Abstract

The presidential primaries of 2016 were seen as proof that the parties had finally lost control over the nomination of their presidential candidates. The new rules for the selection process benefited unconventional, populist candidates such as Trump or Sanders. In contrast, the 2020 Democratic primaries showed, as argued by some, that party insiders did have the power to impose the candidate of their choice after all. Such a conclusion could be premature. The Democratic contest, documented here from beginning to end, revealed many of the same problems that plagued the Republicans four years earlier. It was thanks to two exceptional factors alone that party insiders finally took the reins: the existentially felt need to beat Trump, and the impossibility of forcing the public to vote in large droves in the midst of the pandemic. Had these constraints not existed, most probably Sanders would have emerged victorious in the primaries. This leaves primary election reform on the agenda, for which some suggestions are made in conclusion.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.