Democrats are riding high with confidence after their convention in Chicago, but Vice President Kamala Harris faces a formidable challenge as she seeks to win the presidency in November. Only once in the past 188 years has a sitting vice president been elected president of the United States.

 

While many vice presidents have ascended to the highest office, their paths have often been unconventional. Joe Biden, for instance, ran successfully after leaving office, while others like Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford assumed the presidency following the death or resignation of their predecessors before securing a full term on their own. Figures like Al Gore and Richard M. Nixon tried and failed to succeed popular two-term presidents, although Nixon eventually returned to win eight years later.

 

The only sitting vice president to win the presidency in the modern era was George H.W. Bush in 1988, who was the first since Martin Van Buren’s election in 1836. For Harris to replicate that rare feat, she will need her own brand of magic. Bush's success was largely due to Americans' desire for a continuation of Ronald Reagan’s policies, effectively a third Reagan term. However, the situation is starkly different for Harris; unlike Reagan, Biden is not riding high in public opinion.

 

Reagan left office with a strong 63 percent approval rating, while Biden currently faces a disapproval rate of 57 percent. When Bush ran, the country was enjoying economic prosperity with inflation under control, capturing the sentiment of “Morning in America.” In contrast, today’s economic landscape is troubled, with historic inflation and high-interest rates weighing on American households. A significant portion of the population is burdened with record credit card debt just to meet basic needs such as groceries.

 

The global context also differs dramatically. In 1988, international tensions were easing: Soviet forces were retreating from Afghanistan, the Berlin Wall was on the verge of collapse, and the Cold War was winding down peacefully. Today, the world is marked by widespread conflict, with wars raging on multiple continents and Iranian-backed militias launching attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East.

 

Harris's candidacy resembles that of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 more than Bush’s in 1988. Humphrey, who was vice president under the deeply unpopular Lyndon B. Johnson, ran amid economic distress, international unrest, and widespread antiwar protests. Despite these challenges, Johnson was nearly 10 points more popular than Biden is today. Voters ultimately rejected Humphrey’s bid, a scenario Harris is now fighting to avoid.

 

Democrats are banking on the idea that voter dissatisfaction centers more on concerns about Biden’s mental acuity rather than a blanket rejection of his administration’s policies. They hope that removing Biden from the ballot will suffice in addressing their electoral vulnerabilities. However, Harris’s close involvement in crafting those same policies poses a significant challenge. Whether it’s national security, the economy, or immigration, Harris’s fingerprints are all over the current administration’s agenda.

 

Harris’s approach to national security has not won her any favors with progressives who have criticized Biden’s foreign policy decisions. This discontent was on full display during the Chicago convention, where protesters chanted “Genocide Joe” before pivoting to “Killer Kamala.” It’s a reminder that Harris is intrinsically tied to the administration’s decisions on the global stage, for better or worse.

 

Immigration is another thorny issue for Harris. Despite her efforts to distance herself from the role of “border czar,” it is a tacit acknowledgment that the administration’s border policies have been far from successful. Rather than wearing the title proudly, she is effectively trying to erase any association with the administration’s controversial handling of the border crisis. But to set herself apart from Biden’s failures, Harris would need to articulate a different approach, one that she has not clearly defined. In fact, her stance on immigration could be seen as even more extreme; she previously advocated for decriminalizing illegal border crossings and providing taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants, measures that would likely exacerbate current issues rather than resolve them.

 

On economic matters, Harris is seen by many as needing to chart a new course, with 60 percent of Americans believing she should take a different approach from Biden. Yet her record complicates this perception; as president of the Senate, she cast decisive votes for major spending bills that have been criticized for fueling the worst inflation the country has seen in four decades. Harris’s first major economic speech as a presidential candidate did little to quell fears, proposing $2 trillion in new spending alongside socialist-inspired price controls, measures that critics argue would only worsen economic conditions.

