Why it is too early to care about the 2024 Presidential election right now
By Pat Cleary ’24, Sports Editor
As we pass from April to May, we draw one step closer to the 2024 Presidential Election. It feels like we have been talking about this race forever. Weeks after the midterms, former President Trump declared he would run to no surprise. In mid-Feb. 2023, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamay and former South Carolina governor Nikki Hayley threw their hats in the ring, eleven months before the first primaries in January and twenty-one months before the election in November. Now, that early start clearly did not show either candidate any favors. Neither went on to become the presumptive GOP nominee but it is illustrative of a worrying trend. Election season is getting longer and longer.
I am here to say that this is a bad trend. This pivot is bad for campaigns because it does not contribute to winnings. It is bad for our democracy because it necessitates the raising of more absurd sums of campaign money. Finally, it’s bad for the public, as it forces further and further speculation, distracting from more critical issues.
First off, it’s unclear if starting early actually gives any kind of competitive advantage. In 2020, the first contenders off the blocks were Maryland Congressman John Delaney and entrepreneur Andrew Yang all the way back in 2017. Eventual nominee Joe Biden did not announce until April 2019. Still early, but it also came after other major players like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Texas Congressman Beto ’O Rourke. In 2016, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul all declared before eventual Republican nominee Donald Trump. Thus, it is clear that declaring early does not yield a serious competitive advantage. Overtime, candidates have begun running earlier and earlier to grab headlines and to get a headstart on fundraising. Back in 1960, John F. Kennedy did not enter the race until Jan. 1960. By the 1980 election cycle, we had Ronald Reagan throwing his hat in the ring in Nov. 1979 just under a year before votes would be cast. Nowadays, we know the candidates years beforehand. That trend has continued and now it seems the moment the midterms conclude, speculation picks up on who will be gunning for the White House. If candidates want to secure the office, they can wait a little longer before declaring. It might even save them some money.
Another issue with starting election season early is the problem with all of American democracy: money. The earlier you announce, the longer you need to pay for your campaign team, meaning more money is needed to sustain the race. Candidates cannot win elections alone. They need staffers, advisors, interns, security, advertisers, among other personnel roles. This is what doomed Ron Desantis’s run at the White House this year. The Florida Governor was poised to be a challenger in the GOP primary due to his name recognition, his leadership of a key battleground state, and his campaign warchest. However, his campaign crumbled after one too many missteps. Among them was his burn rate. DeSantis knew how to raise money but he spent it just as fast in the early days of the race. He spent big on staff, hiring over 300 canvassers as early as July 2023. The following month, FEC filings showed the campaign had spent $34 million with the first primary still months away. Ultimately, it was all for naught, and DeSantis dropped out after finishing second in Iowa. In total, DeSantis spent $160 million to secure nine delegates. The burn rate is a direct consequence of declaring too early. Every extra month a campaign is running is another month staff need to be paid. Had DeSantis waited, he could have avoided such a fate or at the very least his failure could have cost him less. With all of that said, it’s clear that the length of our electoral season does candidates no favors. How does it affect voters on the ground?
In most countries, elections are not these multi-year slogs. Under the Westminster system employed by countries like Canada and the UK, elections can only take place if parliament is dissolved. In 2021, Canada dissolved its government in mid August. Voters headed to the polls in late September. In 2019, the UK House of Commons voted to have an election on Oct. 29 and votes were cast on Dec. 12. In both cases, election season lasts under 2 months. In the US, we are used to the avalanche of election coverage. Every stump speech, misstep and debate, is analyzed with agonizing detail no matter how little real impact on the actual election.
Election coverage distracts from other pressing issues. Contrast this with the examples from abroad mentioned above. In neither case were citizens bombarded with existential election coverage for months on end. The race plays out, people vote, and citizens can go about their lives while the government can conduct its business.
Paying close attention to the election now is like sweating over the results of an average MLB game in April. Do I want the Mets to win? Of course. But it would be ludicrous to try and take a single game’s results as evidence of what is likely to play out his fall in the playoffs. We can observe, but at the end of the day, most of the day to day is like the average mets season. Utterly pointless.
