Democrats appear to view their voters’ decisions as somewhat negotiable, partly because party activists and much of the political media allow it. In discussions around Joe Biden’s potential replacement in 2024 and the current criticism faced by Senator John Fetterman (D-Penn.), it seems the establishment respects election outcomes only until they become troublesome. This tendency undermines the party’s credibility regarding election integrity and could eventually harm the establishment itself.
A couple of years back, Joe Biden had already secured his position as the Democratic presidential nominee. He had triumphed in every primary contest except for American Samoa and faced no significant challenger, quite unlike the situation Jimmy Carter encountered in 1980. Additionally, Biden had won the 2020 nomination and was in the White House.
Democratic leaders often seek to harness the energy of the left while simultaneously obstructing some of its candidates from gaining power. This dynamic, I think, can’t persist indefinitely.
However, following a disappointing debate performance, Democratic officials and donors pressured Biden for weeks to step aside. This push effectively disregarded months of primary contests that saw roughly 14 million Democrats backing him. No major-party nominee in modern history has withdrawn this late in the game.
While Democrats did follow a formal process to find a replacement, Biden’s departure meant nearly all his delegates were unbound, allowing Kamala Harris to qualify for the ballot. In a virtual roll-call vote, 99% of the participating delegates supported her. Yet, it’s notable that primary voters never explicitly selected Harris for the presidency in 2024, and party leaders didn’t organize an open convention for competing voices to be heard. By the time of the convention, Harris and Tim Walz were essentially already the chosen ticket.
This was the first instance of a do-over: primary voters had initially selected Biden, but delegates later chose Harris after party leaders ousted Biden from the race.
Maine presents another more straightforward example from this year. Voters nominated Graham Platner for the Senate with over 156,000 votes. Following a rape allegation, which he denied, Platner withdrew on the final day permitted by Maine law for Democrats to replace him on the ballot.
Subsequently, party delegates chose Troy Jackson, who hadn’t participated in the Senate primary and had finished third in the gubernatorial primary, with a 566-5 vote. While Maine law was followed, primary voters were not allowed to weigh in on the replacement nominee.
Wisconsin offers a different kind of intervention example. After the preferred candidate withdrew from the governor’s race over campaign-finance issues, David Crowley re-entered, with backing from Governor Tony Evers, and narrowly defeated democratic socialist Francesca Hong. Here, voters ultimately made the decision, which distinguishes it from the previous do-over scenarios. Yet, it does illustrate how swiftly party leaders act when there’s a risk of the left winning a nomination.
In Pennsylvania, we see a different variation of this pattern. Democrats had nominated Fetterman for the Senate in 2022, supporting him even after he suffered a serious stroke.
They praised Fetterman as a fighter, someone the Senate desperately needed. After his election, Senate Democrats rallied behind him, even loosening the dress code to accommodate him. But then he diverged from progressives regarding Israel, asserting its right to defend itself following attacks by Hamas.
A Wall Street Journal report recently indicated that Fetterman had fallen short on many Senate responsibilities, referencing comments from former staff members. Some Democratic lawmakers and activists were quick to criticize him; one member of the Democratic National Committee stated that “2028 can’t come soon enough.” It seems if you stray from party lines, you might find yourself on shaky ground.
This trend persists because party voters seldom hold individuals accountable and much of the political press treats these situations as standalone incidents. Voters’ decisions, which party leaders dismiss, rarely receive sustained scrutiny. It’s as if there’s nothing to analyze here; just keep moving.
By consistently overriding primary results, Democrats risk undermining their own claims to uphold election integrity. If they disregard their own members’ choices, why would they value yours? It’s not surprising they object to election oversight when it comes to their own primaries.
While the establishment may achieve short-term wins, the long-term repercussions could be severe. For instance, in 2016, DNC officials leaned towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Yet, today Sanders and his backers wield more influence within the party than Clinton.
The left within the Democratic Party has only strengthened, even as establishment figures attempt to contain it. Each intervention fosters resentment among activists who feel their votes are acknowledged only when the outcome is favorable to the leadership.
Democratic leaders seem intent on courting the energy of the left but simultaneously barricading some of its candidates from positions of power. This arrangement is unlikely to endure.
Eventually, the tactical maneuvers will no longer shield the Democratic establishment from the faction they have both encouraged and consistently tried to sideline from the ballot.
