Sirens of both parties wail that it is nearly too late to change the nomination dynamics—that Trump versus Biden is fast becoming inevitable. The reason this is true in 2023 but was not true prior to around 1970 is that do-gooders passed campaign reforms that make it difficult or impossible for anyone to mount a serious presidential campaign unless he or she is willing to spend at least two years meeting with lawyers and accountants, setting up and registering committees, filing papers, and arranging for vast numbers of small contributions—usually gathered by the same power-brokers whom campaign reform was supposed to marginalize. (On that last point, the only exception is that a wealthy candidate like Donald Trump can self-finance.)

So-called reforms have sapped our presidential election system of its once-glorious spontaneity, flexibility, and element of surprise. From the founding of the Republic till the early 1970s, presidential nominations were in flux till the final ballot of the parties’ conventions. Presidential history is rife with avengers—some famous, some obscure—swooping in dramatically to derail unsatisfactory frontrunners. Before 1970, outstanding Americans could wait on the sidelines and seize the podium when parties cried out for better. Below, we’ll look at three years—1880, 1952, and 1968—when the nomination processes took radically unexpected turns in ways that would be nearly impossible today.

[Robert gives us some fascinating history, and reminds us of how campaign finance “reform” has damaged the process and the nimbleness of American politics. As I have often proposed, we need to jettison all of the artificial definitions and opt instead for no-limits donations directly to candidates with full and immediately disclosure, and the revocation of tax-exempt status for all political orgs except actual political parties. That will restore accountability as well as dynamism to the process. — Ed]