Kamala Harris: The Beacon of Democratic Failure in 2024 Elections
Throughout history, a glaring truth has been showcased by the Democratic Party – a lack of willingness to give a second shot to presidential aspirants who didn’t succeed in their initial try. If we take a jaunt down memory lane, we can see that Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination in 2016, but was notably absent from the 2020 presidential contest, indicating the party’s relentless pursuit of fresh faces.
Let’s not stop at Clinton. Consider John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004. Despite mulling over the idea of making a great comeback in the 2008 elections, the party promptly reminded him of his prior defeat, showing him the door. Similarly, Al Gore, who represented the Democrats in the 2000 presidential election, wasn’t tossed a second lifeline after his defeat in the polls.
This trend is not something that has emerged recently. A cliché applies here: ‘No one likes a loser.’ The Democrats have made this abundantly clear through their choices. Take their treatment of their failed nominees – Michael Dukakis in 1988, Walter Mondale in 1984, Jimmy Carter in 1980, George McGovern in 1972, and Hubert Humphrey in 1968 – each received only one shot at the presidency.
One would have to travel to the distant past of the 1950s to pinpoint Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful back-to-back attempts, backed by the Democratic party, to reach the Oval Office. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that persistence in backing a proven non-winner is a path fraught with disappointment.
This brings us irresistibly to the topic of Kamala Harris, the vice president who fell short in the 2024 elections. Harris, despite initiating her campaign late and battling against the shadows cast by an increasingly unpopular and declining Biden, failed to attain her goal of presidency, despite various advantages.
She stood atop a wave of enthusiasm generated from her ardent supporters, was in possession of an ample war chest, and was able to count on favorably biased press support. This was to no avail as she faced off against an opponent who had been indicted four times, yet she still managed to fall short.
The impact of this crushing loss was felt beyond the presidential race. It resulted in ballooning vote deficits in numerous states, vital states flipping in favor of the opposition, and dwindling support from crucial Democratic demographic groups, including African-American and Hispanic voters.
The magnitude of this defeat, paired with the Democrats losing control over the House and the Senate, initiated a period of somber introspection within the party. Strategies are being reevaluated, with a marked division between the desire to focus solely on lambasting former President Donald Trump and efforts to instigate true reforms within the party, aiming to give lost voters reasons to return.
Interestingly, it seems that this focus on attacking Trump, while popular, isn’t a guarantee of success. Democrats eyeing the 2028 elections are faced with one question that resonates above all: ‘Could Kamala Harris be reconsidered?’ Judging by historical tendencies, the answer lies in plain sight.
Despite this obvious dilemma, it appears that Harris herself has internalized the clear message sent by the party and the voters. Sources close to Harris suggest she is leaning away from entertaining thoughts of a 2028 presidential run, choosing instead to consider entering the California gubernatorial race scheduled for 2026.
Harris’ decision is not without intrigue. Her reasoning, as far as it has been noted, seems to lay the blame for her unsuccessful bid on the previous administration, particularly on Biden. This conveniently allows her to absolve herself of responsibility and contemplate a fresh run, this time for the governorship.
Still, even this strategy may not bring success. Despite an effectively run campaign and a well-established record in California, nothing in politics is guaranteed. The competition, including former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is fierce, and it remains to be seen whether or not Harris’ entry would truly disrupt the field.
The specter of Donald Trump looms large, even on the gubernatorial playfield. Harris appears to view the governorship as an opportunity to retaliate against Trump’s policies. However, two things stand in the way: the overwhelming queue of other Democrats seeking the same opportunity, and the indisputable fact that Trump’s influence will diminish when his term ends two years into her hypothetical tenure.
According to the New York Times, Harris is contemplating alternatives to vying for political office. She has yet to commit to a course of action. Concurrently, her husband, Douglas Emhoff, has joined the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher, reportedly drawing a hefty annual package.
This presents Harris with a novel, peaceful alternative. She could refrain from entering the electoral fray entirely. She could eschew the demands of public service and instead contribute in her own way, provide counsel to aspiring politicians, or just enjoy a life rich in personal fulfillment.
Finally, it is simply mind-boggling that someone who has had so many advantages and held the vice presidency still managed to squander them all in the pursuit of the presidency. It seems that the Democratic appeals did not resonate with the public, furthermore, it can be said that Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential race may be remembered more for its spectacular failure rather than any groundbreaking attempts at change.