History Predicts Another Presidential Flop for Kamala Harris

The tale of William Henry Harrison, our country’s ninth president, is a peculiar one indeed. He holds a unique place in history as the last US commander in chief originating as a subject of British rule, and the first Whig Party figure to acquire the throne of the White House. Tragically, his presidency holds the record for brevity, as he became the first president in office to pass away hardly a month into his term, after delivering an inaugural address that, to this day, remains the longest in history.

Harrison, interestingly, remains as the only politician who tasted loss in his first presidential run but achieved victory when he ventured again (preceding this rare occurrence were Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson). Thereafter, Richard Nixon experienced a similar trajectory, but his win was notably delayed. We find only two exceptions to this pattern – Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump – who managed to secure victory, suffer loss, and then regain victory.

However, since the era of Harrison, those who braved a second shot at the presidency post initial defeat found themselves in the throes of defeat again. Exhibit A: Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, both veterans of two elections and two losses. The same fate befell Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, each failing to succeed despite consecutively running thrice. The message seems clear— the electorate isn’t too keen on backing those with a history of failure.

This history of consecutive losses doesn’t bode well for one Kamala Harris whose recent decision to not seek governorship in California has set the rumor mills churning about her potential ambitions for the presidency once more. It’s a grim outlook given the current state of the Democratic Party, which isn’t exactly garnering applause at the moment.

At a harsh net favorability of minus 30 points, popularity seems a far cry for the Democratic Party, a score triple that of the GOP at minus 11 points. This represents an abysmal low for the party in the space of the last three and a half decades. Democrats themselves seem frustrated with their party – both for succumbing to defeat against Trump and failing to mount a substantial hindrance during his administration.

While it wouldn’t be fair to lay all blame at Harris’ feet, her predicament stems from the fact that she encapsulates Democratic dissatisfaction. This discontent, however, isn’t uniform across the board. For more liberal elements, the grouse is that Democrats simply aren’t waging a strong enough battle. The party’s central factions, on the other hand, seem to believe that the Democrats are dedicating far too much energy to inappropriate causes.

The centrist wing of the party complains about its leftward tilt on critical socio-cultural issues and identity politics. Despite the disagreement on reasons for their discontent, the two factions are unified in their strong desire to capture a win. Ironically, the chief reason for Harris’ positioning as a possible 2024 nominee seems to be her status as a diversity choice, nothing more.

Joe Biden was transparent in his intentions – he would choose a female running mate, favorably one of African American descent. Therefore, Harris’ shortcomings don’t stem from her racial or gender identity; rather, they are born out of her inability to charm the voters and broaden the Democratic coalition. To secure a victory, the Democrats need a candidate with the charisma to sway Trump’s supporters, and this is yet another area where Harris seems to falter.

Not only did she fail to inspire Democrats to come out in overwhelming numbers for her, but she also remained uninspiring to the existing voter base. Her rhetoric often reflected an overly academic approach, almost like a university dean addressing students at a small liberal arts college. At a time when voters are yearning for genuine conviction and passion, her beliefs seemingly crafted by the systematic manipulation of focus groups were, at best, uninspiring.

Beyond these shortfalls, Harris seemingly forfeited her own political identity by willingly accepting Biden’s dictate of not distancing herself from him. Her choice of platform for her first post-office interview is a case in point – Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’. This undoubtedly satiates Colbert’s ideologically driven audience. But, it was a missed opportunity to connect with the wider Democratic audience that needs to be won over.

Unfortunately, Harris’ actions point to a misguided focus on popular ideological leanings and a failure to understand and connect with the varied spectrum of voters. This is a lesson that the Democrats will need to learn from and quickly rectify if they plan on delivering a strong contender for the 2024 race.

The crux here is that the Democratic Party is certainly at a crossroads. They are faced with the necessity of reassessing their strategies and choice of candidates. Their current politics, steeped heavily in identity and culture wars, are clearly failing to resonate widely enough to secure victory.

Unless they can provide a candidate capable of galvanizing voters on both sides of the divide, history is likely to repeat itself. The need for authenticity and a focus on broader issues rather than isolated, polarizing topics is a dire necessity for the Democratic Party at this stage.

So, if Kamala Harris does indeed become the Democrats’ chosen nominee again, she is likely to be reduced to a trivia question in the annals of history. And quite certainly, the question won’t be, ‘Who succeeded to become the 48th president of the United States?’

In all likelihood, unless there are radical shifts in strategies and candidature for the Democrats, the achievements of William Henry Harrison and his likes are not likely to be emulated. The only option left to the party is a hard look at their modus operandi and to reform from within, to truly become a force to reckon with.