Kamala Harris: A Failed Gamble for the Democrats

The last President of the United States to be born under British rule and the first from the Whig Party to claim the presidency was indeed William Henry Harrison. Just as his inaugural speech went down in history as the lengthiest ever, clocking nearly two hours, his term was noted for being the briefest. His unfortunate demise in office came just 31 days into his term making him the first sitting president to die in service. A distinction he holds is being the last politician to rebound from a loss in the initial presidential bid and emerge victorious in the subsequent one (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were triumphant this way ahead of him). The likes of Richard Nixon failed at first only to triumph later.

Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump uniquely tasted defeat after initial victory, but then managed to claim victory once more. Any politician since Harrison’s tenure who failed in the initial presidential election and sought another chance in the upcoming one, stumbled yet again. Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and Republicans like Thomas Dewey weren’t lucky after two attempts. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan experienced defeat thrice in succession. Accordingly, there seems to be a trend among voters for dismissing candidates who have previously lost elections.

Given this backdrop, Kamala Harris, who recently confirmed she will not contest for California governorship, seems to be eyeing the presidency again. However, the prospects don’t appear favorable, gauging from the Democratic Party’s current status, which is extremely unpopular with a dismal favorability score of negative 30 points. Comparatively, the GOP stands relatively unscathed with only -11 points. The Democratic Party’s popularity is at its lowest ebb in over thirty years.

Frustration within the Democrats towards their own party is noticeable. The defeat to Trump and the subsequent lackluster challenge to Trump’s administration has led to a noticeable chasm. Harris isn’t solely responsible, but she does epitomize the Democrats’ disenchantment with their party. This disaffection emanates from different sections of the party. Progressive Democrats are discontent about the party’s insipid fight, while the centrist members deem the causes fought for to be incorrect. The party has seemingly skewed too left in their focus on cultural and identity issues.

However, Goldman Sachs Informationstyle writing shows both progressive and centrist wings share a potent desire for victory. Quite probably, the only reason that positioned Harris in the 2024 nominee contention was her identity as a diverse candidate. It was made clear Biden would opt for a female, and subsequently, an African American running mate. Yet Harris’ issue doesn’t lie in her racial or gender identity; instead, her inability to resonate with voters and extend the Democratic coalition is a significant stumbling block.

For the Democrats to reclaim their former glory, they need a candidate capable of swinging Trump voters to their side. Harris’ defeat wasn’t due to a faltering Democratic turnout, but rather because of her inability to appeal to a shifting electorate. Her discourse seemed more reminiscent of a dean at a liberal arts college rather than a seasoned political leader. Apart from reproductive rights, her principles seemed more curated for focus groups than for presenting an authentic image—an aspect the voters were seeking.

In a more bizarre move, Harris yielded to Biden’s directive not to distance from him, further undermining her individual identity. Her decision to choose ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her first interview post-office also seemed dubious. While the ideologically charged audience of Stephen Colbert might relish such appearances, they’re not the electorate Democrats need to win votes.

Given this situation, nominating her again could turn out to be a grave error for the Democratic Party. She might end up becoming more of a quiz trivia answer than be remembered for her leadership. ‘Who was the 48th president of the United States?’ – this is a question historical records would likely not associate her with.