Dubious Aspirations: How Kamala Harris’ Ambitions Eclipsed Reality
Born as a subject of Britain, William Henry Harrison served as the ninth president of the United States and stood as a proud emblem of the Whig Party. His tenure, while short-lived, is notorious for featuring the lengthiest inaugural address spanning nearly two tedious hours, and infamously registering as an ephemeral presidency. President Harrison passed away merely 31 days into his administration, marking the shortest stint of any US commander in chief.
Harrison bore the distinction of being the last political figure to secure an election win subsequent to a preceding loss. This remarkable feat had been previously achieved by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Richard Nixon only managed to claim victory after much delay. An opposing trend was admirably set by Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, who rebounded from defeat to regain presidential authority.
The unfortunate misfortune of presidents including Adlai Stevenson, Thomas Dewey, Henry Clay, and William Jennings Bryan, who bore the ignominy of losing twice or thrice consecutively, seems to emanate a clear voter sentiment: a first-time loser seldom makes a second-time winner. In light of these historical facts, Kamala Harris’s political aspirations seem rather dubious.
Harris’s recent decision against contesting for the governorship of California has drawn widespread attention, fueling a growing conjecture about a possible rerun for the highest seat. However, given the visible unpopularity of the Democratic Party at this time, her odds don’t look promising.
On the surface, three decades’ worth of data reveal a startling revelation; the Democratic Party’s favorability netting a staggering negative thirty, nearly three times that of the GOP’s negative eleven. This figure exposes an uncanny dent in the party’s reputation, reducing its standing to the lowest in more than three decades.
Intriguingly, the outcry isn’t exclusively from opposing quarters, it emanates glaringly from internal circles too. Democrats publicly express their discontent, holding their party accountable for the debacle against Donald Trump and their perceived lackluster resistance towards the former president while he was in office.
Harris does not single-handedly bear this weight of disenchantment. In fact, she’s merely an emblem representing the Democrats’ unsatisfied segments. These disgruntled voices are quite diverse, ranging from progressives claiming the party’s insufficient ferocity in politics, to moderates blaming misguided causes rooted in cultural and identity war topics.
Regardless of the source of criticism, the Democratic factions share a common motivation: an overwhelming yearning for victory. It’s often suggested that Harris’ key qualification for a possible 2024 nomination revolved around her position as a diversity pick, as per Biden’s preference for a female, African American running mate.
It’s important to clarify that the main concern isn’t her gender or ethnicity. Rather, it’s her inability to resonate with the broader Democratic coalition. It seems Harris’ strategies missed the mark among potential Trump converts, a crucial demographic for the Democrats to nurture successfully.
It is not a decreased Democratic turnout that crippled Harris’ campaign, but rather her lack of resonance with the evolving electorate. Her speeches, often compared to those of a steer at a small liberal arts college, have failed to captivate potential voters craving genuine, personal connections.
In addition, Harris’ perceived lack of firm convictions, apart from reproductive rights, left the impression of a candidate formed by focus group insights rather than authenticity. In a political climate where voters yearned authenticity, Harris appeared to lose touch with what was truly needed.
Moreover, Harris’ decision to avoid distancing herself from Biden, perceived as a sign of weakness, tarnished her candidacy amidst potential voters. It was quite revealing when her initial post-office interview took place on ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert; a move more likely to appeal to Colbert’s committed audience than the broader voters necessary for a Democratic triumph.
Hence, if the Democrats were to place her at the forefront once more, she is more likely to solidify herself as a trivia question than the celebrated 48th US president.
This concludes a short study into the failed candidacy of Harris, and calls into question the future political course of the Democratic Party. If they are to throw their weight behind Harris again, it will indeed be interesting observing the potential ramifications seen on election day.