Why Insurgent Campaigns Rarely Win the Democratic Presidential Primary in the United States

Abstract

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines insurgent as “one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party.” In this paper, an “insurgent presidential campaign” is defined as the campaign of a candidate who did not have the support of the United States of America’s (U.S.) Democratic Party establishment. A “populist campaign” is a subset of an insurgent campaign, because although all populist campaigns are insurgent campaigns, not all insurgent campaigns are populist campaigns. This paper defines a “populist campaign” as one that seeks to mobilize an unrepresented segment of the population against an institution or government, usually in defense of the unrepresented. Whether left-wing or right-wing, populist candidates seek to unite the supposedly uncorrupt and unsophisticated unrepresented against supposedly corrupt dominant elites. Insurgent campaigns have rarely been successful in capturing the Democratic Party presidential nomination in the United States. Only three insurgent campaigns have been successful over the past 50 years: the campaigns of George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Barack Obama in 2008, all of which were populist campaigns. The paper analyzes U.S. presidential campaigns for the period 1968-2016; reviews books and academic literature; and makes conclusions concerning the success and failure of insurgent campaigns. Finally, the paper recommends ways in which future insurgent campaigns could be more successful.