 

Harris is attempting an unprecedented strategy by positioning herself as an insurgent, campaigning as though Trump is the incumbent and she is the fresh alternative. This narrative asks voters to overlook her role over the past four years as a key figure in an administration plagued by crises. She is presenting herself as a new face, running against Trump as though she were not already deeply embedded in the current political landscape.

 

However, this framing is detached from reality. Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 of the last 16 years, and for the past three and a half years, they have been fully in charge of the country’s direction. Remarkably, the strategy appears to be resonating with some voters. A recent Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicates that 64 percent of respondents believe Harris had little influence over Biden’s economic policies, and 57 percent feel the same about her role in border policy. This disconnect suggests that many voters may not fully associate Harris with the administration’s decisions.

 

For former President Donald Trump, it is crucial to highlight that Harris was not merely a passive participant in the Biden administration but a key architect of its most controversial policies. Trump’s message will likely emphasize that a Harris presidency would effectively represent a continuation of Biden’s tenure.

 

Historical precedent shows that when a sitting vice president runs to succeed a sitting president, the race often becomes a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Harris, therefore, faces the daunting task of convincing the electorate that her leadership would represent a departure rather than an extension of the status quo, a challenge no sitting vice president has successfully navigated in modern times.

 

Credit: W.P. 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

One could also say that Donald Trump faces exactly the same odds.  Only one other president has served non-consecutive terms in the past 225 years!

 

 

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

I think Dana Bash has a good reputation as a tough but fair interviewer - no free rides. 

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think Dana Bash has a good reputation as a tough but fair interviewer - no free rides. 

Would be nice. I'm actually expecting Kamala to give a surprising performance. 

So let’s see a possible continuation of something similar to the successful Biden administration or another trump debacle……..yup I know who I’m voting for!I to am looking forward to the interview im guessing Kamala will play things very very close to her chest ( no pun intended) as to try to avoid giving trump and his underlings something to feed on.

Her "magic" is running against a twice impeached, 34 times convicted felon, insurrectionist, adjudicated rapist, admirer of anti democratic dictatators, disgraced former president.

There is no historical precedent for any of that from his side.

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

This interview will be recorded and then shown.  It will not be live.  This gives CNN the time to edit the tape to make Harris look good.  Also, if they can't alter the tape enough they will have enough time to come up with cover story as to why Harris said what she said.  Standard Democrat mode of operation.  You will never see the truth.  Who better than Dana Bash to hold the interview?  Harris denied Fox an interview.  See the difference?

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Her "magic" is running against a twice impeached, 34 times convicted felon, insurrectionist, adjudicated rapist, admirer of anti democratic dictatators, disgraced former president.

There is no historical precedent for any of that from his side.

It was not magic.  It was the deep state planned actions against the former President.  They all colluded with each other.

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

Sure...why not❓ E-Z. Changed her... mind/outlook/vision/perspective/understanding. 

Take your pick. She evolved. 

 

Can't think of one POTUS nor VPOTUS (nor PM) whom hasn't flip-flopped some.  

Jeez, this woman was never elected to be democrat presidential nomination by the individual states as they knew she would lose . She has this run purely by default , not on her ability. She tried going to president before but nobody in the democrat party voted for her 

Hope they get in and end wokery for good

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. 

A woman POTUS would be well deserved for gender and nation.

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

I doubt it. It is obvious she flip flops merely to get more votes. She has no strong positions on anything because she does not know how to do it. She does not know how to even reply with opinions unless versed about it prior to being asked. God help America if she wins. I wonder how she will respond when Russia follows through on its threat to retaliate against the western nations who approved the use of their weapons attacking inside of Russia?

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

and the answer would be

31 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. 

A woman POTUS would be well deserved for gender and nation.

Oh, so not on actual ability but just another box ticking DEI appointment - if the US electorate fall for this scam then prepare for four years of even more rapid economic decline and an even more dangerous and unstable world than we have had since Biden’s election…

37 minutes ago, HK MacPhooey said:

Oh, so not on actual ability but just another box ticking DEI appointment - if the US electorate fall for this scam then prepare for four years of even more rapid economic decline and an even more dangerous and unstable world than we have had since Biden’s election…

So men's right to vote is based on ability and women's on gender.

