William Henry Harrison, the ninth U.S. President, stands out in history for multiple reasons – he was the last leader born as a British subject, the inaugural representative of the Whig Party in the presidency, and holder of both the longest inaugural speech and the briefest stint in office due to his unfortunate demise just 31 days into his term. His political journey also uniquely included a loss in his initial presidential race, followed by a victory—an achievement only shared with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson before him. Subsequent examples of a similar path becoming successful are sparse and distant, with Richard Nixon rebounding to win much later in his career.
On the topic of election undertakings, it is noteworthy to mention that Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump stand as the sole individuals to win, lose, then reclaim their presidential titles. Most other politicians who suffered an initial loss and attempted recuperation in the subsequent election were met with a repeated defeat. This is evident in the experiences of Democratic representative Adlai Stevenson and Republican agent Thomas Dewey, both having run and lost twice.
Historical candidates Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan have taken this pattern further, each running thrice consecutively and losing each time. It appears the voters show a strong inclination against backing previous losers. Understanding this pattern, one can’t help but connect this glaring fact to the political future of Kamala Harris, following her public declaration that she won’t be pursuing the governor’s seat in California, implicitly suggesting she may have bigger intentions.
The Democratic Party currently faces poor public sentiment, represented by an unfavorable net score three times worse than that of the GOP. In fact, these unenthusiastic opinions of the Democratic Party surpass any negativity perceived in the preceding thirty-five years. The Democratic predicament lays rooted in its inability to mount substantial resistance against the political tide of Trump, a failure haunting both the party’s leadership and its followers.
But the entirety of this fiasco isn’t Harris’ cross to bear alone. However, her position in the Democratic Party acts as an apt emblem of the abiding dissatisfaction within party lines. This unease isn’t uniform across the board, with progressives insisting the Democrats aren’t pushing back vigorously enough, while the central faction believes the party is advocating for misplaced causes due to a drastic shift to the left concerning cultural and identity politics.
What binds these divided fractions together is an intense aspiration for victory. It seems one of the few reasons Harris sat comfortably as a potential nominee for the 2024 race was due to her ticking the diversity box, a requirement Biden explicitly publicized for his prospective running mate. Her race and gender aren’t her weaknesses; rather, her downfall lies in her failure to resonate with voters in a manner that would broaden the Democratic constituency.
As it stands, the Democrats’ success seems hinged on their capability to sway Trump’s former supporters. Harris’ loss, however, was not a result of a disappointing Democratic turnout, but her lack of appeal to an evolving voter population. Her discourse primarily appeals to a niche demographic, making her seem more akin to a dean at a tiny liberal arts college, alienating a significant amount of potential supporters.
Further scrutinizing her political stance, barring reproductive rights, her political tenets often seem to be forged by running through repetitive focus groups in a time where the electorate sought genuine authenticity. Her knack of conforming to formulated rhetoric further exasperated her situation, pushing the last nails into her political coffin.
A glaring example of Harris’ strategic misstep was her decision to not distance herself from Biden’s failing agenda. She chose to appear on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ for her first interview post-office, arguably a platform that caters more to a committed ideological audience, not quite the crowd that the Democrats need on their side to garner a win.
This choice, along with her political shortcomings, would potentially sink the Democrats if she’s nominated again. Instead of becoming a powerful presence in the annals of U.S. history, she stands the risk of being relegated to the status of an obscure trivia answer. She certainly won’t be recognized as the 48th President of the United States in the history books.
The stage is set for the Democrats to take a critical look at their choices and their strategies. Echoing their past failures won’t serve them well—Kamala Harris being a prime example. A reshuffling of the cards might be necessary, with meritocracy trumping over tokenism, authenticity over fashioned ideals, and a stronger representation of the populace’s needs and wants for a fruitful future.
With Harris ticking all the wrong boxes so far, it’s a wonder she once stood as a potential presidential nominee, promoting an image that doesn’t quite align with the now perceptible reality. Whether it’s her stale rhetoric, unappealing political stances, or questionable strategic decisions, one cannot help but conclude that her political ship is veering off course, and quickly.
While past events can’t predict future outcomes with absolute certainty, the narrative arc does not look promising for a Harris presidential run. For Democrats as a whole, it’s high time they put bitterness aside and unite under a shared vision to recapture trust and win. Not for Harris, Biden, or any individual, but for the collective goal of a stronger, inclusive Democratic Party.
The post Ninth Presidential Bid Unlikely for Disaster-Prone Kamala Harris appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
