Biden’s Exit Sparks Retro Revolution in Convention Nominations

In a significant shake-up for the upcoming 2024 presidential race, President Joe Biden has announced his withdrawal and has endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as his preferred successor. This unprecedented decision leaves the selection of the Democratic nominee to the delegates of the Democratic National Convention, bypassing the typical primary and caucus process for the first time in over five decades.

The move has stirred considerable debate within the Democratic Party. Some members have expressed concern that allowing convention delegates, many initially pledged to Biden, to choose the nominee could appear undemocratic. These apprehensions are echoed by the Republican Speaker of the House, who criticized the method as “wrong” and “unlawful,” likening it to the infamous “smoke-filled room” negotiations of the past.

The method of selecting nominees through primaries and caucuses is relatively recent, stemming from reforms begun after the 1968 election. That year, Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic nomination without participating in any primaries, backed by influential party leaders. To curb what was seen as an undemocratic process, the Democratic Party reformed its system, making primary and caucus participation essential for delegate selection. The Republican Party soon adopted similar measures.

Concerns loom that a nominee chosen by convention delegates may lack legitimacy due to the absence of direct voter input. In response, some Democrats have proposed a “blitz primary” featuring televised town halls moderated by prominent figures such as Barack and Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Taylor Swift. While innovative, scholars argue that implementing such a process promptly is highly impractical given the extensive preparation required for traditional primaries and caucuses.

History offers a mixed view of convention-selected candidates. While past conventions have nominated luminaries like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, they have also chosen less successful figures. Similarly, the modern primary system has produced both successful candidates like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, as well as less effective ones, indicating that neither method guarantees superior results.

If the old convention system were still in place, the Democrats might have avoided the current challenges posed by Biden’s withdrawal. Historically, party leaders could sideline candidates they deemed problematic, as seen in 1952 when they shifted support from U.S. Sen. Estes Kefauver to Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson due to concerns over Kefauver’s personal issues.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Democratic nominee chosen through this unconventional route remains uncertain. Whether the candidate proves to be a strong contender or a capable president is yet to be seen. However, the atypical path to nomination is not necessarily indicative of the eventual outcome’s quality.