Hubbry Logo
Favorite sonFavorite sonMain
Open search
Favorite son
Community hub
Favorite son
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Favorite son
Favorite son
Favorite son
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Favorite son banner from 1980 for John Connally

Favorite son (or favorite daughter) is a political term referring to a presidential candidate, either one that is nominated by a state but considered a nonviable candidate or a politician whose electoral appeal derives from their native state, rather than their political views. The technique was widely used in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Description

[edit]

At the quadrennial American national political party conventions, a state delegation sometimes nominates a presidential candidate from the state—or less often from the state's region— who is not a viable candidate in the view of other delegations, and votes for this candidate in the initial ballot. The technique allows state leaders to negotiate with leading candidates in exchange for the delegation's support in subsequent ballots.[1] The nominated individual is known as a favorite son or favorite daughter. The terms are also used for politicians whose electoral appeal derives from their native state, rather than their political views;[2][3] for example, in the United States, a presidential candidate will usually win the support of their home state(s).[4]

Serious candidates usually, but not always, avoided campaigning in favorite sons' states. If a party's leader in a state—usually the governor—was unsure of whom to support, supporting the favorite son could allow the state party to avoid disputes. Conversely, a party leader who has chosen a candidate might become a favorite son to keep other candidates' campaigns out of the state,[5][1] or prevent a rival local politician from becoming a favorite son.[2] The favorite son may explicitly state that the candidacy is not viable,[3] or that the favorite son is not a candidate at all.[1] The favorite son may hope to receive the vice-presidential nomination,[3] Cabinet post or other job, increase support for the favorite son's region or policies,[6] or just the publicity from being nominated at the convention.[5]

History

[edit]

The technique was widely used in the 19th and early 20th centuries.[6] Since nationwide campaigns by candidates and binding primary elections have replaced brokered conventions, the technique has fallen out of use,[5][7] as party rule changes in the early 1970s required candidates to have nominations from more than one state.[8]

A particularly notable instance of a politician whose electoral appeal derives from their native state occurred in 1984, when challenger Walter Mondale lost 49 of 50 states against popular incumbent Ronald Reagan, winning only his home state of Minnesota and Washington, D.C.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Favorite son

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A favorite son is a political , typically in the of U.S. presidential , who receives the endorsement and from delegates of their home state at a national party convention, often as a strategic maneuver to unify the state's , bargain for concessions from frontrunners, or maintain leverage rather than with serious expectation of securing the overall . This tactic was more prevalent in the era of smoke-filled rooms and brokered conventions before the widespread adoption of primaries shifted power to voters, allowing state leaders to nominate local figures temporarily while negotiating support for preferred national . The practice dates back to the early 19th century but gained prominence in the 20th century, with notable instances including Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding's 1920 Republican nomination, where his state's backing evolved into broader support leading to victory, though such outcomes were rare as favorite sons usually served symbolic or tactical roles. Examples from Democratic politics include Texas Governor John Connally in 1968, whose favorite-son bid helped organize the state's delegation amid intraparty divisions over the Vietnam War and civil rights, ultimately channeling support toward Hubert Humphrey. By the late 20th century, the term had become largely obsolete due to binding primary results and proportional delegate allocation, reducing the influence of state bosses in convention balloting. While not inherently controversial, the favorite-son strategy highlighted tensions between local loyalties and national party unity, occasionally drawing criticism for prioritizing regional interests over merit-based selection in an increasingly democratized process.

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition

In United States politics, a favorite son refers to a candidate who is nominated or receives the primary support of delegates from their home state at a national political convention, typically for the presidential nomination. This practice emerged as a means for state party leaders to unify their delegation behind a local figure, often irrespective of the candidate's national viability. The strategy functions primarily as a tool, enabling delegations to withhold early endorsements from frontrunners and negotiate concessions, such as vice-presidential slots or commitments, in exchange for switching support later in the convention process. Unlike genuine contenders with broad national appeal, favorite sons are frequently prominent local politicians—such as governors or senators—who lack widespread backing beyond their state but leverage regional loyalty to influence outcomes. While the term applies mainly to pre-primary era conventions before the , when delegate selection was more controlled by party insiders, its essence persists in modern contexts where states temporarily back uncommitted or home-state proxies to preserve flexibility amid intraparty divisions. The designation underscores the tension between state parochialism and national party cohesion, with favorite sons rarely securing the outright but occasionally shaping delegate realignments.

