There’s a long-standing and somewhat damaging myth in politics that even parties lacking power have clear leadership.
We often see how the party in the White House can operate with almost unchecked authority under the president. Conversely, the party not holding the presidency—especially if it lacks a majority in Parliament—can feel directionless.
But that’s not to diminish the influence that figures like Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer may have within their circles.
When analysts and politicians talk about “the Democrats say” or “the direction Democrats are taking,” it’s, at best, an attempt to understand the roughly 70 million Americans who identify as party members. It’s a bit like saying “Yankees fan” or “Dachshund owner.” Sure, you can draw some broad conclusions from public opinion research, but no individual can truly be held accountable for that.
However, there are committed Democrats. The 452 members of the Democratic National Committee and their chair, Ken Martin, are genuinely trying to chart a course out of the current challenges.
Since events like the McCain-Feingold reforms and the Citizens United ruling, political parties have been significantly weakened. Political financing has largely shifted to super PACs, which don’t have to cater to maintaining relationships with established politicians and organizations. This surge in “pop-up” politics means these entities last only as long as the election cycle.
Interestingly, these weakened parties have led to heightened partisanship. Without longstanding custodians of party identity and direction, ambitious politicians often cater to donors and primary voters in an increasingly extreme manner.
As California Governor Gavin Newsom exemplifies, uniting party members often boils down to a shared disdain for the opposing side.
With little establishment backing or resources, candidates often disregard party interests. Two of the most prominent political figures of this century, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, didn’t even begin as members of the parties they aimed to lead.
Still, parties, especially when lacking power, hold onto one crucial aspect: the nomination process itself.
As demonstrated in the last election, parties have tight control over how and when candidates are selected. During the pandemic, both major parties proved they could dictate the timing and nature of nomination contests, influencing which candidates could rise or fall.
This presents a pressing challenge for DNC members meeting this summer in Minneapolis. They need to figure out where and when the 2028 presidential race begins and plan other important contests ahead of Super Tuesday.
This is a real point of contention for committee members, especially considering the previous cycle’s outcomes. President Joe Biden’s push for changes to the primary calendar aimed at emphasizing moderate voters, especially Black voters in South Carolina and Michigan, over the more progressive voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, is noteworthy. However, that doesn’t capture the whole story.
At 81, Biden’s leadership makes the primary season even trickier for party officials. Incumbent presidents typically enjoy an advantage, prompting efforts to shield them from overzealous primaries. In 2020, Republicans actively managed their calendar to protect their incumbent.
Yet, they may have protected Biden too much. Had he faced off against hostile voters in earlier states, it’s possible he wouldn’t have remained in the race as long. Viewed as an uncontested favorite, the Democrats weren’t adequately prepared when he did encounter challenges.
Anyway, Iowa has become a problematic starting point. The state’s Republican leanings often skew the results, creating a distortion where a small group of activists wields disproportionate influence over a limited voter base.
Conversely, New Hampshire could be perplexing. While it was a difficult environment for Biden, who finished fifth in 2020, it has historically leaned Democratic since 2004. However, the state tends to favor mainstream candidates, mitigating the risks posed by more radical options.
Looking ahead, South Carolina is pivotal due to its significance for Black voters. There may be better choices than Michigan, given recent shifts in party dynamics and the influence of certain voter blocs. Unless the Middle East sees major changes by 2027, Nevada—a swing state with strong ties to Hispanic voters—might be a more strategic choice.
There are numerous lobbying efforts at play. Different states vie for influence, seeking both attention and economic benefits. The Iowa Ethanol Grant remains a prime example of early contest impact.
For the Democrats, careful decision-making is essential. Current trends favor swifter nomination procedures. Following lessons learned from the drawn-out 2008 cycle, the party seems inclined to embrace a more rapid approach, particularly with California slated to play a major role in 2024.
Speed is crucial here. Republicans might struggle to address the current incumbent’s challenges in 2028. Biden, at least outwardly, hasn’t committed to a third term. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to be ramping up their campaigns even before the midterms conclude. The challenge lies in directing their efforts effectively. The sooner the committee finalizes its calendar, the quicker the race can gain clarity. This week’s activities are aimed at laying the groundwork for early next year.
A lengthy nomination process isn’t inherently a problem for Democrats, but recent cycles have limited essential confrontations. The earlier they kick off, the sooner they can wrap things up.
