Future Looks Bleak for Kamala Harris: History and Popular Opinion Not on Her Side

William Henry Harrison, the United States’ ninth president, is famous for his oxymoronic political career. Born a British subject, he later led the nation with the shortest presidential term, a mere 31 days. He also holds the record for the longest inaugural address ever delivered, approximately two hours long. Interestingly, Harrison stands as the last figure in American politics to lose his initial presidential bid and then claim victory in the subsequent one. Following his example, every other politician to fail on their first attempt and contest in the subsequent election has lost yet again.

Richard Nixon stands as a unique character in this historical tableau. He was defeated, only to ultimately ascend to the presidency much later. Notably, Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump are the only figures to experience a win, suffer a defeat, and then triumph again. Figures such as Adlai Stevenson from the Democrats and Thomas Dewey from the Republicans, both ran twice and faced defeat on each occasion. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, who faced the voters three successive times, also failed to secure the presidency.

In retrospection, voters appear to harbor a deep-seated distaste for ‘losers.’ From this perspective, Kamala Harris’ political trajectory doesn’t look promising. With her announcement not to run for governor in California, speculation is rife she may be setting her sights on the White House yet again. But she has more to contend with than the historical losses of other politicians. Her primary concern should be her party’s wildly plummeting popularity, evidenced with a net favorability of minus 30 points, nearly three times that of the Republicans at minus 11 points.

In fact, the Democratic Party is currently mired in an all-time low popularity, unseen for the past 35 years. Surprisingly, even Trump’s unpopularity among Democrats has done little to raise the party’s standing, with 63% of Americans now having an unfavorable opinion of the Democrats. Why has the democratic party fallen so low? Mainly because Democrats themselves are reproaching their party for losing to Trump, and for their perceived ineffectiveness in opposing him now that he’s in office. It seems they have taken to heart the adage, ‘Democrat versus Democrat’.

However, the blame for these shortcomings can hardly be placed entirely on Harris’ shoulders. The major portion of the blame should squarely fall on Joe Biden and the group who pushed him to run for the presidency again. Harris, unfortunately, has become the embodiment of rising Democratic dissatisfaction. But this dissatisfaction is by no means unanimous. Progressives argue that the Democrats aren’t striving hard enough, while centrists consider the party’s current battles misdirected, largely due to their excessive swing towards the left on cultural and identity politics. Regardless of their different viewpoints, a single factor unites these factions — a desperate longing for victory.

Harris, ironically, is best recognized for having lost though she was handpicked as the 2024 presidential nominee. Biden had stated he would select a female, specifically an African American candidate, which resulted in an unavoidable predicament when Biden withdrew his candidacy. Most Democrats don’t view her race and gender as an issue, and rightly so. Vice presidential candidates, even white males, are always selected to broaden the appeal to diverse demographics. So, Harris’ problem isn’t her race or gender, but her failure to expand the Democratic coalition by attracting voters.

To be victorious, the Democrats need someone who can win over Trump’s supporters. Harris didn’t falter due to a lack of Democratic voter turnout; she failed to engage an evolving electorate. Her nebulous and often vacuous rhetoric gave off a vibe more suited to a college dean at a minor liberal arts institution. She seemed to shape her beliefs based on focus groups’ feedback, at a time when voters sought sincere and heartfelt conviction. To compound this error, she unwillingly accepted Biden’s directive to remain aligned with him.

Her compliance with political chieftains combined with her tendency to pander to progressive groups—a strategy learned through years of navigating San Francisco and California’s political landscape—only served to further marginalize her. Her decision to give her first post-office interview on Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show is indicative of her misguided approach. CBS decided to cancel both Colbert and his show, citing business reasons. But the decision was undeniably influenced by Colbert’s exclusivist approach, which only catered to a small, anti-Trump demographic.

Harris aired her grievances on Colbert’s show, labeling the prevailing political system as ‘broken.’ She mourned the perceived ‘naive’ and ‘feckless’ leadership and criticized those who claim to protect the system and democracy for their ‘capitulation.’ Such statements might please Colbert’s ideologically driven audience, but this small demographic is not the one the Democrats need to woo.

Democrats need to aim their message and their nominees at a wider group if they want to get back in the game. With Kamala Harris, that’s not the direction they’re heading in, and if she gets the nomination again, she’s likely to become nothing more than trivia.

Thus, Harris’s prospects of presidency seem dim. Not because of her capabilities or even her political prowess, but because of the discord and dissatisfaction within her party. That she might be considered only for her symbolic value only emphasizes that predicament. If the Democrats continue down this path, the phrase ‘Who was the 48th President of the United States?’ won’t evoke Harris’s name.