Etymology and Early Usage

The term "favorite son" derives from the English noun "," denoting a person or thing regarded with special liking, which entered English in the 1580s via French favorit from Italian favorito, ultimately tracing to Latin favor meaning "good will" or "partiality." In its figurative sense—a noted individual particularly popular and esteemed in their native region—the phrase first appears in , often applied to local figures of pride and support. Applied to politics, "favorite son" describes a candidate advanced by their home state's delegates at a national nominating convention, typically as a symbolic or tactical choice rather than a serious national contender. This usage emerged in early 19th-century American presidential elections, with one of the earliest documented instances occurring in 1824, when the legislature nominated incumbent President as its favorite-son candidate to counter the congressional 's preference for . The legislature similarly endorsed Speaker as its favorite son that year, reflecting state-level pushes against centralized party selection amid the collapse of the caucus system. By the 1830s and 1840s, the term gained traction as a convention strategy, notably when the Whig Party in 1840 fielded multiple regional favorite sons—including in the North, in the border states, and in the South—to fragment electoral votes and block Democratic incumbent Martin Van Buren's majority. This early application underscored the phrase's evolution from general regional favoritism to a deliberate tool in multi-candidate races lacking primaries, allowing states to leverage bloc voting for concessions or deadlock-breaking influence.

Historical Development

Pre-20th Century Origins

The favorite son strategy in American presidential politics originated with the framers' design for the , where electors were expected to favor prominent local figures to balance state and national interests, as each elector cast votes for two , at least one from outside their state. This approach reflected an anticipation that states would promote their own "favorite sons" unless a figure achieved broader consensus, preventing any single regional from dominating without wider support. In practice, early elections amplified this dynamic, as seen in 1824 when multiple , including of and of , functioned as de facto favorite sons backed primarily by their regional bases amid the collapse of the system. The rise of national nominating conventions in the formalized the tactic, enabling state delegations to nominate and pledge to local leaders for , unity, or to block frontrunners. In the inaugural of 1832, states such as nominated Littleton W. Tazewell and backed as favorite sons, though neither secured the nomination against Andrew Jackson's incumbency. Similarly, Whig and later Republican gatherings in the and featured states advancing provincial figures to influence outcomes, often as a means to extract concessions on platforms or vice-presidential slots. By mid-century, the strategy proved pivotal in deadlocked conventions, exemplified by the 1860 Republican gathering where delegates initially supported as their favorite son to counter New York Senator William H. Seward's lead. 's home-state bloc held firm through multiple , positioning him as a compromise after Seward's vulnerabilities alienated moderates, ultimately yielding his on the third ballot with 233 votes to Seward's 180. This case illustrated how favorite son candidacies could serve as both a defensive tool for states and a pathway to unexpected national success when frontrunners faltered. In Democratic conventions, Pennsylvania's repeated promotion of in 1852 and 1856 operated similarly, leveraging state loyalty to sustain his viability amid factional strife until his eventual 1856 triumph after 17 .

