“This is a historic moment,” said Boris Heersink, associate professor of political science at Fordham. “There are no similar cases where an incumbent president in the modern era had every intention to run for reelection, won the delegates necessary to get nominated, but was effectively forced out.”

Pressure mounted for Biden, 81, to step aside after his June 27 debate performance, which many called “disastrous,” and raised doubts about his fitness for office only four months before the election. Since then, dozens of prominent Democrats have pressed him to withdraw so they could nominate a candidate who would fare better against former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. But as late as Friday, Biden continued to insist that he would stay in the race.

Heersink said the campaign to oust Biden was “not just because of one bad debate but because that debate confirmed a lot of preexisting views of his age and fueled a growing frustration among many that this current generation of politicians refuses to step aside.”

Avoiding a ‘Free-for-All’

It remains to be seen, however, if the party leadership will back Harris for the nomination, and reports of division among Democrats are already surfacing.

“The delegates that were elected during the primaries this past spring will need to vote, and they theoretically are free to vote for whoever they want,” Heersink said. “However, it seems likely to me that Biden and other party leaders will want to avoid this becoming a free-for-all.

“While Biden stepping aside obviously adds considerable confusion to the race, it does also provide Democrats with the opportunity to put together a ticket that will excite people in their base and make not just the case that voters need to reject Trump, but that there also is a positive argument for voting for the Democrats in November,” said Heersink.

Christina Greer, associate professor of political science, said, “It’s historic, complicated, and not yet decided. Chicago will bring much to light, and luckily for Dems, Biden decided to make this decision before the convention.”

‘Sighing With Relief’

Jacob Smith, assistant professor of political science at Fordham, said, “I think a lot of Dems are sighing with relief today.” He added, “Also, the behind-the-scenes action once again shows nobody should bet against Nancy Pelosi.”

“I think enthusiasm among younger voters will be higher [for Harris],” said Smith. “While incumbents usually have an edge, the age issue was just going to dominate the fall campaign for Joe Biden. Harris won’t have that baggage.”

If Democrats choose another nominee, however, it would “ignore the crucial role of Black voters in the Democratic Party in addition to being pretty rude to Harris as the sitting VP,” Smith said. “Everyone will need to be vigilant against racism and sexism, but I do believe that Harris is the stronger candidate and that is why President Biden ultimately stepped aside.”

Heersink said, “A majority of voters has very consistently indicated that they do not want Trump to be president again. But a majority of voters also believed Biden was incapable of executing the job for another term. Trump is still the Republican nominee, but Democrats now have the space to overcome the major obstacles to a victory in November.”

“This is unprecedented,” said Christina Greer, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University.

For some Democrats, the calculus is deeply personal as they decide whether to abandon a man whom many respect and have worked with for decades. Others are thinking strategically about whether the party can coalesce around another candidate with just weeks until the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Greer said.

“What would it look like to change course now?,” she said. “What would it look like to stay with a candidate who some argue had one bad night while others argue it’s part of a much more concerning pattern?”

The 2024 presidential election is likely to be the first time since 1892 that an incumbent president is running against another former president. And with early primaries having such an outsized influence, the slate could be a virtual lock before Super Tuesday even rolls around—even though most Americans don’t want a Biden-Trump rematch.

John Davenport, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Fordham and former director of Peace and Justice Studies, said there are three main problems with the uniquely American presidential primary system that have contributed to this likely matchup: the scheduling of the primaries, the way the delegates are determined, and a lack of uniformity in who can vote in each primary.

‘Glaringly Unfair Tradition’

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about how political parties or their nomination processes should work, because the authors didn’t foresee the power of parties, which now set their own primaries, Davenport said. One result is that just a few states keep holding the earliest primaries.

Davenport called it a “glaringly unfair tradition” that four states have cornered the market.

“Early primaries bring huge profits to businesses in early states and give them more influence. Iowa rescheduled its chaotic caucus to just a week after New Year’s Day in 2024, and New Hampshire’s Republican primary election was eight days later, followed soon by Nevada and South Carolina.” 

While outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire are not always decisive, their small populations, combined with South Carolina’s, have enjoyed enormously disproportionate influence that can eliminate candidates who might have remained viable if the first primaries were held in more populous states, he said.

“Thus they can cut nine out of 10 American voters out of the process, especially when early frontrunners gain big leads,” he said, adding that “no other advanced democratic nation” allows this.

Lack of State Uniformity

Inconsistency in how delegates are awarded also affects who ultimately wins the party nominations.

Because the Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire operate somewhat proportionally, Nikki Haley won 17 delegates to Trump’s 33 by garnering about 40% of the combined vote in those two states. But in South Carolina’s Republican primary this month, the majority winner in each district will take all of its delegates—meaning that Haley could get 38 to 40% of the votes but gain zero delegates out of the state’s 50-delegate total, That would make it much harder for her to raise funds for the races in Michigan and on Super Tuesday in early March. Davenport said. In still other Republican primaries, a candidate finishing first gets all or most of the state’s delegates.

By contrast, in Democratic primaries in all states, each candidate gets a number of delegates that is loosely proportional to their percentage of the popular vote. 

Who Gets to Vote?

Equally inconsistent is whether a state’s primaries are open to independent voters or just those in the party holding the primary.

New Hampshire’s Republican primary was open, and many independents voted, boosting Haley’s numbers. Nevada, which this year held both a Republican primary and caucus, closed those races to independents. 

What’s the Solution?

“Congress has the authority to change the primary election calendar, rotating the chance to hold early primaries among five or six regions of the U.S., so that every state gets a fair opportunity over five or six presidential election cycles to hold high-impact primaries,” said Davenport.

Federal law could also solve the delegate problem by mandating that political parties use one method to award convention delegates in all state primaries. And by mandating open primaries in all states, federal law could help moderate candidates continue longer in tight races, he said.

“These are just a few examples of sensible and non-partisan reforms,” said Davenport.

John Davenport has taught in undergraduate and graduate programs at Fordham since 1998. He is the author of several articles and books, including 2023’s The Democracy Amendments, which attempts to synthesize two decades of creative ideas to fix the federal system into a comprehensive program.

“They are increasingly using AI tools to build their codes for cyberattacks,” said William Akoto, assistant professor of international politics at Fordham, adding that every new AI feature added to platforms like ChatGPT makes hackers’ work easier and leaves corporations and government agencies vulnerable. “It’s lowering the bar on these attacks.”

President Joe Biden said the “warp speed” at which this technology is advancing prompted him Monday to sign an executive order using the Defense Production Act to steer how companies develop AI so they can make a profit without risking public safety.

Akoto, who studies the international dynamics of cyberattacks, said the executive order is a step in the right direction.

“Presently, the U.S. lags behind global counterparts such as the E.U., U.K., and China in establishing definitive guidelines for AI’s evolution and application,” he said. “So this directive is a much-needed measure in bridging that gap. It is comprehensive, clarifying the U.S. government’s perspective on AI’s potential to drive economic growth and enhance national security.”

The president’s wide-ranging order in part requires AI developers to share safety test results with the government and to follow safety standards that will be created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Biden said this is the first step in government regulation of the AI industry in the U.S, a field he said  needs to be governed because of its enormous potential for both promising and dangerous ramifications.

But despite its noble intentions, Akoto said, “The practical implementation of these measures will present significant challenges, both for federal oversight bodies and the technology sector. A critical issue is the misalignment between the economic and market forces currently influencing AI technology firms and the Biden administration’s aspirations for cautious, well-evaluated, and transparent AI development. Without realigning these incentives with the administration’s objectives, tangible, positive outcomes from this executive order will remain elusive.”

Ultimately, the effectiveness of this initiative will hinge on how robust enforcement will be to ensure AI technology companies’ compliance, Akoto said.