Kamala Harris: Chronicles of a Failed Aspirant

The first person from the Whig Party to clinch the presidency was William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States. Having the record of presenting the longest inaugural address that lasted almost two hours, Harrison also had the dubious distinction of having the briefest presidency. His term abruptly ended as he succumbed to ill health barely a month after assuming office, making him the first sitting president to die in tenure. Harrison was the last to lose a presidential race and rebound to claim victory in the subsequent election, a feat previously achieved by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

Richard Nixon, albeit losing initially, ultimately triumphed after a significant duration had elapsed. Only Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump managed to lose, then win, and then lose again in their respective political roller coasters. However, for most politicians since Harrison’s time, a first-time loss usually indicated a repeat defeat in the subsequent election. Thus, it appears that the electorate seldom shows faith in candidates who have tasted failure.

Amongst the unsuccessful aspirants in the realm of presidential politics are Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey, who both experienced two consecutive losses. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan found themselves in a more unfortunate circumstance as they faced defeats in three consecutive elections. This voting trend seems to send a clear message that the electorate doesn’t take kindly to candidates who can’t secure a win.

Kamala Harris’ recent decision to abstain from the California gubernatorial race has fuelled speculation of her ambitions for a possible White House stint. One cannot help but draw parallels between her situation and the aforementioned electoral history. However, Harris’ potential candidacy comes amidst declining popularity of the Democratic Party, which currently stands at an abysmal favorability deficit of 30 points, faring nearly three times worse than the GOP with a deficit of 11 points.

The Democratic Party finds itself in the throes of discontent, with its ranks profoundly dissatisfied with their collective performance against Trump, and their subsequent inability to pose any significant challenge to his tenure. This disappointment, however, is multifaceted. One side’s complaint lies in their belief that the Democrats have not rallied to fight vehemently, while the others perceive the Democratic party as losing its way by disproportionately focusing on cultural wars and identity politics.

Harris seems to be in a tough spot as a symbol of this Democratic unrest. Yet, beneath the layer of discontentment that ranges from accusations of insufficient battle spirit to misguided priorities, is a desperate longing for victory, a trait Harris and her party ought to prioritize. For their redemption lies precisely in this: presenting a candidate who can sway Trump’s voters.

Contrary to popular belief, being a diversity candidate hasn’t necessarily worked in Harris’ favor. While Biden had openly expressed his intention to select a female African-American running mate, which eventually saw Harris assume that role, her problems lay not with her gender or race. The crux of the issue lies in her failure to connect with voters in a way that could broaden the Democratic alliance.

Some analysts argue that Harris’ defeat was not due to voter lethargy or a lack of faith in the Democratic party, but because her rhetoric failed to captivate an evolving electorate. The language that Harris employed seemed to resonate more with a dean at a minor liberal arts college rather than with the diverse constituency she was trying to appeal to. On issues apart from reproductive rights, her opinions appeared overly orchestrated and lacking authenticity, turning off voters in search of sincere leadership.

Further exacerbating Harris’ woes was her insistence on aligning herself too closely with Joe Biden. It seems Biden’s directive, to refrain from distancing herself from him, further undermined her credibility in the eyes of the voters. This was evidenced in her decision to opt for ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert as the platform for her premier interview post-resignation.

While the Stephen Colbert show may have been palatable to his committed audience, it did little to engage the demographic needed to secure a Democratic victory. The choice to associate with media outlets that only amplify your existing ideologies rather than open a dialogue with different perspectives might be comforting, but it tends to alienate crucial centrist votes.

Should Harris be selected as the Democratic nominee yet again, history may not remember her for her presidential aspirations, but as a footnote in a list of trivia questions. It’s a matter of weighted decision-making, one where choosing a candidate that only reflects the concerns of a niche audience could lead to an unfavorable outcome.

Judging from historical patterns and the current political climate, the Democratic Party’s journey to victory seems steep. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the party, intrinsically fragmented between centrist and progressive extremists, is having difficulty identifying common ground to rally upon. While diversity in viewpoints could provide a rich tapestry of ideas, it’s critical for the Democrats to align strategically and present a united front.

Kamala Harris’ political fate is largely influenced by this Democratic turmoil. She serves as a symbol for both the hope and frustration within the party. For her to have a credible chance at the presidency, she’ll have to navigate through these internal dissensions and bridge the divides.

Harris’ failed election bid and her speculated interest in a presidential run demonstrate the need for re-imaging within the Democratic Party. It’s high time to prioritize authenticity over politically crafted narratives. Only by connecting with voters truthfully and sincerely can they hope to counter the decline in their popularity and secure a potential victory.

In summary, the journey for Harris and the Democrats is undeniably uphill. Historical precedents don’t bode favorably, and the current political landscape requires tactful navigation. However, one thing is clear, shunning unpopular figures or unpopular opinions is not the path to success but rather engaging with them albeit how difficult it might maybe.

It remains to be seen whether the Democrats and Harris will heed these cautions or repeat the errors of the past. If another nomination opportunity arises for Harris, will she be remembered as the 48th president of the United States, or as a familiar face in an electoral roundup? Only time will tell.