Got it.

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Democrats are riding high with confidence after their convention in Chicago, but Vice President Kamala Harris faces a formidable challenge as she seeks to win the presidency in November. Only once in the past 188 years has a sitting vice president been elected president of the United States.

 

While many vice presidents have ascended to the highest office, their paths have often been unconventional. Joe Biden, for instance, ran successfully after leaving office, while others like Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford assumed the presidency following the death or resignation of their predecessors before securing a full term on their own. Figures like Al Gore and Richard M. Nixon tried and failed to succeed popular two-term presidents, although Nixon eventually returned to win eight years later.

 

The only sitting vice president to win the presidency in the modern era was George H.W. Bush in 1988, who was the first since Martin Van Buren’s election in 1836. For Harris to replicate that rare feat, she will need her own brand of magic. Bush's success was largely due to Americans' desire for a continuation of Ronald Reagan’s policies, effectively a third Reagan term. However, the situation is starkly different for Harris; unlike Reagan, Biden is not riding high in public opinion.

 

Reagan left office with a strong 63 percent approval rating, while Biden currently faces a disapproval rate of 57 percent. When Bush ran, the country was enjoying economic prosperity with inflation under control, capturing the sentiment of “Morning in America.” In contrast, today’s economic landscape is troubled, with historic inflation and high-interest rates weighing on American households. A significant portion of the population is burdened with record credit card debt just to meet basic needs such as groceries.

 

The global context also differs dramatically. In 1988, international tensions were easing: Soviet forces were retreating from Afghanistan, the Berlin Wall was on the verge of collapse, and the Cold War was winding down peacefully. Today, the world is marked by widespread conflict, with wars raging on multiple continents and Iranian-backed militias launching attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East.

 

Harris's candidacy resembles that of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 more than Bush’s in 1988. Humphrey, who was vice president under the deeply unpopular Lyndon B. Johnson, ran amid economic distress, international unrest, and widespread antiwar protests. Despite these challenges, Johnson was nearly 10 points more popular than Biden is today. Voters ultimately rejected Humphrey’s bid, a scenario Harris is now fighting to avoid.

 

 

Democrats are banking on the idea that voter dissatisfaction centers more on concerns about Biden’s mental acuity rather than a blanket rejection of his administration’s policies. They hope that removing Biden from the ballot will suffice in addressing their electoral vulnerabilities. However, Harris’s close involvement in crafting those same policies poses a significant challenge. Whether it’s national security, the economy, or immigration, Harris’s fingerprints are all over the current administration’s agenda.

 

Harris’s approach to national security has not won her any favors with progressives who have criticized Biden’s foreign policy decisions. This discontent was on full display during the Chicago convention, where protesters chanted “Genocide Joe” before pivoting to “Killer Kamala.” It’s a reminder that Harris is intrinsically tied to the administration’s decisions on the global stage, for better or worse.

 

Immigration is another thorny issue for Harris. Despite her efforts to distance herself from the role of “border czar,” it is a tacit acknowledgment that the administration’s border policies have been far from successful. Rather than wearing the title proudly, she is effectively trying to erase any association with the administration’s controversial handling of the border crisis. But to set herself apart from Biden’s failures, Harris would need to articulate a different approach, one that she has not clearly defined. In fact, her stance on immigration could be seen as even more extreme; she previously advocated for decriminalizing illegal border crossings and providing taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants, measures that would likely exacerbate current issues rather than resolve them.

 

On economic matters, Harris is seen by many as needing to chart a new course, with 60 percent of Americans believing she should take a different approach from Biden. Yet her record complicates this perception; as president of the Senate, she cast decisive votes for major spending bills that have been criticized for fueling the worst inflation the country has seen in four decades. Harris’s first major economic speech as a presidential candidate did little to quell fears, proposing $2 trillion in new spending alongside socialist-inspired price controls, measures that critics argue would only worsen economic conditions.

