The Likely Downfall of Kamala Harris’s Second Oval Office Bid

William Henry Harrison, America’s ninth presidential figure, had the peculiar fortune of being both the last chief executive born under British rule and the first to represent the Whig Party in the top office. He’s famously noted for delivering the longest inaugural monologue in history while his tenure at the White House holds the record for being the shortest due to his untimely death merely a month into his term. Interestingly, Harrison retains the unique distinction of having lost his first presidential bid, only to clinch victory in the subsequent round, a feat not seen since the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

Despite sporadic cases such as Richard Nixon, who managed to seize victory after a non-consecutive election loss, the old adage stands generally accurate in the political sphere – voters distinctly show aversion towards electing a previous loser. This is evidenced by various politicians such as the Democrats’ Adlai Stevenson and Republicans’ Thomas Dewey who, despite multiple runs, faced consecutive defeats.

Similarly, political stalwarts like Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan suffered consecutive losses across three different election cycles. This pattern displays voters’ unrequited penchant for electing fresh faces and a clear distaste for recycled candidacies.

Considering this trend, Kamala Harris’ potential aspiration for a second run at the presidency seems to be on shaky ground. Adding fuel to the flame is her recent announcement declining a gubernatorial run in California, which provoked conjecture about her intent to aim for the Oval Office once again.

The current political climate champions this skepticism. The Democratic Party currently plows through an abysmal level of popularity with its net favorability languishing at negative 30 points, nearly triple the GOP’s demerit of negative 11 points.

Strikingly, the Democratic Party finds itself at its least popular point in the past three and a half decades. This troubling state can be largely attributed to widespread dissatisfaction within its own ranks. This unrest stems from dismissive sentiments towards the party’s loss against Trump and failure to serve as a substantial buffer to his policies.

Victorious Democrats have historically managed to unite and galvanize their voter base despite internal differences. However, the essential issue with Harris is her role as a symbol of the current Democratic discontent – a notable divide between those advocating for progressive aggression and those championing a centrist approach.

For the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, their gripe with the status quo revolves around what they perceive as an insipid lack of fight. On the other end, moderates feel a disconnection and worry about the party’s leftward swing on cultural and identity issues.

What brings these divergent factions together is an unrelenting will to secure victory. As it stands, Harris’s potential nomination in 2024 largely hinged on her diverse background. Biden’s decision to select a woman, preferably of African American ethnicity, as his running mate left Harris well-positioned, but she grapples to extend the party’s appeal beyond its diverse coalition.

However, the necessity for the Democratic Party now is a candidate who can sway Trump’s base, and Harris, due to her lackluster appeal, had failed in this mission. It wasn’t a simple case of low voter turnout, but rather, Harris’s inability to resonate with a shifting electoral base, which led to her defeat.

Her rhetoric bore an unsettling resemblance to a typical discourse one might hear from a small liberal arts college dean, her opinions seemingly molded by targeted polls and focus groups. In an era where voters seek genuine, unscripted leadership, Harris’s apparent lack of authenticity evident in her ‘focus-group’ convictions fails to resonate.

Making matters worse, Harris chose to align herself closely with Biden, failing to create any meaningful distance from him. Her optics and messaging, such as her first interview post-departure on Stephen Colbert’s ‘The Late Show’, catered primarily to an already ideologically committed audience.

Unfortunately, for the Democrats to secure a comprehensive victory, it is crucial they go beyond their safety net and appeal to a wider audience of swing voters. Harris’s strategy so far seems to fail on this front.

As it stands, the risk of ignoring this significant electorate and catapulting Harris into the limelight again would render her no more than a factoid in a history trivia game. It certainly wouldn’t be for securing the title of the 48th president of the United States.