Kamala Harris: History Hints at Another Presidential Flop

William Henry Harrison’s era, the ninth President of the United States the last one bestowed with the unusual honor of being born a British subject, marked an end to candidates winning their presidential run after a first-time defeat. Since then, such second chances have been strikingly rare, offering a bleak perspective for those hoping Kamala Harris will have another shot at the presidency. A Whig party emblem, Harrison was also remembered for the longest inaugural address, crowning a severely truncated term. His was the first and shortest presidency to meet an untimely end, just 31 days from its inauguration.

Harrison’s victory was indeed the last instance where a politician gained the presidency after initially losing the election, a feat achieved by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson before him. While numerous politicians have tried to emulate this rare political phenomenon, it’s Richard Nixon who came close, climbing the ladder to victory after numerous losses. Only Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump managed to lose and regain the presidency. Hence, the odds for Kamala Harris seeking another presidential run do not seem promising based on historical patterns.

Apart from Harrison, no other political candidate has managed to rise gracefully after a first-time decimation in the election and claim victory in the subsequent run. A stark reminder of this stands in the examples of Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Republicans Thomas Dewey, who despite running twice for presidential office, were twice handed rejection. Not to forget Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan, both of whom faced defeat thrice consecutively. The message here is clear: Voters are wary of those who can’t display strength and resilience in victory.

Kamala Harris, recently declining the possibility of gubernatorial ambitions in California, further lends credibility to the speculation that she might attempt to reclaim the White House in the near future. However, her past presidential defeat and the current political climate seem to indicate otherwise. The Democratic Party, plagued by dismal popularity scores, hints at an uncomfortable road ahead for any potential candidate.

The Democratic Party’s current standing casts a shadow on its prospects, having a net favorability score dipping 30 points below zero. This unsettling figure is almost triple the GOP’s net favorability, at -11. The current favorability rating of Democrats marks the lowest it’s seen in three and a half decades. The uneasiness Democrats feel towards their own party, largely due to the loss against Trump and their inability to stand as a significant roadblock to his presidency, is palpable.

The situation is daunting, yet it would be erroneous to place all the blame on Kamala Harris. The very symbol of Democratic angst, Harris’s predicament stems from the party’s own discontent. However, this discontent is far from being a monolith, sprouting different concerns within the ideological branches of the party.

On one hand, the more radical elements within the Democratic Party believe the party is not combat-ready and lacks the necessary vigor for battle. On the other, the moderate or centrist wing feels that the party is fighting on the wrong side of the front line, emphasizing too much on culture wars and identity politics. These two differing viewpoints, however, synergize their desire for victory.

Harris was initially poised to be the 2024 presidential nominee primarily because she embodied racial and gender diversity. Biden clearly indicated his intentions of selecting a female and later, an African American running mate. Harris’s problems don’t stem from her ethnicity or gender, though, but rather from her inability to appeal to a broader swath of voters to strengthen the Democratic coalition.

Instead of revolving around issues of low Democratic turnout, Harris’s defeat can be attributed to her failure to resonate with a dynamic voter base. Unfortunately, her rhetoric resembled more of a higher educator at a niche liberal arts college rather than a mass appeals politician. And except for reproductive rights, her political conviction seemed assembled through focus groups rather than stemming from deep-seated beliefs, in contrast to a populace craving genuine authenticity.

Compounding Harris’s issues was a strategic misstep – adhering blindly to Biden’s directive of maintaining close alignment with him. This choice significantly limited her political maneuverability and prevented her from establishing her unique political stature. Her decision to grant her first interview post-departure to Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ merely emphasized her off-center alignment to the ideological pulse of the nation.

Colbert’s show, though a haven for ideologically committed audiences, doesn’t appeal to a wider public demographic; the very demographic the Democrats so desperately need. Therefore, Harris’s decision to affiliate with such a niche audience underscores a fatal misunderstanding of the broader American electoral landscape.

Given this chronicle of political maneuverings and the historical track record, the chances of Kamala Harris’s presidential nomination appear slim. Democrats might have to grapple with the significant probability of electoral defeat if they choose to back Kamala Harris again for the presidency. Harris’s story, if it proceeds in this direction, might become the curious answer to an otherwise quotidian trivia question.

Any hope of the Democrats to gain the presidency would lie with a candidate capable of winning favor with former Trump advocates. The need is for someone capable of resonating with a dynamic electorate, someone capable of crafting a narrative that appeals to the heart of the common American voter. As strategists and politicos look to future elections, the onus is now on the Democrats to select a candidate who meets these criteria.

The political landscape is cynical and relentless in its judgement of failure. It is a scenario etched with the image of fallen heroes, including Kamala Harris, who could not harness diversity and inclusivity into a broader appeal. Unless she leaves an indelible mark somewhere, Harris’s name may fade into a dim political footnote as an insipid presidential candidate.

In conclusion, Democrats need to seriously evaluate their prospects and learn from past missteps if they are to unseat the current administration. The challenge lies in picking a candidate who understands the lessons from history, navigates diversity, and truly appeals to the diverse range of voters. Kamala Harris, despite carrying the mantle of diversity, appears as a misfit in this demand. The question remains, will she redefine herself, or will she remain a subject for trivia enthusiasts, merely an answer to ‘Who could not become the 48th president of the United States?’