The Hopeless Political Future of Kamala Harris: A Deep Dive

The career of William Henry Harrison, ninth President of the United States, reflects the harsh reality of politics. Despite being born a subject of Britain and being the first to secure a presidential victory from the Whig Party, he held the shortest presidential term owing to his unfortunate demise just a month into his term. Moreover, Harrison’s victory in the presidential elections following an initial loss was a rarity, a feat most other politicians including his followers have found difficult to replicate. This doesn’t bode well for the likes of Kamala Harris, who seems keen on testing the political waters again.

Harrison was the only one post the Founding Fathers era to bounce back from a presidential election loss. Nixon managed a comeback too, albeit non-consecutively. The exclusive club of ‘win-lose-win’ holds only two members – Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump. Political history does not seem favorable for politicians who have tasted defeat in their first attempt at the presidency. This poses a significant problem for those speculating about Kamala Harris’ ambitions.

Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey illustrate the perilous path of attempting to regain a presidential bid after an initial loss, both having tried and failed twice. The list goes on, with political titans like Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan each losing three consecutive times. It appears voters find little appeal in candidates who were previously unsuccessful. This fact might act as a deterrent to Kamala Harris’ potential ambitions for the presidency.

The timing for the Democratic Party’s aspirations could not be worse. The party’s popularity is dwindling, marked by an unfavorability score almost three times worse than the GOP’s. Worse, the party struggles with the stain of unpopularity in its most recent 35-year history, a situation considerably worrying for any prospective White House hopefuls from this side of the political divide.

The lack of popularity of the Democratic Party is a direct reflection of their underperformance during Trump’s time in office and their failure since. This is not entirely blamed on Harris but underscores a problem with the party’s image that she is a part of. Her predicament is thus representative of the disillusionment within the Democratic Party with its own political strategy and outcomes.

The dissatisfaction within the Democratic Party is not a simplistic one. Progressive factions criticize the Democrats for not putting up a fight prominently while the centrist bloc argues that the crucial agenda has been misguided, sidelining critical focuses for disproportionate attention to culture war and identity politics. The only common ground both factions find is their shared craving for triumph.

What positioned Harris favorably for the potential 2024 candidacy was not her political acumen but rather a compliance with Biden’s desired demographic pick. Harris, a woman of African American descent, seemed to fit the bill. However, being a demographic fit doesn’t overshadow her inherent lack of appeal to the electorate, which is a prerequisite for expanding the Democratic coalition.

An understanding of Harris’s struggles is not complete without taking into account her inability to win over Trump’s supporters. The loss she faced did not emanate from a low Democratic turnout but rather her failure to resonate with the dynamic electorate. Harris’s style of rhetoric, more fitting for an academic dean at a liberal arts college, did little to draw in voters.

The void of authenticity contributed largely to Harris’s downfall. Her conviction, except for a firm stand on reproductive rights, appeared crafted to pique the interest of focus groups rather than reflecting genuine beliefs. But an electorate hungry for authenticity saw through this strategy and responded unfavorably.

Adding to her woes, Harris succumbed to Joe Biden’s pressure of keeping herself in sync with his image. This was a disastrous move as her association with Biden did nothing to boost her popularity but instead marred her identity. The selection of ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert for her first interview after her departure from office was a clear testament to this flawed strategy.

By choosing to cater to the audience of ‘The Late Show’, Harris played to a gallery that was ideologically committed but not as diverse as the electorate Democrats need to win over. This showed a clear disregard for the outreach required to secure a wider vote bank.

History will most likely regard Harris as an ineffective yet ambitious politician if she were to be nominated by the Democrats again. If she does run and lose, her political career might be relegated to a largely forgettable trivia question – certainly not a desired outcome for a once-promising politician.

Despite all these hurdles, it does not negate the fact that the overall atmosphere within the Democratic Party is of dissatisfaction and disillusionment. The party finds itself stuck between progressives frustrated by the lack of fight and centrists upset over the misplaced agenda. And somewhere amidst this chaos, the aspiration to win remains the sole unifying factor.

The Democratic Party needs to critically address its current position. Its dire favorability ratings and internal discontent signify a need for reinvention and reevaluation. If it continues on this path, its future presidential candidates face a high risk of failure, irrespective of their individual political profiles.

Rather than falling for token diversity picks like Harris, the party needs to invest in individuals with the ability to expand the Democratic coalition and resonate with the changing electorate. Only then will the party stand a fighting chance of regaining the favorability it currently lacks and better compete in future presidential elections.