One of the biggest political stories of 2022 was how the Republican Party fielded an unusually large number of weak candidates for Senate and gubernatorial primaries. Republicans’ failure to elevate candidates with wide appeal cost them dearly in the November midterms, when they bungled potentially winnable contests in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona and elsewhere.
But there was a less-noticed but equally important story on the Democratic side. In a surprising number of contests, the Democratic Party was able to clear the field for its preferred candidates by persuading other contenders not to run at all or even to drop out in the middle of their campaign.
Though it was more in evidence in 2022 than ever, Democrats’ ability to rally around nominees before primary elections goes back more than a decade. Efforts to coalesce around a single candidate, even when it requires bridging strong divides within the party, are a key reason why Democrats have been able to produce significant legislative accomplishments without having commanding majorities in Congress.
Democrats appear to be doing at least as well at clearing the field in 2024. After Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow announced she would retire at the end of the current term in 2024, a number of the state’s Democratic politicians seemed to be logical contenders to make a bid for her seat. Yet as party officials and activists moved to support current House Representative Elissa Slotkin, several potential contenders dropped out, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (who recently established Michigan residency), Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist and Attorney General Dana Nessel.
It’s possible Slotkin will face a major nomination contender, but she may wind up without a seriously contested primary at all.
That’s what happened with several key races in 2022. In Ohio, Tim Ryan drew only two minor opponents in his Senate bid and won the primary with about 70% of the vote. In North Carolina, Cheri Beasley took 81% of the primary after several potentially strong candidates passed and three candidates withdrew before the primary. In Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro was unopposed in an open-seat primary for governor. And in Wisconsin, then-Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes was seeking the Democratic nomination for Senate in what seemed to be a very competitive race until three candidates withdrew and endorsed him just before the primary. (Mandela ultimately lost a close race to incumbent Republican Senator Ron Johnson.)
Democrats have been making early candidate commitments for a while, and more so in recent years. In 2020, Arizona Senate candidate Mark Kelly was able to run unopposed in the Democratic primary, while in Georgia, Raphael Warnock faced no significant Democratic opposition in the initial round of voting in the Senate special election. In congressional elections, political scientist Danielle Thomsen has found, Democrats have somewhat fewer candidates on primary ballots than Republicans and are a bit more likely to drop out. (1)
The Democrats’ approach pays off. Candidates chosen by a party process as opposed to leaving it up to primary voters will be more likely to act as party loyalists once in office. And that helps explain why Democrats were so effective at legislating in 2021-2022 despite having tiny majorities in both the House and the Senate and a fairly wide range of ideological positions. Many Democratic members of Congress arrived in Washington expecting to be able to work through the party to get things done.
The complex dance involved in passing the big Democratic initiative during that Congress — which involved separating President Joe Biden’s initial proposal into a bipartisan infrastructure bill and the eventual climate and health care bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act — required strong working relationships and quite a bit of trust within the party. At least some of that is surely a product of a cooperative, pragmatic nomination process.
This isn’t necessarily all upside for the party. Nominations that emerge from a nationalized process could produce elected officials who aren’t ideally matched to their states or districts. And a certain amount of internal conflict is probably healthy. Parties as institutions are inherently conservative, as political scientist Julia Azari has argued, so a contested nomination process helps them remain open to new ideas and new people.
Still, I suspect Democrats would rather risk too much stability than the kinds of dysfunctional behavior we’ve seen from congressional Republicans, most notably during the weeklong House speaker election in January. That party officials on the Democratic side are able to come to agreement on nominations suggests that pragmatism and cooperation are values that are rewarded — that the ability to work well with other Democrats is how one develops clout within the party. That seems like a healthy development.
____
(1) A counterexample so far in 2024 is in California, where three Democratic members of the House have already jumped in for the upcoming Senate vacancy. However, since California is a solid Democratic state, there is little electoral pressure for Democrats to avoid a public battle - and of course we don't know how many of these candidates will still be running next year.
____
ABOUT THE WRITER
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. A former professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University, he wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
