As Chicago prepares to host the Democratic National Convention, the 2024 U.S. presidential race looks entirely different than it did a few short weeks ago.
Vice President Kamala Harris is now the Democratic candidate—with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate—after President Joe Biden made the unprecedented decision to drop out of the race, only a week after former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt.
Now, Democrats will gather in Chicago from Aug. 19-22, setting the stage for the final months of the election. Chicago has hosted the DNC several times, but the 1968 convention often sticks in popular and historical memory. Earlier that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced he would not seek reelection, requiring delegates to vote for a new nominee. Outside the convention, thousands of police and anti-Vietnam War protestors clashed violently, all televised for the world to see.
We spoke to Profs. Elisabeth Clemens, John Mark Hansen and William Howell, leading University of Chicago scholars, to get their thoughts on the significance of this political moment, comparisons to the 1968 convention and the issues that will shape the remainder of the election.
A lot has happened in the past few weeks. From your scholarly perspective, how are you thinking about this unique political moment?
Clemens: After years of focus on democratic erosion, the past few months have unsettled any confidence in predictions. The election results in India, for the European parliament, in France, in Britain, or in Venezuela provide evidence of both deep vulnerabilities and unexpected possibilities for democratic politics. In this context, I will watch for how the U.S. candidates are—or are not—able to persuade voters that it is worth voting.
Howell: Historically, there have been instances when an incumbent president withdrew during an election year, as in 1968. There have been previous assassination attempts on presidents, former presidents and candidates. There have been plenty of elections when uncertainty about a party’s nomination ran right through a brokered convention.
What we've been observing over the course of the last month is altogether exceptional: An incumbent president who secured all the delegates needed for the nomination but who withdrew from the campaign just weeks before the convention for reasons that have nothing to do with a political scandal or with a falling out with his party on the basis of policy issues—and a vice president emerging within hours as the new candidate. On split screen, meanwhile, you have Trump not just wielding, but flaunting his total control over the Republican Party, which was only enhanced through this recent assassination attempt; and then him selecting, if not a facsimile, then certainly a loyal servant as his vice president.
All of this has happened in a matter of weeks. Have we seen some of the elements of this drama before? Sure. Have we seen them strung together in the way that we have this last month? Not even close.
Hansen: In my election analysis, I tend to emphasize the “fundamentals”—partisanship, state of the economy, war and peace, positioning on issues—over the particulars of the candidates. The fundamentals work because they prioritize historical experience and discount idiosyncrasies. But we’ve never had so many idiosyncrasies.
It’s difficult not to compare this DNC to the one held in Chicago in 1968. What are a few key parallels and differences between them?
Hansen: Some people seem to fixate on the comparison out of hope and some out of fear, but I don’t think the parallels are so great. In 1968, two national leaders were assassinated (King and Kennedy), there were riots in cities large and small (including Chicago), U.S. soldiers were fighting in Vietnam, and the movement against the war was vastly larger than anything we’ve seen this year. Chicago was controlled by a machine. The Democratic Party was deeply split over the war, and George Wallace was running an independent campaign to reverse the progress in civil rights. There are deep social cleavages now, but they are between the parties rather than within the parties.
Howell: After Biden stepped down, there was a brief moment where we might have seen something like the ‘68 convention—if a stalwart of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party had stepped forward to contest Harris, and if a divided party had sought to reconcile its differences in a brokered convention. But that moment vanished almost instantly. The party fell in line behind Harris. And despite lingering cleavages—particularly over the war in Gaza—the party appears entirely unified in its support for Harris.
Moreover, this convention is coming on the heels of a sustained period of social, racial and political tumult, as occurred in ‘68. And let us also note that Chicago's mayor today looks very different from the Mayor Daley from ‘68. It’s inconceivable that Mayor Johnson will encourage the police force to crack down on protesters, as Daley did. On the whole, then, it’s hard to see how this year’s convention looks anything like the division, upheaval and violence that defined the one in 1968.
—Prof. Jacqueline Stewart
