorate.
Moreover, Harris tended to lean towards a verbose, academic rhetorical style that resembled the discourse of a dean at a minor liberal arts college rather than a potential leader of the free world. All this, coupled with the undertone of reproductive rights, seemed like a calculated selection engineered by politically driven focus groups, rather than genuine grassroots-held convictions. At a time when voters heavily valued authenticity, she offered scripted replies.
On top of everything, Harris capitulated to Biden’s demand to maintain a united front regardless of her personal inclinations, further eating into her authenticity. This was evident in her decision to give her first interview after leaving office on ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert, drawing cheers from his ideologically committed audience.
However, Colbert’s politically charged audience isn’t representative of the broader electorate that the Democrats need to win. Their ultra-left leanings serve to distance Harris further from the political center, thereby undermining her potential to be a rallying figure for the Democratic Party.
This entire situation paints a dreary prediction for Harris, should she run again for office. If her candidacy were to happen, she’ll probably end up being a trivia question in future political debates, rather than leaving an indelible mark on the pages of history as the 48th U.S. President.
Based on historical records and the current political climate, Kamala Harris’ chances in any forthcoming presidential run are doubtful. Furthermore, she is unlikely to reverse the declining perception of the Democratic party any time soon.
Thus it stands, history doesn’t tend to favor losers and current trends show no indication of reversing that. Harris’ potential run could very well serve as a renewed reminder of this fact.
The post Kamala Harris: A Symbol of Democratic Discontent and Potential Failure appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