 

Harris is attempting an unprecedented strategy by positioning herself as an insurgent, campaigning as though Trump is the incumbent and she is the fresh alternative. This narrative asks voters to overlook her role over the past four years as a key figure in an administration plagued by crises. She is presenting herself as a new face, running against Trump as though she were not already deeply embedded in the current political landscape.

 

However, this framing is detached from reality. Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 of the last 16 years, and for the past three and a half years, they have been fully in charge of the country’s direction. Remarkably, the strategy appears to be resonating with some voters. A recent Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicates that 64 percent of respondents believe Harris had little influence over Biden’s economic policies, and 57 percent feel the same about her role in border policy. This disconnect suggests that many voters may not fully associate Harris with the administration’s decisions.

 

For former President Donald Trump, it is crucial to highlight that Harris was not merely a passive participant in the Biden administration but a key architect of its most controversial policies. Trump’s message will likely emphasize that a Harris presidency would effectively represent a continuation of Biden’s tenure.

 

Historical precedent shows that when a sitting vice president runs to succeed a sitting president, the race often becomes a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Harris, therefore, faces the daunting task of convincing the electorate that her leadership would represent a departure rather than an extension of the status quo, a challenge no sitting vice president has successfully navigated in modern times.

 

Credit: W.P. 2024-08-29

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Very interesting 🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So men's right to vote is based on ability and women's on gender.

Got it.

 

Not women's right to vote. Harris' right to be the "Democrat" nomination.

 

Nobody voted for that, she was selected due to her immutable characteristics. Not very Democratic. The first DEI nomination. Hopefully not the first DEI President or the US is in a whole world of trouble. 

 

Fortunately she will need votes to become President and as her history shows us, when she needs actual votes she loses. 

 

 

I wonder when they'll do the next planned move and remove poor old Joe as current president and insert this Kamala sham before the election! Someone needs to be running the country and of course it's not Joe. (won't be Kamala either) haha

11 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Very interesting 🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱

 

Very interesting that after all this time, you still are ignorant to the fact that you can post silly one-liner comments without quoting a whole page OP.

 

Edited August 29, 20241 yr by CallumWK

4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The upcoming interview will be interesting. Wonder if Harris will be asked the reason for her flip flopping on major issues.

You stiil believe what yo said that Trump has too much baggage to win?

 

I realise hope is eternal Harris screws it still a possibility

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not women's right to vote. Harris' right to be the "Democrat" nomination.

 

Nobody voted for that, she was selected due to her immutable characteristics. Not very Democratic. The first DEI nomination. Hopefully not the first DEI President or the US is in a whole world of trouble. 

 

Fortunately she will need votes to become President and as her history shows us, when she needs actual votes she loses. 

 

 

Disagree with your opinion.

But your post is not related to my reply. 

16 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Very interesting that after all this time, you still are ignorant to the fact that you can post silly one-liner comments without quoting a whole page OP.

 

Well, you need a lot of gibberish for that

And a convicted felon has never been elected, nor should he be.

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. 

A woman POTUS would be well deserved for gender and nation.

 

lol... do you not need more competent anymore... well sleepy biden proved that...

Statistics don't really apply in these sorts of situations... it's not like coin flipping or rolling dice. Each election has a unique set of circumstances that influence the outcome.

If you go by stats, Obama had a 0% chance of being elected, as no black person had been elected before him.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Disagree with your opinion.

 

Fascinating.

 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

But your post is not related to my reply. 

 

Yes it is. 

 

Just out of interest, how often has a sitting President who was rejected after losing an election managed to return to the Presidency in a subsequent election?

5 minutes ago, Emdog said:

If you go by stats, Obama had a 0% chance of being elected, as no black person had been elected before him.

 

Obama is mixed race. 

 

White Mother.