In the grand history of the United States, only ninth president William Henry Harrison saw himself transition from British subject to the first Whig Party member to attain the highest office in the nation. He etched his name in history by delivering a marathon character inaugural speech and having the shortest tenure in office of just over a month. Interestingly, he remains the last politician to have emerged victorious in the presidential race after facing defeat in his initial bid, an accomplishment that preceded him in the form of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson; in contrast, Richard Nixon had to wait significantly longer. Winning, losing, then winning again, an extraordinary feat, has only seen two succesors in Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump.
Regrettably, the trend after Harrison’s era points to a rather gloomy fortune for politicians who seek a re-election after failing in their inaugural run. Some prominent figures of this club include Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, both repeating their failure twice. More notably, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan had an even tougher time, each losing thrice consecutively. The apparent discomfort of the general electorates towards those who have previously lost a race doesn’t present an encouraging outlook for Kamala Harris, especially following her recent decision not to pursue the Californian governor route.
This decision of Harris ignited conjectures about her second run for presidency, at a time when the Democratic Party is reeling under considerable public disdain. An alarming plunge in the favorability index, putting it at a deficit of 30 points, which is a staggering triple of that of the Republican Party, has rendered the Democrats more unpopular than any other time over the past three and half decades. This grave scenario, ironically, is driven by the anger of the Democrats themselves who are vexed at their party for not only being outmatched by Trump but also for not putting up a resilient resistance against him currently.
However, it would be rather remiss to put the blame solely on Harris’ shoulders. Her predicament fundamentally stems from being an emblem of the party-wide dissatisfaction. This dispirited sentiment finds varying roots among the Democratic dissenters. The progressives argue that their cause hasn’t been championed vehemently enough, while those inclined towards the center lament the push for inappropriate advocacies, as the party has seemingly veered too far off the centre line towards identity politics.
Undeniably, there is a profound yearning for triumph across these disgruntled factions. The nomination of Harris in 2024, for many, was predicated solely on her being a candidate of diversity, in line with Biden’s clear intent to choose a female and subsequently African American running mate. The main issue surrounding Harris, however, doesn’t hinge on her race or gender, rather her inability to meaningfully connect with the voters in a way that would broaden the Democratic alliance.
A crucial key to a Democratic victory is attracting the pool of Trump supporters, but Harris seemed to be lackluster in this task. It wasn’t due to a dip in the Democratic voter turnout that she failed, but because she couldn’t resonate with the evolving electorate. Her exposed manners and rhetoric often painted the picture of a college administrator rather than a presidential candidate. Worse off, her beliefs came off as contrived, at a point when the electorates sought genuine conviction in their leaders.
Aggravating her position was her unwillingness to maintain her distance from Biden, in obedience to his insistence. Her choice of Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her first public appearance post her office exit speaks volumes. The show undeniably enjoys ardent patronage from ideologically dedicated viewers, but that’s not the demographic that the Democrats need to win over, which is comprised of a wider spectrum of political views.
And therefore, if the Democrats make a risky gamble by priming Harris for the 2024 election, history might only remember her as an answer to an unusual trivia question—certainly not as the 48th President of the United States. Let’s remind ourselves, history is written by victors. It’s time the Democrats rethought their strategies, focusing on authenticity, amplified voter engagement, and true party reform. Only then can they begin to rebuild trust, reshape public perception, and, ultimately, reverse the trend of than their plummeting popularity.
The tale of the American presidential lineage is a rich tapestry of unique narratives, where the likes of William Henry Harrison emerge as poignant reminders of how the tide can turn for those that dare to rise again. However, this should serve less as a source of false hope for contestants like Kamala Harris and more as a stark reminder that voters often refuse a rerun of a spectacle that previously failed to entertain.
As the dynamics of today’s politics continue to be dominated by the perceived failures of the Democrats, their subsequent choice of representation could very well decide their fate. Flexing the muscles of diversity alone is not adequate; a leader must be able to connect with the voters on an empathetic level and truly understand their needs.
The Democrats, just like Harris, need to take a step back and seriously reevaluate their game. Do they double down on their past strategies, or do they take this as an opportunity for course correction? After all, the voters demand authenticity, not rehearsed speeches and hollow rhetoric.
In an age of unpredictable politics, the Democrats’ quest for success will be hard-fought, and it remains to be seen if they will stick to their old guard or inject new blood. If they persist in forcing a sequel with Harris, they might discover that the audience has already left the theatre.
The post Kamala’s Second Presidential Run: A Rebound or Another Flop? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
