Harris’s Second Attempt at the Presidency Isn’t Promising

William Henry Harrison, the ninth United States president, holds the dubious distinction of a notorious presidency marked by the longest inaugural speech and the shortest presidential term due to his untimely demise. Further, he remains the only president born as a British subject and the initial representative of the Whig Party to reach the apex of American politics. Apart from Harrison, just three presidents, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Richard Nixon, have managed to rebound from a presidential loss to secure success in subsequent elections. Yet, the ‘comeback kid’ scenario seems far-flung for politicians post-Harrison era.

Episodes of resounding electoral defeat, followed by stubborn determination to try again, have usually met with similar fate. Figures like Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey from the Democratic and Republican parties respectively have tasted defeat twice. Similarly, the tenacious yet futile attempts of William Jennings Bryan and Henry Clay, who ran thrice consecutively, highlight the skepticism voters cast on political ‘losers’.

Such historical electoral dynamics could have particularly disheartening implications for Kamala Harris. Her recently announced decision of refraining from the gubernatorial competition in California fuels speculations of another pursuit of the presidency. However, these speculations are immersed in daunting circumstances as the Democratic Party currently languishes in unprecedented unpopularity.

The Democratic Party’s reputation treads a steep downward path, with its net favorability plummeting to nearly triple that of the GOP. The party’s popularity has hit rock bottom, marking its lowest point in the last three-and-half decades. The reasons largely converge on the party’s failure to resist Trump effectively and the extravagant disappointment over losing the presidential face-off against him.

To be fair, the blame can’t solely be deposited at Harris’s doorstep. She is indeed caught in the crossfire of her party’s internal frictions and dissatisfactions. Such disenchantment among the party members is highly heterogeneous, with progressives bemoaning the lack of aggressive stance, while the centrists perceive the party’s detour to the extreme left on cultural and identity politics as the central issue.

The threads running common through this wide spectrum of grievances are shared distaste for their internal disarray and a burning desire for triumph. The circumstances favoring Harris for a possible nomination in 2024 were fundamentally rooted in her filling the diversity checkboxes. With Biden explicitly fulfilling his promise of an African American female running mate, it was Harris who emerged in the spotlight.

This brings us to the crux of the issue involving Harris’s leadership. Her hurdles don’t revolve around her gender or ethnicity, instead, it underscores her inability to expand the Democratic voter base. For the scales to tip in favor of the Democrats, they require a figure capable of winning over ex-Trump supporters, sadly, an arena where Harris has failed to demonstrate proficiency.

Her electoral hiccup didn’t arise from scant Democratic participation; instead, it was largely her lack of appeal to an evolving electorate. Predictably, her rhetoric echoes that of a head at a modest liberal arts institution, faltering in its resonance with the wider spectrum of voters. Her viewpoints, excluding those on reproductive rights, seem to be the result of calculated discourse painstakingly planned by focus groups at a time when voters are desperate for genuine intentions.

Perhaps the worst move in her political playbook was acceptance of Biden’s mandate of refraining from creating distance between their political stances. The decision severely blighted her independent political identity, a crucial consideration for any potential leader.

Her first exclusive interview post office on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ cannot be overlooked in the discussion about her declining popularity. The show’s ideologically indoctrinated audience is far from the diverse voter base that the Democrats need to win back.

The implications of all this are twofold. First, if Democrats blindly persist on nominating her again, it might firm her position in history as more of a trivia answer rather than a respected political figure. Second, it’s almost certain her political legacy wouldn’t be that of the 48th U.S. president. Deciphering the rich history of American politics suggests the Democrats would be wise to reconsider their possible nomination for the upcoming years.