Biden’s convention seat
There is a possibility that Joe Biden may be challenged by another candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2024, and the idea was once a favourite among political commentators. These optimistic expectations, however, have been dashed as a result of the primary election dates having passed and Dean Phillips’s campaign not performing up to expectations.
The 46th president will be the candidate as soon as he has secured a sufficient number of delegates who are committed to him. Despite their internal complaints about the polls and the incumbent’s age, Democrats are officially preparing for a vicious rematch between Biden and Trump. This is even though they are angry about the polls.
Despite this, the far-fetched aspirations and goals of others continue to exist, and they are not founded only on the remote possibility that Donald Trump will not be selected as the candidate of the Republican Party owing to his criminal past or his financial issues. The Democratic National Convention would choose Biden’s replacement based on who impressed the delegates in Chicago, according to Ezra Klein of the New York Times. This would be an amazing occurrence that may take place in August. Democratic worries over Biden’s age would be alleviated as a result of this.
Even though Klein plans to provide additional details in an upcoming podcast, the fundamental concept is that Biden would voluntarily withdraw from the race and release his delegates just before the convention. This would make it possible for his hand-picked vice president, Kamala Harris, to run for the nomination without any heavy-handed assistance from the president.
Klein asserts that if this were to take place, Democrats would have the opportunity to choose from a large number of exceptionally talented politicians to participate in an unscripted television play that would attract a nation that was dreading a rematch in the year 2020.
Keeping in mind that this particular circumstance has never occurred before is the single most crucial thing to keep in mind. Klein observed that beginning in 1831 and continuing until 1968, candidates for major parties were selected at conventions rather than via primaries.
Nevertheless, since 1972, practically every state has selected delegates via primaries or caucuses, except the experiment with “super-delegates” that the Democratic Party has been conducting, which is the only major exception. On the other hand, in every instance, the campaigns that led up to the conventions were the ones that were methodically choreographed, with some candidates being as sure bets as any candidate who won several primaries.
The selection of a candidate, which seemed to be made on the spot, was usually just as contrived as the “spontaneous demonstrations” that were purchased and paid for, after which they were discontinued in 1972. Furthermore, even before they were the norm, primaries did sometimes play a substantial influence in determining the result of nomination battles.
This was the case even before election day. For instance, in 1912, the Republican Party was divided down the middle as a result of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft’s participation in a lengthy series of primaries that led up to a very divided convention.
Except for a few ineffective convention “revolts,” the Republican convention in 1976 was the only major-party convention in which the nominee for president was not known in advance. The precise opposite of “open” was evident at the meeting: The contest was for the tiny number of delegates who had already committed to either Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan.
There was not a single “choice” that the majority of delegates felt they could make about the nominee. Even though the convention did generate some “drama,” the party did not have much discretion to pick a candidate from among those who had shown their capabilities. Before the presidential tally was announced, Ronald Reagan decided to expose Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as a potential running mate. This was the only unexpected event that occurred. At the time, this was an innovative concept, but it ultimately did not work out as planned.
Indeed, many of the conventions held by major parties in the past were “deliberative,” which means that the candidate was not agreed upon in advance. There were times when the outcome was not what was anticipated; for instance, in 1940, a flurry of propaganda that was carried out in front of packed audiences in Indiana resulted in Wendell Willkie, a candidate for the Republican nomination, being nominated. Nevertheless, as was indicated before, the bulk of the delegates were nominated via primaries or were controlled by political figures from the state; hence, they were not always free to address the issues at hand.
When it comes to really open conventions, the Democratic convention that took place in New York a century ago is considered to be the gold standard. At the 1924 convention, there were 103 ballots cast before the exhausted delegates who were still there and who had not yet exhausted their resources or exhausted their time nominated the underdog James W. Davis. After that day, Davis was defeated in every state that was not a former territory of the Confederacy. He got just 29% of the popular vote in the general election.
The fact that this is the case brings up an additional cautionary note against the idea of an “open convention”: a candidate who is chosen by united partisans rather than by primary voters or party leaders is just as likely to run a catastrophic campaign for the general election. Following the conclusion of the multi-ballot convention in 1952, Adlai Stevenson was put forth as a candidate for the Democratic candidacy. He emerged victorious.
The only Republican convention to employ multiple votes was held in 1944 when Thomas Dewey was chosen as the party’s nominee. He emerged victorious. The majority of the time, the candidates who were chosen via intentional conventions, which are somewhat less controversial, have not precisely been outstanding. Despite having previously triumphed at the Republican convention in 1976, Gerald Ford was ultimately unsuccessful.
Following a challenging primary campaign and a convention that was overshadowed by buyer’s remorse, his opponent in 1980, Jimmy Carter, was ultimately unsuccessful in his bid for the presidency. Conventions that acted as virtual coronations were the source of victory for all of the most significant general election winners in recent history, including Ronald Reagan in 1984, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, Bill Clinton in 1996, and Barack Obama in 2008.
If we are fortunate, the Democratic convention in 2024 will not continue into the next year like it did in 1924. If this is the case, then there will be just ten weeks left before the general election on November 5. Considering that the Democratic Party has recently emerged from an “open convention,” is it reasonable to anticipate that it would be able to organize itself in such a short time, particularly if the candidate is not a well-known figure? Should we anticipate that there will be some Democrats who are unhappy with the nominee? When is the next time that will be resolved?
Today’s News Headlines Are 🙂