U.S. President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election and Vice President Kamala Harris’s rapid ascent have raised concerns as to whether Democrats can run a successful campaign in only three months. As a nation, we have become so used to the endless campaign that it has become virtually impossible to imagine that there could be any period of time free from intense electioneering.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election and Vice President Kamala Harris’s rapid ascent have raised concerns as to whether Democrats can run a successful campaign in only three months. As a nation, we have become so used to the endless campaign that it has become virtually impossible to imagine that there could be any period of time free from intense electioneering.
But the unusual circumstances of 2024 give the nation an opportunity to test the status quo and see whether a shorter, more targeted campaign might actually be a more effective path toward victory—and simultaneously healthier for the democracy.
American presidential elections are much longer than in other countries. Many nations have laws on the books that strictly curtail how long campaigns can be.
Less well known is the fact that American elections were not always this long, either. In 1896, Republican William McKinley famously campaigned from the front porch of his home in Ohio and won election as president. Although candidates would compete in primaries since their advent in the early 20th century, most only did a handful, if any, and they were only testing grounds for the summer party conventions where the machine would select the nominee. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson didn’t even file in the New Hampshire primary.
The duration of the presidential campaign cycle has vastly expanded since the early 1970s. Political reform following the tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago was an important factor behind the change. Democrats were shaken as anti-war protesters clashed with party leaders over the disastrous conflict in Vietnam. Violent confrontations unfolded on the streets where Mayor Richard J. Daley’s police attacked protesters with brutal force.
Rather than allowing party operatives to keep picking the nominees in smoke-filled rooms, Sen. George McGovern and Rep. Donald Fraser successfully proposed reforms that made primaries, as well as caucuses, the contests in which voters would determine who sat atop the ticket. And when former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter figured out in 1976 how to use the Iowa caucus as a way to build the perception of being a front-runner, the official kick-off for presidential campaigns became January of election year. Republicans embraced the McGovern-Fraser reforms and moved away from party machines as well. Very quickly, candidates started to prepare even earlier as they wanted to make sure to do well in Iowa as well as the New Hampshire primary so as to receive the boost of an early victory.
But there was more at work than the nomination process. Money mattered as well. In the aftermath of Watergate, reformers attempted to curb the growing influence of money in elections. In 1974, Congress passed reforms that created contribution limits, a system of voluntary public finance for presidential elections (if a presidential candidate accepted public funds, they had to adhere to spending limits), spending limitations, more stringent disclosure rules, and a Federal Elections Commission.
But the reforms failed to stop the escalating costs of elections. In particular, television spots placed enormous pressure on candidates’ budgets. By 2020, presidential and congressional elections cost a whopping $14 billion. The amount spent was greater than the GDPs of some smaller countries. Moreover, the Watergate reforms gradually weakened. In 1976, the Supreme Court knocked down spending limitations on the grounds that they violated free speech. Parties found ways to obtain money through political action committees and nonprofit entities while presidential candidates from the major parties decided not to accept public funds so that they could spend as much private money as they wanted to.
Some candidates and consultants half-joked that presidential campaigns usually started the minute after an inauguration ended.
There was another reason why television worked to lengthen the duration of campaigns. In the 1980s, cable networks formed that were devoted entirely to news (CNN launched in 1980, MSNBC and Fox News started in 1996). In contrast to the era of network news, when the 30-minute evening news shows were sandwiched between daytime soap operas and prime-time variety shows, these channels offered a continuous stream of news. The networks made their money through advertising, so they looked for stories that could garner high viewership. The horse-race coverage of political campaigns offered perfect content, providing the thrill of a sporting event with much higher stakes. Over time, and combined with the internet and then social media, permanent news outlets craved campaign stories to fill the airwaves. Short breaking news segments, town halls, one-on-one interviews, and 60- to 90-minute debates were constant and became requirements for serious candidates.
With all of these forces coming together, the American presidential campaign—usually much longer than what occurred overseas—grew even lengthier.
There have been significant consequences, many detrimental. Perhaps most important is the creation of an endless money cycle. Candidates start campaigns earlier to raise money, while the longer a campaign takes the more money needs to be spent. The permanent campaign likewise ensures that electoral pressures will place constant and intense pressure on every deliberation that takes place in Washington. There are no moments when electoral pressures ebb to create more space for sober policymaking. Elected officials and their challengers can never afford to take their eyes off the hustings.
Then there is the problem of voter fatigue. In July 2016, 59 percent of voters reported feeling exhausted by election coverage, with the numbers even worse among those who weren’t following as closely. Some respond by simply tuning out.
The possibility of obtaining any kind of change through reform is unlikely. There is not much evidence, for instance, that serious consideration would be given to enacting laws limiting how long a candidate can campaign for, nor would such laws be likely to survive constitutional challenge. It would also be difficult for the political parties to move away from a system built around primaries and caucuses back to something like what we had before 1968. Even the speed through which Harris secured her candidacy has caused concern of an undemocratic “coronation” taking place. The odds for substantive campaign finance reform are low, and the 24-hour news media only keeps getting more entrenched. When some experts have proposed combining more primaries and caucuses in Super Tuesday-style days, there has been resistance from states that prefer to drag out the process.
This is why Harris’s campaign is so interesting. Should Harris be able to put together an effective campaign in a few months and defeat former President Donald Trump, she has the potential to demonstrate in practice that a shorter campaign is not only possible but perhaps more effective in our current age.
The question on the table is whether, in a period when the public is so inundated with political news, there might be something strategically effective in concentrating the amount of time devoted to the meat of the campaign. In an era with so much content—from entertainment to politics—a more dramatic, attenuated campaign period could garner the kind of public attention that longer elections fail to achieve. With a shorter time frame, perhaps elections become the kind of focusing events that engage and excite voters, rather than something from which they tune out. A faster and more nimble campaign might also make it harder for opponents to develop sustained smear attacks that build over time. Ideally, in the long run, shorter campaigns could decrease the amount of time candidates who are elected officials spend on fundraising, as opposed to governing. Obviously, it might also be that the short campaign is not effective. Certainly, a victory by Trump in November would lead Democrats to that very conclusion, as they will blame Biden for waiting so long before handing over the keys.
Regardless, the unusual and unprecedented nature of this contest should be an opportunity for Americans to have a serious conversation about whether our campaigns really need to be, and should be, as lengthy as they have become—or whether our democracy would benefit from a campaign cycle that is succinct, lean, concentrated, and not unending. Sometimes in life, shorter is better. Maybe our democracy can benefit from a little less, rather than more and more.
The post Why Do American Presidential Campaigns Have to Be So Long? appeared first on Foreign Policy.
