The Unparallelled Opportunity of an Open Democratic Convention

Don't hold a coronation for Kamala Harris; revel in the televised spectacle of an open convention.

Up to 80 percent of households tuned into at least some of the televised coverage of the Democratic and Republican national conventions in the 1950s, averaging 10-13 hours total viewing time per household. For comparison, that meant that three times as many Americans were watching a political convention as the total number who tuned into the first Super Bowl in 1967!

That kind of public interest likely feels alien. 1968 was the beginning of the end of the open convention, which means you would have had to be born in 1950 or before in order to have a chance to vote in a presidential election featuring an open convention. By the late 1990s, as few as 10 percent of households watched any convention coverage at all, a number that has not gone up since. The end of the open convention was another milestone in the ongoing collapse of the American political parties, which are no longer functional modern parties in the sense they were from the 1840s-1960s.

But I want you to think about how exciting these conventions once were. As soon as Americans bought TVs, the conventions became appointment viewing (and listening for an earlier radio generation), not the empty campaign promotion events they’ve since become. Night after night, Americans would eagerly follow the live coverage, wondering which favorite son would drop out in exchange for a cabinet position or whether the frontrunner would finally get enough ballots to clinch the nomination. That could mean edge-of-your-seat drama, like the incredible 103 ballots over the course of 17 days that it took the DNC to pick a nominee in 1924.

So for political history nerds, the 2024 Democratic National Convention might just be the most interesting convention in our lifetimes, a true throwback to an earlier era. Then again, there are many in the Democratic Party who fear the potential disruption of an open convention — including those who favor a smooth succession for Kamala Harris — and right now a fleet of parliamentarians and lawyers are undoubtably pouring over procedural rules trying to find an alternative to a truly open process.

But not holding an open convention could be a colossal mistake, and not because of the effects on this candidate or that. No, you need to think bigger. An open convention would immediately become appointment television, turn the winner into a household name, and provide the Democratic Party with a major boost to potential voter engagement and donations, all sorely needed attributes in an unusually shortened campaign window.

Take a step back. We live in an era of media fragmentation in which the handful of shows able to build a national audiences and drive “watercooler conversations” are the exception that proves the rule. The only holdout is live sports, at which broadcasters are willing to throw ungodly gobs of goulash since it’s the only genre left that reliably attracts mass audiences.

An open convention has that degree of upside potential for television networks and streaming platforms, which I am sure would flood the event with hundreds of hours of coverage. For the more pragmatic, just think of it as hundreds of hours of free political advertising to perhaps the largest audience for a live political event that we’ve seen in a generation.

I have seen commentators suggest that the DNC would be unable to compete with Olympics coverage, but bear in mind that it was once common to refer to conventions as “the Olympics of newscasting,” the caliber of event that launched the careers of newscasters like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. Besides, the days of single screen households are long over. It’s not hard to imagine consumers watching Olympics coverage on their tv while streaming the convention on a laptop and watching TikTok clips of it on their phone.

There’s a rule of thumb in football when it comes to the question of whether or not to kick a field goal or go for it on 4thdown. Kicking the field goal is safe, a sure three points; going for it on 4th down, however, is riskier, giving you a chance at either seven points or nothing. Which do you choose? The tip is that you should look at the opposing sideline and the other team’s fans. Do they seem relieved that you’re bringing out the field goal unit? If so, then you should go for it instead.

Donald Trump understands engaging television. His ability to attract televised attention — whether good, bad, or ugly — has surpassed every president since Ronald Reagan. Do you think Donald Trump would rather the Democratic Party opt for the political equivalent of a field goal — ie, elevate Kamala Harris with a minimum of fuss — or go for it on 4th down, all eyes watching an open convention with the election on the line? I think I can guess.