The Democratic National Committee’s recent decision to nominate Joe Biden virtually for the upcoming presidential election has raised eyebrows and sparked debate among political observers. With his nomination secured months prior, the move to make the process virtual has stripped the Democratic National Convention of any semblance of suspense or significant engagement, leaving many to question the party’s strategy and Biden’s strength as a candidate.
By mid-March, Joe Biden had already garnered enough delegates to become the presumptive Democratic nominee. However, the continuous protest votes and his perceived vulnerabilities as a general election contender kept the door ajar for a possible challenge. Speculation of a brokered convention in Chicago this August provided some hope for those uneasy about Biden’s electability. But the DNC’s choice to proceed with a virtual nomination ensures no real contest will occur, merely reducing what should have been a pivotal event to a mere formality.
The indication from party leaders that Joe Biden would be their nominee was unequivocal, despite internal concerns and external criticisms. Former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senator John Fetterman both dismissed ideas of contingency plans for replacing Biden, reinforcing that he remains their candidate, despite polling data suggesting vulnerability. Reports of behind-the-scenes anxiety within the party hint at a broader worry about his electoral prospects as former President Donald Trump gains momentum in key swing states around five months ahead of the election.
Additionally, Biden faces potential protests at the convention related to his handling of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict—a factor that has aroused continual disapproval from progressive voters. Unless there is a significant shift in his stance, the likelihood of large-scale demonstrations looms, adding another layer of complexity to his campaign.
The DNC’s method of virtual nomination has not been without its detractors. Critics label the decision as a measure to shield Biden from public scrutiny and potential gaffes, with media analyst Jeffrey McCall branding it a “gutless” maneuver. Such criticism resonates with the broader concern that the virtual nomination could derail the opportunity for public engagement and scrutiny, which are cornerstones of the democratic process.
Despite internal trepidation, party officials are stuck in a political bind, without a clear alternative to Biden. Names like Vice President Kamala Harris and Governors Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer have been floated by pundits but none have gained considerable traction compared to the incumbent. Congressman Dan Kildee acknowledged that the time for selecting an alternative has long passed, stressing the impracticality of shifting candidates at this late stage of the campaign cycle.
The historical context adds weight to this situation. The last time Democrats had a genuinely contested nomination at their convention was 1956, and for the Republicans, it was 1976. This highlights the rarity and the seriousness of brokered conventions, emphasizing why the current scenario appears even more unusual and why it has captured significant attention.
Political strategist Brad Bannon suggests that the primary challenge for Biden lies in keeping the convention interesting in the absence of actual convention drama. The DNC will need to employ high-profile speakers and celebrities to create buzz and retain public interest, tactics that have been necessitated by their decision for a virtual roll call.
In assessing Biden’s candidacy and the current election landscape, it becomes evident that the Democratic leadership is navigating complex waters. Balancing the need for party unity with addressing the legitimate concerns of the electorate remains a formidable task. As the convention approaches, the effectiveness of their strategy will come under intense scrutiny, with far-reaching implications for the November election.
