Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the US politics & policy myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

When Democrats want to frighten the children, they speak of the days of brokered conventions. This was when boot-faced delegates from obscure counties and towns huddled with big city bosses in smoke-filled rooms to thwart the will of the people. Or something like that.

It all came crashing down in Chicago, in 1968, when the Democratic party self-immolated over the Vietnam war. Richard Nixon’s victory three months later was blamed on the rotten travesty that produced Hubert Humphrey as the Democratic nominee. Had Vice-president Humphrey shown some mettle and opposed President Lyndon B Johnson’s bombing of North Vietnam, he might well have won the general election. Humphrey only got the endorsement of Eugene McCarthy, his defeated rival, shortly before polling day. In spite of the Democrats’ worst efforts, Nixon’s popular margin of victory was still less than one percentage point. Had Johnson or Humphrey publicly disclosed that Nixon was interfering with the Vietnam peace talks — to prevent the much-dreaded October surprise of a bombing pause — Nixon would almost certainly have lost. Yet Democratic lore blames the party’s 1968 loss entirely on process. It is worth mentioning that the supposedly tired, old Humphrey was 57.

The odds that this coming August we will have the first Democratic contested convention since 1968 are non-trivial. Were Joe Biden persuaded either to step down, or suffered some forcing medical event, the party would have no choice but to prove history really does rhyme by finding a new standard-bearer in Chicago. Anyone who is interested in how precisely that would work should read this fascinating discussion between Ezra Klein and Elaine Kamarck. Yet, as Jon Stewart found out last week on his return as host of The Daily Show, there is a liberal penalty for breaking omertà about Biden’s age. Stewart’s reaction is almost as accurate as it is funny. In private, not many Democrats think that Biden is up to another four years as president. In public, anyone who says so is ostracised. Partly this is because Biden’s withdrawal would mean a contested convention. What sane Democrat would want to go down that road again?

It is easy to picture how it could go disastrously. The last time anyone argued for a contested convention was Ted Kennedy in 1980. Though he had lost the primaries to incumbent Jimmy Carter in early June, Kennedy almost succeeded in turning New York City’s August convention into an open one. The debate boiled down to whether the party would permit so-called “faithless delegates”. Carter narrowly won the motion to ensure that they stayed faithful to the results of their states. But he lost the general election to Ronald Reagan by a landslide. The fact that Kennedy could hardly bring himself to utter Carter’s name, and refused to join hands with him at the closing primetime event, did not help.

It is not hard to imagine something similar taking place in Chicago this August: Biden pulls out of the race without endorsing Kamala Harris, saying it should be an open contest; she narrowly loses the nomination to a white male such as California’s governor Gavin Newsom or Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro; the party is badly rent by an identity-politics split that Donald Trump could not have scripted better; Trump wins and US democracy goes down the toilet. Yet I can also picture something quite different; a successful contested convention that rivets the nation’s attention and produces the stuff of Trump’s nightmares — a much younger and more vibrant rival. Whether that would be an unbound and rebooted Kamala Harris, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, or one of the male governors, is anybody’s guess. It is worth stressing though that technology would ensure the process would not be closed-door. It could not be a sordid deal between party bosses. Chicago 2024 would be a democratic exercise of a different kind.

I should add that I hope Biden remains healthy and displays more vibrancy. His State of the Union address in two weeks time will be a good reset opportunity. Were he to pull out, however, nothing would be written in the stars. The current Democratic consensus lives in clench-jawed fear of the downside. Lauren, as a reporter I have no doubt that you would relish covering such a spectacle. My question to you is what do you think would happen?

Recommended reading

• My column this week, “Trump’s campaign is bankruptcy protection,” argues that you should always follow the money: “It is often said that Trump’s biggest incentive to win in November is to keep himself out of prison,” I write. “Less understood is the boost that another term would give to Trump’s solvency.”

• I was fascinated by my colleague Pilita Clarke’s latest column on working from home. Way more people than expected are still working in this way and employers are assuming this will not change. It is linked both to higher productivity and lower wage growth. What’s not to like if you are an employer?

• Finally, do read Ramachandra Guha in Foreign Affairs on “India’s feet of clay: how Modi’s supremacy will hinder his country’s rise”. Guha is one of India’s wisest public intellectuals and is worth taking very seriously. 

Lauren Fedor responds

Ed, you are right: the reporter in me would delight in covering a contested convention. After months of following a lacklustre Republican presidential primary season, where the outcome has long felt preordained, I would love nothing more than a ringside seat to a proper political fight.

As you say, the Democrats could easily fall out over identity politics, with many party activists yearning for a woman or person of colour at the top of the ticket, and others gravitating towards candidates from less diverse backgrounds, like Newsom or Shapiro or Kentucky’s rising-star governor, Andy Beshear. 

But I also see huge potential for an even bigger split over ideology. Democratic bigwigs have demonstrated remarkable unity in sticking with Biden in recent months. Yet the outward-facing party discipline belies the underlying, persistent tension between the more moderate and progressive wings of the party. 

We saw those tensions boil over in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an ugly, protracted battle for the party’s presidential nomination. And it is easy to forget, but back in 2020, before Democrats coalesced behind Biden, voters were torn between progressives like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and more centrist candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.

As president, Biden has done a decent job of satisfying both camps. But we have seen cracks in the coalition in recent months, especially over foreign policy in the Middle East. I have no doubt that an open convention this summer — or an all-but-certain open primary in 2028 — would spark more public party infighting between the left and centre.