20th Century Evolution

In the early decades of the , the favorite son strategy facilitated breakthroughs in protracted convention deadlocks, allowing regional figures to emerge as nominees when national frontrunners faltered. At the in , Senator , backed primarily by his state's delegation, secured the nomination on the tenth ballot with 692 votes after initial splits among favorites like General and Governor Frank Lowden; Harding's selection reflected party bosses' preference for a compromise candidate amenable to influence. Similarly, at the in New York, West Virginia lawyer gained the nomination on the 103rd ballot following exhaustive balloting among , Alfred E. Smith, and others, underscoring how favorite sons could consolidate scattered support in multi-ballot scenarios. Mid-century conventions saw favorite sons evolve into tactical tools for state delegations to preserve rather than pursue outright victory, amid growing primary influence and media scrutiny. The 1936 Democratic National Convention's abolition of the two-thirds majority rule for nominations shortened deadlocks, diminishing environments where favorite sons previously thrived by prolonging votes. In 1952, California Governor entered as a favorite son to hold his 54 delegates, eventually releasing them to after the general's primary successes; Ohio Senator similarly used favorite son support in 1948 and 1952 but fell short against Eisenhower's momentum. The 1956 Democratic Convention featured nine favorite son candidacies, including Kentucky's Albert B. Chandler (30 delegates), Massachusetts's (44), Michigan's (44), and Missouri's (38), which fragmented the field before Adlai Stevenson's consensus nomination on the first ballot. By the 1960s, expanding primaries eroded the strategy's viability, as national candidates directly contested state delegations, bypassing convention-only leverage. In 1960, Senator overcame Democratic favorite sons like Ohio Governor Michael DiSalle by winning the primary with 70% of the vote, securing 64 delegates and demonstrating primaries' role in building delegate thresholds pre-convention. Post-World War II and voter participation further favored candidates with broad name recognition over parochial favorites, rendering the tactic increasingly obsolete by the late century, though occasional uses persisted as delays against frontrunners, such as in 1976 Democratic state maneuvers to withhold early endorsements.

Operational Mechanics

Role in National Conventions

In the pre-primary era of U.S. national nominating conventions, favorite son candidates served primarily as unifying figures for state delegations, allowing them to present a cohesive front without prematurely committing to national frontrunners. This tactic preserved delegate autonomy, as state party leaders could nominate a local dignitary—often a , senator, or other prominent resident—to consolidate votes under the unit rule, where the majority directed the entire delegation's ballots. By doing so, delegations avoided diluting their influence early, positioning themselves to observe the convention's dynamics before shifting support. The core operational role of favorite sons lay in facilitating amid brokered conventions, where no held a after initial ballots. State bosses leveraged their unified blocs—sometimes numbering dozens of votes—to negotiate concessions from leading contenders, such as promises of cabinet appointments, jobs, federal projects for their districts, or favorable platform language. For example, in the held July 20–21 in , Ohio's delegation initially backed Senator as a favorite son, using this posture to extract assurances and ultimately propel him to the on the tenth ballot after a deadlock among stronger rivals. Such maneuvers extended deadlocks, as seen in multiple 19th- and early 20th-century conventions, where favorite sons like in 1876 or in 1936 absorbed state loyalty without realistic prospects, enabling trades that shaped outcomes. Even into the mid-20th century, as primaries gained traction, favorite sons retained utility for delaying endorsements and amplifying regional leverage. In the conventions, Wisconsin's Republican delegation nominated Congressman John W. Byrnes and Democrats backed John W. Reynolds as favorite sons, employing them to maintain amid intraparty divisions rather than pursuing national victory. This strategy peaked in influence during eras of weak national party control, but its efficacy hinged on convention rules allowing unbound or semi-bound delegates, which rewarded insider deal-making over voter mandates.

Delegate Strategies and Bargaining

State delegations employing the favorite son strategy typically nominated a locally prominent but nationally uncompetitive figure to unify their votes as a bloc during initial convention ballots, thereby leveraging collective cohesion to negotiate with frontrunners. This approach preserved delegate in an era when many were selected by party insiders rather than primary voters, enabling states to withhold support until concessions were secured. Bargaining often involved trading the state's electoral votes for tangible benefits, including promises of cabinet posts, appointments, policy influence on federal spending or appointments benefiting the state, or reciprocal support in down-ballot races. Delegates committed to the favorite son would monitor ballot progress, defecting strategically once a leading candidate offered sufficient incentives, such as access to the presumptive nominee or commitments to regional priorities like infrastructure funding or preservation. In multi-ballot conventions, this tactic amplified smaller states' influence by preventing premature fragmentation of their delegation, allowing leaders to auction bloc support to the highest bidder among viable contenders. For example, during the pre-primary dominance period through the mid-20th century, favorite son backers in states like or used their unified votes to extract favors before aligning with national tickets, a practice that rewarded party loyalty and insider deal-making over broad voter mandates. Such strategies declined with the McGovern-Fraser reforms of 1972, which prioritized pledged delegates and reduced unpledged bargaining flexibility.

