Harris’ Historical Nosedive: Lessons from Past Presidential Failures

William Henry Harrison, known as the ninth individual to take up the U.S presidency, was notably the last to be born under British subject and the first from the Whig Party to win presidential elections. His presidency was infamous for having both the longest inaugural address, amounting to approximately two hours, and the briefest duration in office as he passed 31 days after his term commenced. This makes Harrison the last political figure to lose his initial presidential bid and secure victory in the subsequent one. Figures such as Richard Nixon also shared this experience, though their wins happened far later.

Harrison’s career trajectory hasn’t been emulated in later years; those who have lost in their first run and attempted another in the succeeding election have reported defeat yet again. For instance, both Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey have ran two consecutive times and tasted defeat both times. Similarly, Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan came up short three consecutive instances. Evidently, the electorate does not favor those who’ve previously fumbled.

One can easily surmise that these historical patterns don’t offer much solace for Kamala Harris. Recently, Harris declared she has no intentions of running for governor in California, leading to conjecture and rumors about her possible future endeavors in the White House. Fanning these speculations is the Democratic Party’s massive dip in popularity.

In fact, the Democratic Party’s current net favorability score stands at negative 30 points, almost three times worse than the GOP’s negative 11 points. This signifies that the party is grappling with some of its lowest popularity levels in the past three-to-four decades. The plummeting favorability can be attributed to a growing dissatisfaction within Democrats

This dissatisfaction noticeable within the Democratic brigade is not a unilateral feeling. More leftist Democrats contend that their party is not battling fervently enough, while moderate Democrats are of the view that the battles waged by Democrats are for the wrong cause. Undoubtedly, both groups share the common aspiration of securing victories, but the path towards it remains divided.

Kamala Harris’s problem is multifaceted. While she’s not entirely at fault for where the Democrats stand currently, she does represent the internal discontent. Ironically, a major reason she was considered a potential 2024 nominee was because she was a diversity choice. Biden had clearly indicated he would be selecting a woman, and eventually, an African American as his running partner.

Thus, Harris’s quandary isn’t about her gender or race. The real issue lies in her incapacity to captivate voters in a manner that could expand the current pool of Democratic supporters. If the Democrats aspire to triumph, they need someone with the charisma to swing voters their way.

Interestingly, Harris’s defeat was not a consequence of low support from her party, but rather can be attributed to her failure in appealing to a dynamic electorate. There were numerous occasions when she seemed to mirror the academic figurehead of a small liberal arts institution – an image not particularly well-received by a diverse electorate.

Moreover, her stance on multiple issues appeared influenced by focus groups, particular at a time when voters heavily emphasized authenticity. To exacerbate matters, she decided to align herself with Joe Biden, refusing to create any distinguishing space between them.

Harris’s subsequent decision to have her first post-office interview on ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert seemed telling. While this may have pleased the ideologically committed audience of Colbert, it certainly wasn’t the audience the Democratic Party needs to regain its lost glory.

So, if the Democrats once again throw their weight behind Harris, she might be relegated to a trivial aspect in historical trivia. Of course, the question won’t be, ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’. It’s worth contemplating whether such a poor strategic choice can be justified by championing diversity alone.

But the reality remains that Harris, with her current approach, has practically zero appeal to the vital middle. Whereas the Democrats used to boast about their appeal to the hard-working, middle-class citizen, their supposed surefire ‘diversity pick’ appears more interested in pandering to alienating ideologies than appealing to the very voters she needs to convince.

Thus, the Democrats are faced with a paradox: can they win by relying solely on an uninspired base and the increasingly alienating diversity card? Or will they opt to heed historical presidential election data which hints at the fact that a failed first attempt at running for president isn’t something the electorate tends to forget?

Whatever the conclusion, time and future elections will paint the clearer picture. Can anything currently salvage the Democratic Party’s plunging popularity? That remains a colossal question.