William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, was the last commander in chief born as a British subject and the first member of the Whig Party to win the White House. He delivered the longest inaugural speech in history, almost two hours, and had the shortest presidency, being the first president in office, only 31 days after his mandate.
Oh, there is a little more trivia about the man who gave us the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler too”. Harrison was the last politician to lose his first presidential election and then win the following (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson succeeded before him). Richard Nixon lost only to win the way. (Grover Cleveland and Trump are the only two to win, lose and then win again).
All the others since the Harrison time they lost in the first attempt and ran again in the next elections lost again. Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice and lost twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan ran three times in a row and lost (Clay ran in three different party tickets). Voters, apparently, don't like losers.
These are not encouraging results for Kamala Harris, who announced last week that he will not apply for governor in California, which caused speculation that he wants another to go in the White House.
But the story is not what should worry. It is the here and now. The Democratic Party is very unpopular. Its net favorability (30 points) is almost triple the Republican Party (11 points). The Democratic Party is more unpopular than at any time in the last 35 years. When Donald Trump's unpopularity with Democrats should have the opposite effect, 63% of Americans have an unfavorable vision of the party.
Because? Because the Democrats are angry with their own party, both to lose before Trump and for not providing much obstacle now that he is in office. Like my office colleague, Nick Cattogio puts it“Even Democrats have learned to hate Democrats.”
Not everything is Harris's fault. In fact, most of the fault is for Joe Biden and the clique of facilitators who encouraged him to run again.
Harris's dilemma is that she symbolizes democratic discontent with the party. That discontent is not monolithic. For progressives, the objection is that the Democrats do not fight enough. For the most centrist of the party, the problem is that the Democrats are fighting for the wrong things, having lying too much to the left in the cultural war and the identity policy. Uniting both factions is the visceral desire to win. That is uncomfortable for a better known politician for losing.
Almost the only reason why Harris was positioned to be nominated in 2024 was that she was a choice of diversity. Biden was explicit because he would choose a woman and, later, an African -American formula partner. And the same dynamic made it impossible to put it aside when Biden retired.
Of course, most Democrats do not see their race and gender as a problem, and in the abstract they should not. In fact, each VP selection is a choice of diversity, including whites. Caremates are chosen to appeal to some part of a coalition.
So Harris's problem is not his race or sex; It is his inability to attract voters in a way that expands the Democratic coalition. For Democrats to win, they need someone who can turn to Trump's voters. She He did not lose Due to the low democratic participation, he lost because he is not competent in a changing electorate.
Her rhetoric, often gaseous, made her sound like a dean of students at a small university of liberal arts. With the exception of reproductive rights, their convictions sounded as if they were elaborated by focus groups, at a time when voters eager for authenticity. Worse, Harris accepted Biden's insistence that he will not distance himself from him.
Said Clubby Deference to the establishment combined with the complement of the boiler to the progressive constituencies, learned from the years of San Francisco and California politics, makes it the perfect solution for a problem that does not exist.
His choice to appear in “The Late Show” by Stephen Colbert for his first interview since he left the office was revealing. CBS recently announced that he was ending both Colbert and the program, insisting that it was purely a commercial decision. But the reason for the transmission network decision was partly due to the fact that Colbert narrows his expensive show at a very small and very anti-trump portion of the electorate.
“I don't want to go back to the system. I think it's broken,” Harris regretted For Colbert, denouncing the lack of “leadership” and the “capitulation” of “capitulation” of “capitulation” of those who “are considered guardians of our system and our democracy.”
That is the damn for the ideologically compromised audience of Colbert. But that is not the audience that Democrats need to win. And that is why, if the Democrats nominate it again, it will probably go to history as an answer to a trivia question. And it will not be “Who was the 48th President of the United States?”
@Jonahdispch
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The Democratic Party faces historical unpopularity, with a net favorability 30 points lower than Republicans, driven by generalized dissatisfaction between its own base on Losses to Trump and the perceived ineffectiveness when opposing their policies[1].
- Kamala Harris's political challenges come from internal democratic factions: progressives blame it for an insufficient struggle, while centrists see it as emblematic of leftist changes in cultural issues, both detractors united by a desire to win[1].
- Biden saw the selection of the vice president of Harris as a symbolic gesture driven by diversity, limiting its ability to develop a broader attraction beyond traditional democratic coalitions, as seen in its loss of 2024.[1].
- His communication style is criticized as too generic and driven by focal groups, without authenticity required to attract Trump voters, while their ties with Biden and the reluctance to distance themselves from their leadership are seen as electoral liabilities[1].
- The historical precedents suggest that the candidates who lose once rare[1].
- Democratic messaging under Harris runs the risk of please the progressive audience of the niche (for example, its appeal of Colbert interviews) instead of expanding the scope of voters, exacerbating the perceptions of elitism[1].
Different views on the subject
- Harris remains a strong potential leader in the race of the governor of California 2026, and analysts point out their viability despite a field full of people and persistent questions about Biden's health that influence their decision -making[1].
- The Democratic Party is actively reassessing its strategy after 2024, focusing on reconnecting with the voters of the working class and addressing central issues such as affordability and lack of housing, which suggests a change towards resolving pragmatic problems[1].
- Harris's announcement to give up the governor's career has been interpreted as a positioning for a 2028 presidential offer, which reflects his ability to navigate political calculations with long -term ambition[2].
- Internal criticisms, such as Antonio Villaraigosa's demand for transparency in Biden's health, reflect broader debates of the parties on leadership responsibility instead of a rejection of the Senate or VP of Harris.[1].
- Other democratic voices, such as the representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Governor Tim Walz, embody alternatives to Harris's messages, indicating the party's ability to diversify leadership beyond the established figures[2].