Notable Examples and Outcomes

Successful or Influential Cases

One prominent successful favorite son candidacy occurred at the 1920 Republican National Convention, where Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding entered as his state's preferred candidate amid a deadlock between frontrunners General Leonard Wood and Illinois Governor Frank Lowden. Harding's delegation held firm through multiple ballots, leveraging regional loyalty to position him as a compromise choice; on the tenth ballot, he secured the nomination with 692.5 votes, leading to his election as president that November with 60.3% of the popular vote. This remains the last instance of a favorite son candidate being nominated and elected president, demonstrating the strategy's potential to capitalize on convention stalemates before the rise of primaries diminished such tactics. Another influential case unfolded at the in , which lasted 16 days and 103 ballots due to divisions between (backed by rural and prohibitionist factions) and (urban, anti-prohibition New York Governor). West Virginia lawyer and diplomat emerged as a favorite son compromise on the 103rd ballot, receiving unanimous support after his state's delegation withheld votes to broker unity; though he lost the general election to , Davis's highlighted how favorite sons could resolve prolonged deadlocks and secure short-term party cohesion. In earlier eras, favorite son strategies influenced outcomes indirectly, as seen in the 1824 presidential election where regional favorites like (Massachusetts), (Kentucky), and (Georgia) fragmented support, denying Andrew Jackson a majority and throwing the decision to the , where Adams prevailed on January 9, 1825. Such cases underscored the tactic's role in amplifying state bargaining power, though modern reforms have rendered it largely obsolete, with no post-1924 nominations yielding electoral success.

Failed or Marginal Instances

In the 1952 Republican National Convention, California Governor Earl Warren entered as a favorite son candidate, with his state's 70 delegates initially withholding support from frontrunners Dwight D. Eisenhower and Robert A. Taft in hopes of a deadlock that could elevate him as a compromise choice. However, Eisenhower secured sufficient commitments from other delegations, leading Warren's supporters to release their votes on the first ballot; Eisenhower clinched the nomination shortly thereafter, rendering Warren's strategy ineffective for gaining the top spot, though it positioned him for later appointment as Chief Justice. Similarly, at the 1948 Republican Convention, Michigan Senator pursued a favorite son approach, leveraging his state's delegation as a potential amid a contest between and others. Vandenberg declined to campaign actively outside , anticipating a brokered outcome, but Dewey amassed a first-ballot majority of 434 votes to Vandenberg's home-state bloc, securing nomination without deadlock and sidelining Vandenberg entirely. Democratic examples from 1960 highlight further marginality. Ohio Governor Michael V. DiSalle sought the nomination via favorite son support from his state's 64 delegates, aiming to negotiate influence amid John F. Kennedy's rising tide. Facing Kennedy's delegate surge, DiSalle withdrew before the convention and directed Ohio's votes to Kennedy, yielding no personal advancement. Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown adopted a comparable tactic, initially resisting Kennedy to extract concessions but ultimately adopting neutrality after Kennedy's primary victories; while this secured minor delegation sway, Brown failed to convert it into nomination contention or vice-presidential prospects. These cases illustrate the favorite son tactic's vulnerability to frontrunner momentum in non-deadlocked conventions, where state loyalty proved insufficient against broader delegate arithmetic. Obscure entries, such as Illinois businessman Riley Bender's quixotic 1944 and 1948 Republican bids, garnered negligible support and served merely as procedural nuisances without influencing outcomes.

