Kamala Harris: Is Another Presidential Run Spell Doom for Democrats?

William Henry Harrison, an Anglo-American born figure and ninth president of the United States, is a noteworthy historical character. He was notorious for having presented the lengthiest presidential inauguration speech ever, a marathon two-hour monologue, and then promptly establishing the record for the shortest presidency by expiring just after a month in office. Reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, Harrison was one of the unique characters who lost their initial presidential race but were victorious in the subsequent one. In stark contrast, Richard Nixon had to bide his time to bounce back, while Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump have the peculiar ‘win-lose-win’ pattern to their credit.

The trajectory has seen an interesting pattern; post Harrison, aspirants who faced a defeat in their initial presidential attempt and decided to try their luck again in the immediate next election were shown the exit door. Noteworthy examples include the Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey who had unsuccessful runs twice in a row. Other ambitious contenders like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan also lost three consecutive presidential races. It’s almost as if the voters had a distaste for repeat losers.

This could potentially spell trouble for Kamala Harris. The rumors have been swirling in the political world due to her recent announcement that she won’t be aiming for the position of California’s governor. This recent development has spurred speculation that she’s eyeing the Oval Office after her previous lukewarm attempt.

She’s taking her chances as part of a party which has seen better days. The Democratic Party’s staggering low popularity, with a negative number crunching at 30 points, is eclipsing the Republican Party’s unfavorable rating of 11 points. This represents the most dismal approval rating for the Democrats in the better part of four decades.

The frustration bristling within the Democratic factions is hard to ignore, some of it stems from their failure to effectively combat Trump previously. Blame can’t be heaped entirely upon Kamala Harris though.

Harris, however, can be seen as a marker of internal party dissatisfaction. The grievances and frustrations that have surfaced are not unidimensional. There’s a diverse range of discontent. From progressives lamenting the lack of spirited resistance to the centrist faction critiquing the party’s shift to fight for misplaced priorities.

The party seems to be entangled in a turmoil over leaning too far left, with squabbles over cultural warring and identity politicking. Despite their ideological differences, both factions are united by their shared aspiration for a victory.

If we talk about why Harris was previously in contention for the nomination, it was primarily due to the diversity she brought to the table. It was an open secret that Biden was on the lookout for a female, preferably African American, running mate.

But Harris’s issues run deeper than just her race or gender. Her selling point was supposed to be her capability to broaden the Democrats’ appeal and coalitional possibilities. However, she seemed to flounder on this front.

The need for the Democrats is a charismatic leader who could rally the Trump supporters. Her campaign, however, lacked the zest to charm the diverse array of an evolving electorate. Her oratory skills, far from being compelling, resounded more like an academic lecture at some obscure liberal college.

Even on the ideological front, the depth and intensity of her convictions seemed lackluster. Her viewpoints, except for the issue of reproductive rights, appeared more like a fabric woven by focus groups than personal beliefs, just when the voters were ardently seeking genuineness.

Adding more to her electoral travails, she surrendered to Biden’s wish for her not to distance herself from him, which painted her as even less of an independent thinker. Further evidencing this, her debut appearance post-tenure on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’ reeked of an attempt to court the already ideologically committed audience rather than broadening her appeal.

But the Democratic need isn’t those ideologically similar to Colbert’s audience; the prerequisite for winning is a far larger and diverse demographic than that narrow group. Harris’s failure to grasp this nuance could potentially doom her if she decides to run again.

If Democrats make the misstep of nominating her yet again, she could end up being a mere archives trivia item, rather than leaving her mark on history. At this rate, her claim to fame won’t likely be her occupancy of the 48th presidential term.

This analysis, of course, should provide a wake-up call for the Democratic party. Candidates need to resonate with the general public and not just their narrow ideological bases. And stops should be pulled to avoid the impending risk of becoming a party of losers, as history seemed to be reprising its disdain for repeat contenders.

Neglecting key voter bases, as Harris seemingly did in her previous run, will only lead to further plummet in their already dwindling voter appeal. It remains to be seen whether the Democrats will learn from these lessons or repeat the same mistakes that history has warned them about.