Michael T. Hayes is Professor of Political Science Emeritus from Colgate University.
When President Joe Biden withdrew his candidacy, many pundits (and elected officials) called for a mini-primary to determine his successor. Faced with Vice President Kamala Harris’s extraordinary success in raising money and securing endorsements, these same people now worry that she has not really “earned” the nomination.
But what does it really mean to “earn” the nomination? Few current readers are old enough to remember how nominees were chosen before the McGovern-Fraser commission reforms, which followed the 1968 election. As a result of these reforms, every state now holds a primary or caucus, and the eventual nominee prevails by accumulating the most delegates in these various contests. Conventions no longer really choose candidates but rather function like the Electoral College, ratifying a choice that has already been made by primary voters.
Prior to these reforms, candidates were chosen at the national conventions by party regulars. Only a few states held primaries, making it impossible to secure the nomination with primary victories alone. To win the nomination, aspiring candidates had to go to the convention and woo delegates — especially those party leaders (or bosses) who could deliver delegates in large blocs. Winning primaries was merely a way to demonstrate electability to delegates — especially party leaders.
For all their faults, party bosses had two great virtues. First, they cared about electability and followed their heads rather than their hearts. For example, many Republicans loved California governor Ronald Reagan in 1968, but they chose Nixon instead, because he had a better chance of winning in the fall.
Second, they cared about candidates’ ability to govern because a successful nominee who governed badly would do serious harm to the party’s brand. In other words, they worried about future elections as well as the current one. If Donald Trump had run for president in 2016 under the old rules, he would never have been nominated because party officials, who recognized his unfitness for the office, would have had the votes to deny him the nomination.
With the advent of primaries, the parties lost the ability to control nominations. This was their most important power. After all, the basic functions of parties are to recruit candidates and run campaigns. Parties once said, “Vote for our candidates! They are more competent and have better ideas!” Now they say, “Vote for our candidates! They are popular with our base!”
Moreover, this shift to primaries did not eliminate elite influence. Rather, it shifted elite management from party leaders to the mass media. Unlike party leaders, reporters do not care about electability or ability to govern. The party’s brand means nothing to them. All that matters is a good story that will attract and hold readers or viewers. Trump dominated every news cycle (and still does) because he is so good for ratings.
A mini-primary process created on the fly by party leaders, inviting candidates to compete in televised town halls, followed by some kind of vote, would not give the winner real legitimacy. At best, such a process would produce exactly the kind of transient majority the framers designed our constitutional system to impede.
Fortunately, Biden’s late withdrawal forced Democrats to choose a replacement the old-fashioned way: Harris wooed party leaders. Properly concerned with electability and the ability to govern, these leaders responded with enough endorsements to lock up the nomination, and donors (both big and small) gave record-setting amounts of money.
Vice President Harris is the legitimate Democratic nominee. She earned it.