The ninth President of the United States, William Henry Harrison, was the last British-born leader and the first White House occupant from the Whig Party. His tenure as president was marked by the longest inaugural speech ever delivered and was also the most fleeting. His presidency was cut off by his death just 31 days into his term, leading to the unfortunate distinction of being the first president to die in office. While he had lost his first attempt at the presidential election, he was the last politician to come back and win the subsequent one, a feat previously accomplished by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, with only Richard Nixon managing to secure a win after a later loss.
Popular consensus seems to be unfavorable to those who suffer defeat in their first presidential bid, only to run again in the next election. Losers don’t seem to be crowd favorites, with history supporting this sentiment. Both Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran for office twice and were defeated on both occasions. The streak of defeats doesn’t end there, with Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each having contested the presidency three times consecutively and losing each time.
Kamala Harris, who recently announced her decision not to run for governor of California, might be placing her sights back on the White House. This potential move doesn’t bode well for her considering the above historical trend, coupled with her place within a party experiencing an ebb in popularity. The Democratic Party’s popularity finds itself in dire straits, with a net favorability almost three times worse than the GOP’s.
The Democratic Party’s reputation plummeted to one of its lowest points in the last 35 years, according to public perception. This appears to stem in part from internal discord within the Democratic ranks, due to both the loss to Trump in the presidential race as well as perceived ineffectiveness in combating him while he’s seated in office. This dissatisfaction with the performance of the party is reflected in mixed sentiments from both progressive and centrist Democrats.
Progressives criticize Democrats for their lack of fight, while centrists find fault with what they see as misplaced zeal?focusing on culture war and identity politics, leaning too far left for their taste. However, the common thread uniting these differing voices within the party is their collective longing for victory. Spitting in the face of these winsome dreams, Kamala Harris embodies the party-wide discontent more than anything else.
Harris’s potential appeal as the Democratic nominee in 2024 boiled down to the fact that she was ahead due to her diverse background. A clear affirmation of this came from Biden’s assertion that he would select a female, specifically an African American, as his running mate. Harris’s inability to widen the Democratic coalition, despite her diversity, has surfaced as her most significant problem, overshadowing racial or gender considerations.
With this in mind, it is not Harris’s race or gender that poses an issue, but rather her inability to resonate with voters in a way that enlarges the Democratic voting bloc. A key target for Democrats is the pool of Trump supporters, who remain unswayed by Harris’s appeal. She did not fail due to poor Democratic turnout but because she failed to stimulate a constituency undergoing demographic shifts.
Most agree that her approach to politics was not compelling enough for a dynamic electorate. Her speeches could have been mistaken for a college dean’s monologues at a liberal arts school, lacking in terms of political persuasion. Barring reproductive rights, her positions echoed the results of focus groups more than personal conviction, disappointing voters hungry for genuine political authenticity.
Adding to her woes, Harris’s agreement to toe the line with Joe Biden, steering clear of distancing herself from him, only deepened her political quagmire. One can deduce a lot from her choice of Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ as the platform for her first interview since leaving office. While this choice was well received by Colbert’s ideologically committed viewers, it fell short of the mark for the broader audience that Democrats need to engage to achieve victory.
Such moves solidify the idea that if Democrats extend another presidential nomination to Harris, she might only end up as a mere footnote in history. This could, unfortunately, mean her name eventually becomes just trivia fodder. Given the damning historical precedents and Harris’s track record, it seems improbable that she will be remembered as the 48th president of the United States.
All these factors indicate that Kamala Harris’s ambitions for the presidency would likely mirror the fate of those Democratic candidates who’ve encountered defeat and then dared to try their hand again in subsequent elections. History, it appears, has a habit of repeating itself, and unless Harris finds a way to overcome these challenges, she might well fall into the same pattern of unsuccessful presidential hopefuls.
In conclusion, the dynamics of the Democratic Party, coupled with public sentiment, don’t bode well for Kamala Harris’s possible endeavor to reclaim the White House. While it’s too early to predict the future with complete certainty, one might argue that the writing is already on the wall. It’s crucial for the Democrats to identify and bank on a candidate who can not only bring unity within the party but also resonate with voters across different spectrums.
The lesson here, for Harris and others, is that history and the voter sentiment can be powerful guides. They not only remind us of past wins and losses, but also pose important lessons for future attempts at leadership. With this in mind, the question is, will the Democrats heed these signs, refocus their efforts, and regain the confidence of the public? Or will they continue down a divisive path marked by ideological skirmishes and subsequent electoral disappointments?
The post Kamala Harris Ignores History: Another Inevitable Fail appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
