History suggests Kamala Harris could face an uphill battle if she runs in 2028 | ABC NEWS

Key Concepts

• Political Comebacks: The historical rarity of presidential candidates losing an election and subsequently winning a nomination from a major party.
• Electoral College: The process by which the President of the United States is elected.
• Party Bosses vs. Primaries: The historical shift in presidential nomination processes from selection by party leaders to elections decided by primary voters.
• Charisma & Political Appeal: The importance of personality and public image in presidential campaigns.
• Historical Precedents: Examining past instances of losing presidential candidates seeking and winning subsequent nominations.

The Uncommon Path: Presidential Candidates and Second Chances

The video explores the unusual phenomenon of a defeated presidential candidate attempting – and potentially succeeding – in securing their party’s nomination in a subsequent election. It establishes that such comebacks are historically rare, contrasting the typical fate of defeated candidates – a descent into political obscurity – with a few notable exceptions. The video highlights that most losing candidates, like Al Gore and Walter Mondale, are quickly relegated to the “rear view mirror” of history.

Richard Nixon: A Notable, Though Troubled, Precedent

The most recent example of a major party nominee losing an election and then successfully mounting a comeback is Richard Nixon. His defeat by John F. Kennedy in 1960 was followed by a loss in the 1964 Republican primaries. However, he ultimately won the presidency in 1968. The video notes the significant societal upheaval – “a war, civil strife, and several assassinations” – that contributed to the changed political landscape and Nixon’s eventual success. It also points out the ultimately ignominious end to Nixon’s presidency with his resignation “in disgrace,” serving as a cautionary tale.

Adlai Stevenson: The Democratic Model from the 1950s

To find a comparable Democratic precedent, one must look back to the 1950s and Adlai Stevenson. After losing the 1952 presidential election to Dwight D. Eisenhower, Stevenson was nominated again by the Democratic Party in 1956. This nomination was particularly unusual because, at the time, presidential nominees were largely chosen by “party bosses” rather than through primary elections. Stevenson was, in fact, “drafted” into the nomination, indicating a lack of initial enthusiasm within the party.

The video portrays Stevenson as a “jovial professorial diplomat,” contrasting his demeanor with the “charismatic war hero” Eisenhower. It suggests that some of Stevenson’s campaign ads were ineffective, showcasing a humorous exchange about a campaign button. Despite this, and despite winning only nine states in 1952, Stevenson secured the nomination again in 1956.

Stevenson’s Second Attempt and Continued Defeat

Stevenson’s second campaign in 1956, while featuring “slightly better TV ads,” still resulted in defeat. Eisenhower won by a 15-point margin, carrying 41 states to Stevenson’s 7. The video emphasizes this outcome, framing it as a benchmark for Kamala Harris should she pursue another presidential run. The implication is that Harris would need to significantly outperform Stevenson’s second attempt to have a realistic chance of winning.

The Shift in Nomination Processes

The video implicitly highlights the evolution of the presidential nomination process. The contrast between the “party bosses” selecting Stevenson in the 1950s and the modern primary system underscores a significant change in how candidates are chosen. This shift suggests that a comeback attempt today might be more challenging, requiring a candidate to win over primary voters rather than simply securing the support of party leaders.

Conclusion

The video presents a historical perspective on the rarity of presidential comebacks, using Nixon and Stevenson as key examples. It demonstrates that while not impossible, such a feat requires a confluence of factors, including significant shifts in the political landscape and a candidate’s ability to overcome past defeats. The comparison to Stevenson’s performance serves as a sobering reminder of the challenges facing any candidate attempting to follow this uncommon path.