Decline and Systemic Changes

Rise of Primaries and Caucuses

The adoption of presidential primaries began in the Progressive Era, with Wisconsin holding the first in 1905 and up to 20 states participating by 1916, yet these early contests influenced only a minority of delegates as national conventions remained dominated by party elites selecting unpledged representatives. Post-World War II, primaries expanded modestly, demonstrating viability as in John F. Kennedy's 1960 wins that pressured delegates, but in 1968, just 38% of Democratic delegates derived from primaries, enabling nominees like Hubert Humphrey—who entered no primaries—to secure the nod via boss-controlled caucuses and unpledged slates. This system preserved the favorite son strategy, where state delegations pledged to local figures to wield bargaining power in deadlocked conventions. The 1968 Democratic National Convention's chaos, marked by Vietnam protests and perceived undemocratic selection, prompted the McGovern-Fraser Commission, established in 1969, to mandate reforms for 1972: delegate processes must afford "full, meaningful, and timely" voter participation, eliminate barriers to minorities and women, and commence only after candidates clarified positions, curtailing early unpledged commitments. While not requiring uniform primaries, the rules transformed es into voter-transparent equivalents and slashed unpledged delegates, binding most to primary or caucus outcomes reflecting preferences rather than elite discretion. By 1972, primaries rose to 21 states from 15 in 1968, and full implementation by 1976 saw 73% of Democratic and 68% of Republican delegates chosen via such contests, rendering favorite sons largely obsolete as state bosses lost leverage to deliver autonomous vote blocs for convention horse-trading. This shift democratized nominations but eroded the strategic utility of local favorites, who could no longer reliably monopolize home-state delegations amid voter-driven binding and scrutiny. Earlier trends, like the abolition of the two-thirds nomination rule, had already curbed deadlocks favoring compromise favorites, but primaries' dominance post-reform decisively marginalized the tactic.

Impact of Party Reforms

The reforms, adopted by the in 1972, mandated open and participatory delegate selection processes, prioritizing primaries and caucuses over controlled conventions, which curtailed the leverage of state party organizations in sustaining favorite son candidacies. These rules limited unpledged or automatic delegates, requiring that at least 60% of delegates be selected through primary or caucus systems reflecting voter preferences, thereby reducing the pool of controllable votes that favorite sons historically commanded for bargaining. The reforms explicitly aimed to dismantle insider dominance, as evidenced by the commission's call for eliminating practices like the unit rule, which had allowed state delegations to vote en bloc for local favorites regardless of internal divisions. This shift accelerated the pre-existing trend toward primaries, with the number of Democratic presidential primaries rising from 17 states in to 30 in , binding delegates earlier to candidates with demonstrated voter support rather than state bosses' preferences. Favorite son strategies, which depended on uncommitted delegations to extract concessions like cabinet posts or pledges, became untenable as primaries forced public commitments and exposed local candidates to national scrutiny, often resulting in defeats that eroded their bargaining power. For instance, post-reform attempts, such as Democratic state leaders' 1975 considerations for favorite sons in 1976 to delay endorsements, yielded minimal influence, with primaries favoring frontrunners like . Republican parties adopted similar changes by 1976, further eroding interstate bargaining dynamics that had sustained favorite sons, as national conventions increasingly ratified primary outcomes rather than brokering deals among state blocs. Empirical data from subsequent cycles show a sharp decline: whereas 1952 Republican conventions featured favorite sons commanding 28% of delegates initially, by the 1980s, such candidacies rarely exceeded token status, with no major breakthroughs. Critics of the reforms, including traditionalists, argued this democratized process fragmented coalitions but acknowledged its causal role in sidelining regional favorites in favor of ideologically coherent national campaigns. Overall, the reforms' emphasis on voter-driven selection rendered favorite sons largely vestigial, preserving unity through primaries rather than .

