Kamala Harris: Destined for Another Historical Defeat?

William Henry Harrison, who bore the title of the ninth head of state in the United States, was renowned for being the last supreme leader birthed as a British citizen and the primary representative of the Whig Party to attain the highest office in the land. His inaugural discourse made history due to its exceptional length, approaching two hours duration, however, his stint at the helm of the nation was the briefest ever documented. This was due to his untimely demise in office, a mere 31 days after his oath of office, marking him as the first incumbent president to pass away during his tenure.

Harrison holds a unique place in the annals of political history as the final candidate to experience defeat in his initial presidential race only to emerge victorious in the subsequent election. This achievement was previously ascribed to personalities such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. In the case of Richard Nixon, he faced defeat first but carved his path to victory many years later. A striking contrast can be spotted in the journeys of Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump, who both tasted victory, faced defeat, and then once again ascended to the top.

A curious pattern has emerged since the periods of these historical presidencies – any individual who was defeated in their maiden presidential bid and opted to contest in the succeeding election ended up facing the bitterness of loss once again. Illustrating the pattern, the names of Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey come to mind, as they each embarked on two presidential campaigns and suffered defeat in both. No less compelling are the narratives of Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, who dared to face the electorate three consecutive times but tasted defeat on each occasion.

This legacy of political defeat does not signal positive horizons for Kamala Harris. Following her recent announcement that she would refrain from the California governorship race, conjectures were rife about her prospective ventures, including a renewed pursuit of the presidency. However, the historical patterns and the current climate of the Democratic Party offer no encouragement for such ambitions.

Let’s not shy away from the stark reality – the Democratic Party is sinking in popularity. Their net favorability is hovering at a dismal score of minus 30 points, nearly tripling their political rivals, the GOP, who stand at minus 11 points. The Democrats’ unpopularity is at a peak unseen in nearly three and a half decades and for a multitude of reasons.

The disdain Democrats feel towards their party is the culmination of losses on many fronts, one prominent being their defeat at the hands of Trump and their subsequent inability to mount effective resistance against his administration. But the blame does not lie squarely on Kamala Harris. If anything, she is a mirror, reflecting the widespread dissatisfaction with the dynamic, or lack thereof, in Democratic ranks.

The discord within the Democratic Party is far from one-dimensional. Progressive members grumble that the party’s resistance is lacking in robustness, while members from the more moderate center voice concerns with the party’s inclination towards cultural and identity politics, perceiving it as an undue leftward shift. Notwithstanding their differences, a common thread of dissatisfaction binds these factions, manifested as an overwhelming longing to claim victory.

Harris’ only leg up in the 2024 nomination race was her selection as a ‘diversity pick’, keeping with Biden’s express intention of choosing a female, especially an African American, as his running mate. Harris’ quandary, therefore, does not stem from her ethnicity or gender, but rather her failure to resonate with the electorate in a way that enhances the reach of the Democratic coalition.

For any success from the Democrats, a vital need would be a representative who can win over the Trump supporters, a task in which Harris demonstrated evident deficiencies. She didn’t falter due to a scarcity of Democratic turnout, instead her non-compelling appeal to a transitioning electorate marked her fall.

A critique of her message to voters paints her as a dean of an obscure liberal arts college. Except for a strong stand on reproductive rights, her beliefs reflected the hollow echo of focus groups’ opinions, in an era when genuine authenticity was desperately sought by voters. Floundering further, Harris made things worse by acceding to Joe Biden’s demand to align closely with him.

A case in point was her decision to make an appearance on “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert for her inaugural interview post her step down from office. Such platforms cater to audiences already firmly within the Democratic ideology, and sadly, omitting the crucial demographics that the Democrats genuinely need to win over.

Looking forward, if Democrats choose to push her as their nominee again, it could seal her legacy as a quirky historical tidbit. Perhaps questions pertaining to her would fall in the trivia categories rather than the annals of significant U.S. history.

One thing is certain, if remembered, it won’t be as the 48th president of the United States but perhaps as a symbol of Democratic discontent and failure to effectively respond to changing electorate needs.