Ideally, the presidential nomination offers meaningful opportunities for the expression of internal party dissent.
The concept of “iron sharpens iron” applies.
Competition benefits incumbents. It forces sitting presidents to hone their campaign tactics and work to consolidate support within the party. Old ideas are challenged, refined, ultimately leading to better outcomes.
The party grows stronger and more cohesive as a result.
Memorable defeats
Incumbents in fact have never been defeated in the primaries. But they have encountered serious challengers. In several memorable nomination battles – 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1992, challengers rattled sitting presidents who went on to lose in the general election.
Those losses had a profound and lasting effect on party leaders.
Primary challengers do not necessarily strengthen incumbents. They can weaken them. The party is not brought together by dissent, but rather can be torn apart by it.
In addition, incumbents are aware of the risks. Why should they prioritize an abstract democratic ideal over their own self-interest.
Consequently, party leaders actively discourage dissent. They pursue a unified front and nurture conformity among rank-and-file members.
To be clear, political parties are not engines of democracy. They seek control of government. The primary goal is therefore victory.
Biden and Trump’s firm grasp on their parties exposes this uncomfortable truth. Both have deftly managed internal dissent and exploited party nomination rules to their advantage. [i]
Containing dissent
Last year the Democratic National Committee followed Biden’s directives and reordered the 2024 early primary calendar.
Biden replaced the first in the nation Iowa caucuses, and first in the nation New Hampshire primary, with South Carolina, the state that propelled him to the 2020 nomination. This transformed an order that had been in place for decades.
Also, at the behest of Biden, Michigan and Georgia moved up their primary dates, ahead of Super Tuesday.
This guaranteed the president a needed boost at the start of the nomination season – preventing potential rivals from building the momentum necessary to compete with the sitting president.
Trump also leveraged his power as a de facto incumbent to enhance his nomination chances. His people lobbied states to switch from proportional delegate allocation rules – where multiple candidates can win delegates based on popular vote totals, to a winner-take-all system. The change favors front-runner, brand name candidates like Trump.
In California, for example, delegates were previously awarded proportionally by popular vote within congressional districts. Instead of advertising across the entire state – which includes some of the most expensive media markets in the United States – underdog candidates could target friendly regions and win delegates.
But with winner-take-all, the candidate that receives more than 50% of the statewide vote wins the entire slate of delegates.
On Super Tuesday Trump collected all 169 California delegates. That’s about 15% of what’s needed to win the nomination. Nicky Haley received zero-delegates, though she achieved 18% of the state-wide popular vote.
Trump also urged states to award delegates based on party-run caucuses – which disproportionately favor Trump loyalists. Nevada Republicans and several other states complied, foregoing state sponsored primaries in favor of their own caucuses.
So, despite the prevailing media narratives that cast doubt on the competence of Biden and Trump, the facts – when examined closely – paint an entirely different picture.
Both men have demonstrated the necessary strength, resilience, and judgement to prevail time after time – often against considerable headwinds.
They have once again solved the nomination puzzle. The pieces are in place.
The rematch
Now as Joe Biden and Donald Trump take center stage no one is happy. Every single opinion poll shows voters do not want a replay of 2020.
Well before the nomination cycle, a majority of Democrats said they wanted a different nominee than Joe Biden. And a majority of Republicans declared they wanted someone other than Donald Trump.
More recently, 77% of respondents in a Harvard/Harris poll agreed that we “need new figures to run for president.” And 70% in a Reuter/Ipsos poll said they are “tired of the same candidates in presidential elections and want someone new.”
The nominees are widely considered past their primes, too old to be president – dreadful public speakers and poor leaders. Many doubt their fitness for the office and deem them existential threats to democracy.
The criticisms persist and are repeated daily.
Yet the deep disappointment felt by many is not due to Biden and Trump alone. The root cause begins with the flaws in the nomination system that propelled these men to power.
Why malign the two politicians that mastered the intricacies of the system? After all, they won. This is what successful politicians do.
The target of public discontent should be the nomination process itself and the political parties responsible for its design.
Reform will come, but after defeat in November.
Until then, we are stuck with the two candidates who managed to decode the nomination, defeat all challengers, and surpass every expectation.
[i] Research shows divisive primaries (when significant challengers to the incumbent president emerge) do not significantly influence general election results.
consider the politics 