Evaluations and Perspectives

Strengths and Strategic Advantages

The favorite son strategy allowed state delegations to present a unified bloc of votes at national conventions, maximizing the power of delegates from a single state regardless of its national population size. This cohesion stemmed from local loyalty and , enabling leaders to withhold support from frontrunners until favorable terms were met, such as commitments to vice-presidential slots, cabinet appointments, or regional policy priorities. In practice, this uncommitted or locally pledged voting power functioned as a mechanism to "sell" delegate support to the highest bidder, often yielding tangible rewards like federal that bolstered the state's political infrastructure. A key advantage lay in its utility during convention deadlocks, where fragmented frontrunner support created opportunities for compromise candidates. By maintaining control over their votes, favorite son backers could pivot strategically, positioning their candidate as a viable when exhaustion set in among leading contenders—as occurred with Warren G. Harding's emergence at the after 10 ballots, where Ohio's unified delegation proved pivotal in breaking the impasse. This approach not only elevated local figures unexpectedly but also deterred national campaigns from expending resources to contest state-level primaries or caucuses, preserving autonomy for state parties. Furthermore, the tactic fostered intra-state unity by channeling regional pride and resources behind a homegrown contender, reducing internal divisions that might dilute delegate effectiveness. State leaders leveraged this to extract concessions without risking early fragmentation, enhancing long-term leverage in party networks even if the favorite son did not secure the . In eras of unit voting rules, which amplified bloc discipline, such strategies disproportionately empowered influential states like or New York, allowing them to influence outcomes beyond their proportional delegate share.

Criticisms and Limitations

The favorite son strategy faced criticism for exacerbating divisions within national conventions, often leading to fragmented votes and extended deadlocks that delayed nominations and highlighted intra-party fractures. At the , numerous favorite son candidacies from state delegations contributed to the proceedings dragging on for 16 days and 103 ballots, the longest in U.S. , before emerged as a compromise nominee amid exhaustion and compromise. Such outcomes underscored perceptions of inefficiency, as regional loyalties tied to local figures impeded swift consensus on nationally viable candidates. A key limitation was the strategy's confinement to parochial support, with favorite sons typically lacking the nationwide organization, , and broad appeal needed to compete against frontrunners backed by extensive campaigns. This sectional focus rendered them ineffective in diverse, urbanized electorates where state-specific prestige held little sway beyond initial delegate blocs. Historically, successes were rare and often accidental; the last instances of a favorite son securing a major-party were at the 1920 Republican convention and Davis in 1924, after which the tactic yielded no presidential victories despite occasional uses into the mid-20th century. Critics, particularly amid post-World War II reforms, viewed the approach as undemocratic, enabling party bosses and state machines to withhold delegate votes from popular contenders and prioritize bargaining over voter preferences in an era before widespread primaries. This elite-driven control fueled demands for democratization, culminating in the 1968 McGovern-Fraser Commission reforms that expanded primaries and caucuses to bind delegates more directly to primary results, thereby curtailing favorite son maneuvers. In contemporary politics, the strategy's obsolescence stems from these binding rules and the nationalization of media and polling, which amplify vetted national candidates while diminishing states' leverage to sustain unpledged blocs.

Contemporary Relevance

Recent or Near-Recent Applications

In the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination process, several state delegations employed the favorite son strategy amid a fragmented field of over a dozen candidates, seeking to retain leverage in a newly reformed primary system dominated by binding delegate selection rules. Pennsylvania Governor entered the race solely in his home state, aiming to deliver its delegation as a bloc for bargaining at the convention, while Senator pursued a similar limited campaign focused on Midwestern support to block early frontrunners like or Henry Jackson. Other examples included Florida Governor and North Carolina Governor , who leveraged regional loyalty to secure initial delegates without broad national efforts, reflecting a tactical holdover from pre-primary eras despite the McGovern-Fraser reforms' emphasis on voter-driven selections. These applications ultimately faltered as Carter's victories in early contests like and consolidated delegate support, rendering state-specific blocs ineffective and culminating in his first-ballot nomination on July 15, 1976, at the New York convention with 2,239 votes to Jackson's 409 and others trailing far behind. No comparable favorite son candidacies have emerged in subsequent cycles, as frontloaded primaries and proportional delegate allocation have minimized opportunities for home-state-only maneuvers to influence outcomes.

