William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. president, holds the dubious honor of the shortest presidency, ending just 31 days into his term due to his unfortunate passing – the first of its kind for an incumbent president. Despite being born a British subject, he also became the first to represent the Whig Party in the White House, delivering a record-breaking inaugural address that meandered on for almost two hours. His was an interesting presidential journey; after losing his first election, he won the subsequent one, a feat only previously accomplished by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and later, by Richard Nixon.
The only other politicians to hopscotch back into presidential success after an initial loss are Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump. For every other aspirant who dared to tempt fate twice, their ambitions were hard hit by stubborn streaks of defeat. Historic figures such as Adlai Stevenson from the Democratic Party and Thomas Dewey of the Republican Party, experienced the fickle nature of the electorate twice, and Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each suffered three consecutive losses.
Drawing from historical notes, it becomes strikingly clear that the voting populace does not favor tried and failed presidential hopefuls. This observed pattern bodes a potentially grim future for Kamala Harris, as conjectures swirl over her aspirations to once again assume the mantle at the White House. This speculation was recently fueled by Harris announcing that she will not contest for the governor’s seat in California.
As of now, the political tide is significantly unfavorable for the Democratic Party, with its popularity stagnant at a worryingly low point. The net favorability of the party, at a negative of 30 points, almost triples that of the GOP at minus 11. This grim revelation paints a picture of the Democratic Party in the most unfavorable light seen over the past three and a half decades.
The diminishing popularity of the party among Democrats themselves stirs a significant portion of the turbid party politics. Many harbor bitter feelings against their party, adding fuel to their disgruntlement for undermining Trump’s reign as well as feeling let down by their lackluster performance in offering resistance to his rule when he was at the helm.
It’s not completely fair to lay all blame at Harris’ feet. However, she unwittingly signifies the disillusionment Democrats feel towards their party. This feeling isn’t universal though. The progressive fraction, for instance, is critical of their party for not fighting with sufficient zeal, while the centrist faction worries about the misguided direction of their battles, criticizing the excessive shift towards identity politics and cultural wars.
The common thread uniting these factions is a deep-rooted desire to taste victory. Ironically, this shared aspiration was close to being the sole reason Harris was poised to be the nominee for the upcoming 2024 election. It was clear that Biden was hoping for diversity when he explicitly mentioned that he would opt for a female, specifically an African American, running mate.
Never was Harris’s downfall in the polls due to her race or gender. Rather, her downfall can be attributed more to her lack of broad voter appeal that could bring about a meaningful expansion to the Democratic voter base. For Democrats to secure victory, they need a candidate with the charm to convert Trump’s supporters. Harris’ campaign didn’t stumble due to lack of Democratic votes, it fell because she failed to resonate with an evolving elector base.
The language used by Harris resonated more with those in academia, more specifically, akin to the dean of students at a quaint liberal arts college. Save for reproductive rights, her beliefs appeared tailor-made by focus groups, clashing with the public’s craving for authenticity. Suffice it to say, Harris’s campaign was stuck in a mould she couldn’t break out of.
Adding salt to the wound, Harris capitulated to Biden’s request to align herself closely with him, forfeiting her chance to establish her own independent identity. In a telling move, her choice of venue for her maiden interview post-office was ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert. Sure, Colbert’s keenly partisan viewers relished this arrangement, but such an audience isn’t representative of the voter base Democrats need to woo for victory.
Thus, if Democrats decide to back Harris again, chances are she’ll merely be remembered for a trivia question instead of making her mark in history. That question certainly won’t be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ It’s time for the Democrats to really take note of the shifting political landscape and to align their strategy accordingly for coming campaigns. It’s starkly clear that Harris isn’t the symbol of victory the Democrats yearn for.
The post Kamala’s White House Aspirations: A Grim Sisyphean Effort appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
