Abstract
This chapter begins by posing the question of why traditional measures of divisive primaries failed to predict the outcomes of recent presidential races. For example, the 2008 Republican process was one where John McCain was able to lock up his party’s nomination earlier than any modern contested nomination. By contrast, the Democratic contest dragged on into the summer months. However, when the general election arrived, Barack Obama was able to win handily. How do we account for this disparity? One overlooked element was the unity and enthusiasm gap between the two parties. We believe that traditional measures of intraparty divisions paint a misleading picture and suggest a more accurate measure to gauge party unity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
V. O. Key, Jr., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. 5th edn (New York: Cromwell, 1964);
Martin P. Wattenberg, The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991);
William G. Mayer, The Divided Democrats (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996).
Maurice Duverger, Political Parties (Paris: Armand Colin, 1959);
Arend Lijphart, “The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–85,” The American Political Science Review 84 (1990): 481–496.
Joseph A. Schlesinger, Political Parties and the Winning of Office (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1991).
Paul-Henri Gurian, Damon Cann, and Rachel Snyder, “Countervailing Forces in the 2008 Presidential Primaries: Positive and Negative Effects of Campaign Activity” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2011).
Mike Yawn, Kevin Ellsworth, Bob Beatty, and Kim Fridkin Kahn, “How a Presidential Primary Debate Changed Attitudes of Audience Members.” Political Behavior 20 (1988): 155–181;
Mike Yawn, “Party Building in Political Primaries” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Political Science Association, Arkadelphia, Arkansas, March 2013).
Christine Williams and Jeff Gulati, “What Is a Social Network Worth? Facebook and Vote Share in the 2008 Presidential Primaries” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 2008).
Randall E. Adkins, and Andrew J. Dowdle, “Bumps in the Road to the White House,” Journal of Political Marketing 3 (2004): 1–27.
David G. Rand, Thomas Pfeiffer, Anna Dreber, Rachel W. Sheketoff, Nils C. Wernerfelt, and Yochai Benkler, “Dynamic Remodeling of In-Group Bias during the 2008 Presidential Election,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (2009): 6187–6191;
Though not all scholars agree, see Todd Maske and Anand E. Sokhey, “Revisiting the Divisive Primary Hypothesis: 2008 and the Clinton-Obama Nomination Battle,” American Politics Research 38 (2010): 233–265.
Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2008).
William G. Mayer and Andrew Busch, The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2004);
Wayne P. Steger, Andrew J. Dowdle, and Randall E. Adkins, “The New Hampshire Effect in Presidential Nominations,” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2004): 375–390.
Priscilla L. Southwell, “Nader Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election: What Would They Have Done Without Him?” Social Science Journal 41 (2004): 423–431.
Robert Peabody, Norman Ornstein, and David Rohde, “The United States Senate as a Presidential Incubator: Many Are Called but Few Are Chosen,” Political Science Quarterly. 91 (1976): 237–258;
Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde, “Progressive Ambition among United States Senators: 1972–1988,” Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 3–35;
Barry C. Burden, “United States Senators as Presidential Candidates,” Political Science Quarterly 117 (2002): 81–102;
Lara M. Brown, “Around Closed Doors and Through Open Windows: A Theory of Aspirant Opportunism, 1796–2004,” Congress & the Presidency 36 (2009): 1–26.
Audrey A. Haynes, Paul H. Gurian, Michael H. Crespin, and Christopher Zorn, “The Calculus of Concession,” American Politics Research 32 (2004): 310–337;
Barbara Norrander, “The Attrition Game: Initial Resources, Initial Contests and the Exit of Candidates during the US Presidential Primary Season,” British Journal of Political Science 36 (2006): 487–507;
David F. Damore, Thomas G. Hansford, and AJ Barghothi, 2010, “Explaining the Decision to Withdraw from a US Presidential Nomination Campaign,” Political Behavior 32 (2010): 157–180.
Stephen J. Brams, The Presidential Election Game (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1979).
Walter J. Stone, Ronald B. Rapoport, and Alan I. Abramowitz, “Candidate Support in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: The Case of Iowa in 1984,” Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 1074–1097.
Jules Witcover, Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972–1976 (New York: Viking, 1977).
While Bush and Gore’s 1999 preprimary levels of support were similar, the rest of the Republican support was divided among half-dozen competitors while the remainder of Democratic backing was aggregated in one competitor, Bradley. See Wayne. P. Steger, John Hickman, and Ken Yohn, “Candidate Competition and Attrition in Presidential Primaries, 1912–2000,” American Politics Research 30 (2002): 528–554 for a discussion of how the number of individuals in a candidate field can influence the relative competitiveness of a race.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Andrew Dowdle, Scott Limbocker, Song Yang, Karen Sebold, and Patrick A. Stewart
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dowdle, A., Limbocker, S., Yang, S., Sebold, K., Stewart, P.A. (2013). Why Contested Primaries May Not Be Divisive Primaries. In: The Invisible Hands of Political Parties in Presidential Elections: Party Activists and Political Aggregation from 2004 to 2012. Palgrave Pivot, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318602_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318602_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45857-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-31860-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)