Analogues in Modern Politics

In the contemporary era of binding primaries and caucuses, the traditional favorite son of state delegations nominating local candidates at national conventions for purposes has been supplanted, yet analogues endure through pronounced home-state advantages in presidential primaries. These advantages manifest as disproportionate voter support for candidates with strong regional ties, often providing crucial early momentum, delegate hauls, and campaign viability in a fragmented field, echoing the bloc and leverage once wielded by state party bosses. Empirical analyses of primary results confirm this pattern, with home-state candidates typically outperforming national polling by 10-20 percentage points due to factors like local media familiarity, personal networks, and regional pride. A prominent example occurred in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, where Governor leveraged his incumbency to win 47.0% of the vote in on March 15, against Donald Trump's 35.9%, securing all 66 delegates and marking his campaign's only victory despite trailing nationally. Similarly, Senator captured 43.6% in his home state of on March 1, edging Trump at 36.3% and claiming 104 of 155 delegates, which bolstered his positioning amid a competitive contest. These wins illustrate how home-state blocs can function as modern equivalents, delivering pledged delegates and signaling viability to donors and party elites, though unlike historical favorite sons, they must compete in open primaries rather than controlled conventions. Such dynamics are not universal—incumbent frontrunners or national waves can override local favoritism, as seen in the 2024 Republican primary on February 24, where non-native Trump defeated resident 59.5% to 39.5%, underscoring primaries' emphasis on broader ideological appeals over parochial loyalty. Nonetheless, home-state surges persist across parties and cycles, serving strategic roles in delegate math and narrative-building; for instance, Senator Amy Klobuchar's 21.8% third-place finish in her home state's 2020 Democratic primary still netted delegates and sparked a brief surge before her withdrawal. This evolution reflects systemic shifts toward voter-driven selection, where regional strongholds mimic the once held by unpledged delegations, albeit constrained by primary turnout and national media scrutiny.

References

  1. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/favorite-son/
  2. https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=jmas
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/1968/04/03/archives/texas-democratic-chiefs-back-connally-in-favoriteson-drive.html
  4. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/favorite-son
  5. https://www.etymonline.com/word/favorite
  6. https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections
  7. https://virginiahistory.org/learn/getting-message-out-presidential-campaign-memorabilia-collection-allen-frey/elections-1832-1872
  8. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/elections-a-to-z-2e/chpt/favorite-son
  9. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-first-democratic-party-convention
  10. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-american-political-conventions-1773939
  11. https://greatamericanhistory.net/how-lincoln-won-the-1860-republican-nomination/
  12. https://www.nytimes.com/1956/08/15/archives/nine-favorite-sons-bid-for-partys-nomination.html
  13. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/10/19/archives/favorite-son-candidates-stir-democratic-leaders.html
  14. https://www.jsonline.com/story/life/green-sheet/2016/07/12/our-back-pages-at-1964-political-conventions-wisconsin-candidates-played-a-role/87021220/
  15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/444100
  16. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-convention-delegates-bound-to-their-presidential-candidate/
  17. https://scrc-kb.libraries.wm.edu/warren-g-harding
  18. https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/jmas/vol31/iss2/17/
  19. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/earl-warren-end-of-segregation-view-from-his-grandson-supreme-court-760878c1
  20. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-presidential-primaries
  21. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/9780815735274_ch1.pdf
  22. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/mcgovern-fraser-commission-report/
  23. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/mandate-for-reform/
  24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/449177
  25. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2012/08/27/presidential-convention-kamarck
  26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/193702
  27. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=uhp_theses
  28. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/1924-the-craziest-convention-in-us-history-213708
  29. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-the-1924-democratic-national-convention-was-the-longest-and-most-chaotic-of-its-kind-in-us-history-180984590/
  30. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/2016-election-1976-democratic-primary-213125
  31. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/05/01/last-time-democratic-field-was-so-crowded-peanut-farmer-won-white-house/
  32. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/john-kasich-wins-ohio-republican-primary-220813
  33. https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national-govt--politics/one-year-ago-today-john-kasich-won-ohio-primary-look-back/3uoZ8oTrKE4zZPD4rsQbEK/
  34. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/01/cruz-super-tuesday/
  35. https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/enrrpts/2016-rep-primary.pdf
  36. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-wins-south-carolina-primary-according-to-ap-easily-beating-haley-in-her-home-state
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.