The deadline for other contenders to vie for the Democratic Party top spot has come and gone, and only Vice President Kamala Harris is in the running. While one could take the view that democracy has been given a fair shot because the nomination period was open to all comers who could get the requisite support, it would be wise for the party to consider that an internal contest is no substitute for a primary, and that not all voters will be happy with the Hobson’s choice.*
As the UK’s Conservative Party learned earlier this month — after suffering its most devastating historical loss — providing the party faithful with only one option and calling it democracy does not always sit well with the voting base.
It would be foolhardy for the Harris campaign to conclude it has unanimous support from the party simply because no other candidate came forward. Contenders would have had to provide at least 50 delegates from each of six different states to qualify for the delegate ballot. That may not seem like a huge reach considering there are almost 4,000 delegates across 50 states, but that view ignores three key issues.
A Timing Issue: It has been just ten days since President Joe Biden announced that he was out and that Harris was in. Any hopeful candidates simply had no time to put together a campaign platform and then find out if any donors would be willing to back them, let alone rally the aforementioned delegates to their cause. To do all this in less than two weeks was clearly an impossible task.
Fragile Unity: Potential contenders (and their prospective delegate backers) may want the Democratic Party not to lose more than they want to personally win. After the damning debate and inevitable collapse of support for Biden, Donald Trump looked poised to cruise to a November victory. Further division within the party would only weaken Harris in the eyes of the public. This is something the party faithful would want to avoid, even if it came at the expense of their preferred candidate.
And so, VP Harris is anointed as the party’s candidate without ever facing a serious contest or even, really, the approval of Democratic voters across the nation. Notably, when she last had her name in the running for president, she failed to win a single primary and received a grand total of 844 votes – only saved from coming dead last thanks to former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who earned just 549.
Indeed, Harris can – and should – take note of a similar situation that occurred across the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month.
The British public votes for the party, not a leader. But the winning party selects its leader – who will be the prime minister – by a process of, first, candidates being nominated from among the Members of Parliament, and then the top two being subject to a ballot of regular party members across the country.
Rishi Sunak (Photo by Wiktor Szymanowicz/Anadolu via Getty Images)
When Rishi Sunak became PM in October 2022, his only challenger pulled out before a vote in the House of Commons – meaning he was not subject to a vote. In essence, he was foisted upon the country by the decisions of a select handful of parliamentarians. Such a coronation was brought about by machinations from the famed 1922 Committee — a group of politicians responsible for setting the party rules, similar to the DNC and RNC – who made a last-minute rule change to how leadership elections are conducted.
So, Sunak became the first British prime minister of Indian heritage to great fanfare in the typically left-leaning media. A fawning Fourth Estate dubbed him “Dishy Rishi” and took every opportunity to relate that he was not white, and that surely this diversity could be only good for the country. And yet, Conservative Party members were not impressed by the lack of choice in determining who should head their party.
Fast forward to the very first electoral challenge for PM Sunak, and the supposed party faithful abandoned him in droves. The opposition Labour Party doubled its share of seats, relegating the Conservatives to a minority status unheard of in modern times. Indeed, there were other factors involved in this historic defeat, but a large chunk of the electorate was clear that this was not “their party” anymore – and an element of that is because they saw themselves as disenfranchised by the party apparatus.
New York magazine released a cover featuring the vice president titled “Welcome to Kamalot.” Such high praise for what — by just about every metric — has been an uninspiring vice presidency reeks of sycophancy. But such plaudits and cheerleading have become the norm over the last ten days in a Fourth Estate that appears 100% behind the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Coupled with cringe-inducing Zoom rallies with such monikers as White Dudes for Harris, this appears to be a campaign immune to embarrassment. But, of course, one expects such fawning from a media that long ago jettisoned its impartiality when it comes to defeating Trump. And, yet, ignored in the morass of mythologizing a candidate whose personal campaign performance in 2020 was the epitome of mediocrity are the voters who will be called upon to swallow their pride and opinions and come out strong in November.
The similarities to Sunak’s epic fall from grace are both numerous and ominous. For a party that claims to champion democracy, a reliance on media spin and Hollywood celebs to overcome the elephant in the room that is the Kamala Harris coronation, the lessons from the UK should be well heeded.
*Hobson’s choice is thought to derive from a livery owner in the 16th century who told customers they could have any horse they liked, as long as it was the one closest to the door.