Delve into the intricate workings of the United States' primary system with "The Ezra Klein Show," featuring a discussion with Elaine Kamarck on the potential scenarios for an open Democratic convention. Understand how the process evolved from a time when party elites held sway to the post-1968 era of binding primaries that heightened the public's role in choosing nominees. Witness the transformation of American political conventions from closed-door dealings to a system influenced heavily by voter participation and media coverage. Kamarck explores the pivotal shifts that have redefined the dynamics between delegates, candidates, and the electorate, painting a picture of an electoral system in constant flux.
As the 2024 presidential election looms, Ezra Klein and Elaine Kamarck analyze the strategic maneuvers hopeful candidates would need to undertake if faced with an open convention in the absence of an incumbent. They lay out the intense undertaking of securing delegate loyalty and the importance of maintaining a positive image within the condensed campaigning period. The speakers candidly discuss the potential challenges to party unity and legitimacy that may arise, comparing past and present internal party rifts. Although acknowledging the potential for ideological disputes, the conversation indicates that the Democratic Party today might navigate the hurdles of a divided convention with more cohesion than in previous decades or than its Republican counterpart.
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Before 1972, the primary system featured non-binding "beauty contest" primaries, where outcomes did not ensure delegates for the candidates, allowing party leaders to exercise substantial influence over the nomination. Elaine Kamarck emphasizes the dominance of uncommitted delegates and the control wielded by party figures, highlighting the minimal impact of public opinion on the nominee selection process.
The chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention prompted significant reforms, including the institution of binding primaries, which fortified the connection between primary results and delegate commitments. These changes brought about a transition from a system largely under the purview of party leaders to one where voter influence was markedly increased. Additionally, the requirement for caucuses to occur simultaneously and the extension of the primary season's timespan gave the media a prominent role in shaping and reflecting public sentiment. The post-1968 reforms led the way to a system where the actual primary races largely pre-determine the course of the nominating process.
According to Ezra Klein, an open 2024 convention in the absence of President Joe Biden might ignite intense pre-primary campaigning as potential candidates mobilize to elect delegates loyal to their cause. This phase would be critical for candidates to introduce themselves and win delegate support without negative campaigning due to the limited timeframe leading to the convention.
Elaine Kamarck points out that the post-primary period for swaying already-elected delegates is exceptionally brief, pushing candidates to present themselves positively. Influential figures such as governors, senators, and labor leaders play critical roles in directing delegate choices. The battle for nomination becomes more convoluted when multiple candidates vie for dominance, requiring a careful balance of diverse support bases and potentially drawing the party leadership into the selection process.
Kamarck speculates that the increased transparency in the candidate selection process could lead to a spectacle that appears chaotic to the public. This visibility may enhance engagement but also risk perceptions of disorder. However, despite concerns regarding legitimacy and potential party divides, recent history suggests that the Democratic Party may withstand such challenges better than it did in 1968 or in comparison to the current Republican Party. Klein suggests that the severity of internal Democratic divisions is not as acute as those experienced either in the party's past or within the Republican Party today, alluding to a potentially more cohesive contemporary Democratic community. The conversation acknowledges the potential for fractious conventions due to ideological splits but indicates that such deep divides are not currently as pronounced within the Democratic Party.
1-Page Summary
The 1968 Democratic National Convention's turmoil led to a critical reevaluation and subsequent overhaul of the delegate selection process, which has since had lasting implications on the primary system and the control voters have over selecting nominees.
Before 1972, the primary system was dominated by so-called beauty contest primaries, which indicated a candidate's popularity but did not necessarily translate to delegate support. Elaine Kamarck highlights that in this era, many delegates entered the convention uncommitted and were able to cast their votes as they or party leaders wished. This led to a system where party processes superseded public input in the selection of the nominee. Primaries before 1968, numbering only about 16, were non-binding, which meant that they did not guarantee delegates to candidates, allowing party leaders to retain considerable control over delegate allocation.
Kamarck details past scenarios where political leaders, exemplified by figures like Governor Lawrence of Pennsylvania, exerted substantial influence in selecting delegates. She muses that had such "peer review" mechanisms persisted, propositions like Donald Trump's campaign promise to build a wall paid for by Mexico might have faced tougher vetting from such influential figures.
In response to the disorder of the 1968 convention, the Democratic Party established a commission to reform the delegate selection process. This resulted in primaries becoming binding, meaning the winners would secure a proportionate number of committed delegates. Kamarck underscores that after the commission's reforms, the link between primary outcomes and delegate commitments strengthened, thus amplifying voter influence over nominee selection.
Delegates were still required to get elected, but now they had to pledge their allegiance to a pres ...
The primary system's evolution from the pre- to post-1968 era
The scenario of an open 2024 convention without President Joe Biden, as detailed by Ezra Klein and Elaine Kamarck, is a whirlwind of political manoeuvring and intensive campaigning.
Ezra Klein outlines a mad dash among potential candidates to secure their positions should Joe Biden step down, leading to a media-fueled spectacle of forums, speeches, and interviews to appeal to delegates. In the lead-up to the national convention, prospective candidates engage in robust grassroots campaigns to have their loyalists elected as delegates. Politics among Democratic activists come into play as they campaign to secure a spot at the convention. If Biden endorses Kamala Harris, other potential candidates may be discouraged from entering the race, potentially clearing the path for Harris.
If, however, powerful figures like Governor Gavin Newsom join the fray, it could result in delegate division. Elaine Kamarck remarks on the influence that elected party figures like senators, congressmen, mayors, and governors possess in such scenarios, acting as a form of representative government. Candidates would use this pre-primary period to introduce themselves to delegates and avoid toxicity as there would be little time for persuasive efforts before the convention.
Kamarck suggests that the time for swaying delegates is exceedingly short, which discourages negative campaigning. Instead, candidates must establish themselves in a positive light to the approximately 4,000 delegates preparing for the convention. If powerful figures enter the race following a hypothetical announcement from Biden, an open battle for the nomination could ensue. In such a case, it might become necessary for party leadership to engage in selecting a nominee.
To influence delegates, candidates, their surrogates, and spouses would visit delegations at their hotels to lobby for support. Powerful local political figures, such as governors and senators, have a significant impact on delegate preferences. Additionally, labor leaders hold considerable influence, especially over union member delegates who respect the direction of their union's leadership. Though not explicitly mentioned in the provided transcript, these power brokers can play a c ...
How an open 2024 convention could play out if Biden steps down
Elaine Kamarck and Klein delve into the challenges political parties face in maintaining legitimacy and cohesion during the nomination process, weighing the potential for internal fracturing against historical precedents of party divides.
Kamarck speculates that the process of political parties choosing their candidates could appear wild to onlookers due to various activities such as social media campaigns and polling, possibly leading to perceptions of chaos. This heightened visibility, Kamarck suggests, might make the political process an engaging spectacle for the public and political reporters, akin to reality TV. Kamarck expresses faith that delegates would figure things out despite the possibility of procedural chaos because they are politically savvy.
Klein and Kamarck discuss concerns about legitimacy and the anguish that could arise if it feels like the party, rather than the people, is making decisions. This disconnect could relate to altered expectations of party roles and the democratic process. Kamarck believes that greater transparency in the politicking process might make the process appear chaotic to voters—a sentiment that echoes the sometimes chaotic nature of debates on the House floor. However, she references the Democratic Party's unity during Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker, suggesting that divides within the party may not run ...
Challenges to legitimacy and party cohesion
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser