What US history can—and can't—teach us about this unprecedented election

In American politics, every election can seem unprecedented. But some elections are more unprecedented than others.

As Vice President Kamala Harris formally accepts the nomination of the Democratic Party this week, the contours of this already historic presidential election become official. At the same time, there is much we still do not know.

Although political pundits often imply that the race comes down to decisions that individual voters make on Election Day, the reality is that most people have long-since made up their minds. As for the small group that hasn't–how will they turn? And more importantly, who will turn out to vote at all?

Observers may naturally ask what history teaches about a case like this. Although looking to the past can help us understand the truly unprecedented nature of this election, the most honest lesson is that it all remains to be seen.

Uncharted waters

President Joe Biden's announcement on July 21 that he would withdraw from the presidential race tossed 2024 firmly into unknown waters. Yet even before that decision, this year's election was already highly unusual.

Republican Donald Trump is the first one-term president in 130 years to lose re-election and then, four years later, secure his party's nomination again. Back in 1892, Democrat Grover Cleveland—who was first elected in 1884 but lost in 1888—became the only US President elected to two non-consecutive terms, a feat Trump is hoping to repeat.

Indeed, Trump is the first politician to receive a major party's nomination in three straight elections since Democrat Franklin Roosevelt (who did it four times between 1932 and 1944).

And 2024 marks the first time since 1968 that a major party has nominated someone who had previously lost a general presidential election at all. Richard Nixon, who lost in 1960, didn't run in 1964, but eventually was elected twice.

What's more, had Biden stayed in the race, the United States would have faced its first head-to-head rematch for the presidency since the 1950s. (There were five others in the 19th century.) In both 1952 and 1956, Republican Dwight Eisenhower squared off against Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, winning both times.

But it was Biden dropping out that truly cast the presidential race into new territory and makes typical strategies of predicting the result so flawed. When political scientists, pollsters, and pundits try to predict an election result, discussion often turns to "the fundamentals"—those aspects of the political world that are not specific to candidates' personalities and messages.

And perhaps the biggest question is how voters feel about the state of the country. Will the election be about "change" or about "staying the course"?

Change or continuity?

The peculiar dynamics of 2024 make this question even more complex than normal, because neither major party candidate can fully claim the mantle of "incumbent" or "challenger."

Typically, the candidate from the party out of power runs as a change agent. Their task is quite simply to persuade voters that the status quo is bad and that they should take a chance on something different. Yet Donald Trump, by virtue of being the former president, is as well-known a commodity as Biden was, and he is far better known than Harris herself.

Yet Harris cannot claim the label of political outsider, since she is essentially running on Joe Biden's record. In some ways, this is a recurring pattern, and it usually ends badly for the party in power.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost her bid to succeed two-term Democrat Barack Obama. In 2008, Republican John McCain likewise failed to take over for George W. Bush. And in 2000, Vice President Al Gore lost in his effort to follow Bill Clinton. (I should note that both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore won the popular vote.)

One has to go back to 1988 to see a more favourable election for the incumbent’s party. In that year, Vice President George H. W. Bush was elected to what was often called "Ronald Reagan's third term."

On the other hand, Harris is not trying to succeed a two-term president, but rather a one-termer who has voluntarily stepped aside. Biden's recusal was the first time in more than half a century that a sitting president who was eligible to run again has not been a candidate in the general election.

In March 1968, facing deep division within his own party over the Vietnam War and a lacklustre showing in early primaries, Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not seek the second term that he was constitutionally eligible for. (He only served 14 months of John F. Kennedy’s term before winning in his own right in 1964.)

The turmoil that ensued, on display at the Democrats’ convention in Chicago that summer, as well as the party’s loss to Nixon in the fall, prompted Democrats to reform the way they choose presidential candidates. Republicans soon enacted their own changes, creating the modern primary system.

Voter turnout questions

This year marks the only time since then that a candidate has dropped out after the primaries (albeit before the national convention).

Given this state of play, history has very little to suggest about the "fundamentals" of this campaign. A vote for Trump could be seen as a rejection of Biden and the status quo, but it is also a vote for the status quo of only four years ago.

Likewise, a vote for Harris is both an affirmation of the Democratic presidency and Joe Biden and a vote for someone brand new (not to mention historic, since Harris would become the first woman, first person of South Asian heritage, and second African American president).

Predicting voter turnout is notoriously difficult, although analysts use various metrics—including polls, donations, volunteer numbers, and, yes, even crowd size—to attempt their best guesses. Yet enthusiasm for the candidates is not the only relevant factor. Structural issues matter too.

For example, consider that voter turnout as a percentage of the voting age population topped 61 percent in 2020, a number not seen since the 1960s. Although many observers attributed higher engagement to voters’ intense feelings about Trump, pandemic-related policies made voting by mail far more common, raising turnout overall.

It is worth remembering, after all, that more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016, even though 7 million more voters chose Biden.

Will structural patterns or fundamentals determine the outcome of this year’s election? Only time will tell. The last several months have indeed been historic for American politics, and the fall campaign for president promises more of the same.

Looking back on history only makes clear just how unprecedented the times we live in really are.