With Biden gone, this Democratic Convention will be the first Open Convention since 1968. The last one didn’t go so well. The Democrats are trying to avoid a repeat of the chaos of the 1968 Democratic Convention. Here’s what they can learn from history.
After weeks of pressure, Joe Biden has withdrawn from the presidential race. With Biden’s poll numbers falling, many senior democrats, from Barrack Obama to Hakeem Jeffries, have privately called for Biden to step down. They are likely to be more confident with the party’s chances after yesterday.
Some Democrats are less sure. Most surprisingly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a senior figure in the progressive movement, opposed Joe Biden’s withdrawal, citing the “chaos angle” of an Open Convention that she argued could cause “enormous peril”.
Is AOC being hyperbolic? History shows that the danger is real.
How Will the Democrats Choose Biden’s Replacement?
“We’re kind of building this plane as we’re flying it.” Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi said when asked by the BBC about how a post-Biden Chicago Convention would work. Already hardly a comforting analogy for those on the plane, it is made slightly less so by the fact that the mechanics don’t seem to agree on what type of plane they’re building.
Some Democrats have announced that Kamala Harris should automatically assume the nomination, whereas others, such as Nancy Pelosi, have argued that there should be an ‘Open Convention’. Most notably, Obama who it is speculated was responsible for Biden’s withdrawal, has indicated support for an open primary.
An Open Convention would allow the delegates elected in the 2024 primaries to choose the nominee by a majority vote. If no candidate gets a majority, then another ballot is held. In the 1924 Democratic Convention, this happened 103 times.
With Kamala Harris indicating that she intends to ‘win and earn’ the nomination, an open primary seems likely, however, with virtually all the party’s political machinery behind her it doesn’t look to be a fair fight.
However, regardless of whether Democrats say they want one or not, there will be an Open Convention. Once the nominee has been withdrawn, delegates are ‘uncommitted’ and can choose for themselves who to vote for. The question isn’t whether there will be an open convention, but how much control party leaders will have over it.
Regardless of whether they go ahead with a virtual roll call, Kamala’s strategy, and that of many party leaders is aimed at preventing ambiguity going into the Convention. Since yesterday, Harris has met with a number of delegates, many of whom have already pledged in her favour. If she is successful in this, the Convention could be over before it starts.
In contrast, many Democrats are pushing for a more competitive process, however. In an op-ed to The Hill, several members of the DNC wrote to propose a Convention that would be “open, transparent and energising”. Candidates would take part in a televised debate before the Convention with delegates being free to choose their favoured candidate.
Democratic strategy is aiming for two objectives: To make the nomination seems fair and open whilst preventing the possibility for disorder. The divisions among Democrats in their approach to the Convention come from different ratios of emphasis on these two objectives.
There’s a reason these objectives are so important to them. The last time there was an Open Convention in 1968, they failed to achieve either, and they lost the election as a result.
1968 and 2024
Following discontent within his own party, on the 31st of March 1968, a beleaguered President Johnson told the nation that he would not seek the Democratic nomination. Just like Biden, LBJ announced that his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, should become the nominee.
Despite not competing in the primaries, Humphrey won on the first ballot easily, with three times the delegates of the runner-up, Eugene McCarthy. Backed by party figures and the president himself, most delegates won by President Johnson voted for his VP.
The 1968 Convention would not be remembered as a sweep for Humphrey, however. Believing that the appointment of Humphrey had been denied them the chance to elect an anti-war candidate, many outwardly condemned the party and the administration.
With Humphrey seen as lacking any mandate, dissenting party figures, such as Senator Ribicoff, spoke on national television condemning the President’s foreign policy and the “Gestapo tactics” being deployed to maintain control of the Convention and quell the protests outside.
Those watching from home tuned in to see everything from fistfights between delegates to the Mayor of Chicago yelling antisemitic slurs at Ribicoff, something that did little to disprove his allegations.
Republicans had a field day. Ads created nightmarish collages of chaos outside and inside the cConvention hall, whilst Nixon’s Vice-Presidential candidate, Spiro Agnew alluded to Humphrey’s illegitimacy on the campaign trail. In 2024, Republicans have so far emphasised law and order issues in the campaign, whilst pointing to Kamala’s illegitimacy.
Whilst things weren’t going amazingly before, the 1968 Convention sealed the election against Democrats and handed Nixon the White House.
Even if Kamala Harris wins the Convention with overwhelming support by party leaders, the lack of a popular mandate risks all the damage of the 1968 Convention.
Will There be Chaos at the 2024 Convention?
The defining aspect of the 1968 Convention was the protests. Thousands of students protested outside the Convention against Humphrey’s stance of Vietnam. Despite his personal scepticism of the war, he was tarnished with the brush of his predecessor. Aware of the symbolism, pro-Palestinian protestors are planning their own outside the 2024 Convention in Chicago.
In 1968, 10,000 protestors gathered outside the Convention. Protest organisers claim that there will be 30,000 attendees. Like in 1968, the protestors have been denied protest permits and have announced that they will protest illegally.
In 1968, the brutal crackdown against unpermitted protests radicalised Democrats inside the Convention hall and at home, furthering chaos. Whilst many argue that policing practices have improve to prevent a repeat of 1968, the Chicago police’s proposals for mass arrest could increase tensions.
Kamala Harris, whose officials have privately told the media that she will maintain Biden’s stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict, will likely not reduce the anger of protestors. In 1968, Johnson’s replacement by a nominee without a popular mandate angered those who believed they had been denied an opportunity to nominate an anti-war candidate.
There are some key differences with 1968, however.
Like in 1968, little sets Democrats apart besides foreign policy. However, Gaza isn’t Vietnam for most American voters. For all the comparisons between pro-Palestinian and Vietnam protestors, young Americans are not being conscripted to fight overseas.
Will Kamala Harris be Seen as Illegitimate?
Even before Biden’s withdrawal, right-wing media already labelled Kamala as “America’s first DEI president”. Although functioning as a fairly low-pitched dog whistle, it implies the lack of a popular mandate that Kamala will have going into the election.
Republicans have already started to emphasise the illegitimacy of Kamala, with House Speaker Mike Johnson calling the replacement of Joe Biden as the nominee “unlawful”.
With this wording, legal challenges against Kamala as the nominee seem likely. Whether they succeed is another matter. On the one hand, states such as Florida require that a party Convention must “reasonably reflect” the results of a primary.
However, when a legal challenge was made to delegates pledged to Carter defecting to Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Convention, the Supreme Court ruled that states did not have the authority to determine how parties ran their primaries. With a Supreme Court accused of partisan bias, a successful challenge would result in the overturning of yet another precedent.
However, even if Republicans label Kamala’s nomination as illegitimate, will Democrats feel the same?
In 2020, Kamala was reviled by Progressives as a “right-wing” ‘Cop’; an allusion to her record as District Attorney for San Francisco and Attorney General for California, in which prosecutions for Marijuana offences dramatically increased.
Since Joe Biden has stepped down, however, party progressives have rallied behind Kamala. Chair of the Progressive Caucus Pramila Jayapal tweeted that she would support Kamala Harris “1000%” for President, with other leading leftist figures such as AOC announcing the same.
Unlike 1968, Party members of all sides are united in the belief that Trump is an exceptionally bad candidate. With Biden’s statement ending with the need to “beat Trump”, it’s likely that this desire motivated progressive support. As opposed to their last Open Convention, disagreements on issues like Gaza are less important to democratic leaders than beating Trump.
Whilst the Twitter replies by progressives were keen to express their anger, actual party figures on the Democratic left are strongly behind Kamala. Kamala also retains support among moderate democrats.
This is important. With four weeks to go, Kamala Harris will not be chosen in a democratic process. However, as long as her nomination isn’t seen as undermining any wing of the party or denying a sizable demographic a vote, history shows people don’t care.
Sixteen years earlier, in 1952, the Democratic Convention chose Adlai Stevenson, over the populist Estes Kefauver, even though Kefauver had won the primaries in a landslide. As Adlai Stevenson extended an arm and gained support to the populist wing of his party, no one accused him of denying the democratic process. The reason Democrats suddenly cared about the democratic process in 1968, was because the candidate was unsuccessful in reconciling the party difference on Vietnam.
As long as Kamala can maintain broad party unity, something she has already made steps towards doing, the Democrats will be able to avoid a 1968-style Convention.
Final Thought
The comparisons between 2024 and 1968 are obvious. The shadow of political violence, polarisation and discontent among progressives; someone even had the bright idea to hold the thing in Chicago.
However, there are good reasons to think that the 2024 Convention won’t be like 1968. The Democrats are far more united against a common enemy than in 1968.
But some differences are more worrisome. Whilst some argue that improved police practices make significant police brutality against Convention protestors unlikely, it wasn’t police brutality, but the portrayal of the protestors themselves as riotous that did the Democrats the most damage in 1968.
Republicans portrayed the Democrats as not being able to prevent crime at even their own Convention. With anyone now able to record and post videos, the symbolic damage of protests outside the Convention will spread even more widely.
Another important difference is that in 1968, every Convention was an open Convention. Democratic voters were used to not having a real say in nominations. In the modern era, it’s different.
In 2016, the DNC’s favouritism to Clinton in a Convention vastly more open than 2024’s is likely to be, caused party divisions that contributed significantly to her loss. As we can see from history, the allegations of corruption were only so damaging because the Democrats were seen as suppressing a certain wing of the party, not just because it was undemocratic.
As long as Kamala Harris can manage party unity going into the convention, Democrats will see her as legitimate, even if the process that nominates her is highly undemocratic.
Republicans are unlikely to be swayed. Allegations of corruption and anti-democratic behaviour is likely to be a Republican tactic going into November.
For more of Chamber UK’s American political analysis please click here.
This article was written by Chamber UK’s features writer – Alex Connor.