Abstract
We define an activist as someone who gave to more than one candidate within the nomination process. Drawing from Social Network Analysis (SNA) literature, we know these brokers to be important connectors between different groups. By examining their behavior we hope to better understand the cohesive elements within a party. By allowing individuals to choose more than one option, we create a measure that removes the divisive “only one choice allowed” attribute of endorsements and polls. We argue for the importance of examining donors during the preprimary period of contested presidential nominations as a key barometer of party cohesion.
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
Bruce E. Keith, David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger, The Myth of the Independent Voter (Berkeley: University of California, 1992).
D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shields, The Persuadable Voter (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2008).
Seth E. Masket, No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2011).
Clifford Brown, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, Serious Money: Fundraising and Contributing in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995);
Daron R. Shaw and Brian E. Roberts, “Campaign Events, the Media and the Prospects of Victory: The 1992 and 1996 US Presidential Elections,” British Journal of Political Science 30 (2000): 259–289;
Randall E. Adkins and Andrew. J. Dowdle, “The Money Primary: What Influences the Outcome of Pre-Primary Presidential Nomination Fundraising?” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (2002): 256–275.
Randall E. Adkins and Andrew J. Dowdle, “Do Early Birds Get the Worm? Improving Timeliness of Presidential Nomination Forecasts,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (2005): 646–660.
William G. Mayer and Andrew Busch, The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations Washington, DC: Brookings, 2004).
Adam Bonica 2012. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” Unpublished Manuscript.
James Q. Wilson, Political Organizations (New York: Basic Books, 1973).
Mark Van Vugt and Anjan Ahuja, Selected: Why Some People Lead, Why Others Follow, and Why It Matters (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2011).
Adam Meirowitz and Alan E. Wiseman, “Contributions and Elections with Network Externalities,” Economics & Politics 17 (2005): 77–110.
Wendy K. Tam Cho, “Tapping Motives and Dynamics Behind Campaign Contributions: Insights from the Asian American Case,” American Politics Research 30 (2002): 347–383, 347–348.
Katherine A. Hinckley and John C. Green, “Fund-Raising in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: The Primary Lessons of 1988,” Political Research Quarterly 49 (1996): 693–718.
Thomas J. Rudolph and J. Tobin Grant, “An Attributional Model of Economic Voting: Evidence from the 2000 Presidential Election,” Political Research Quarterly 55 (2002): 805–823.
Peter Francia, Paul Herrnson, John C. Green, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues and Intimates (New York: Columbia University, 2003).
David Knoke and Song Yang, Social Network Analysis, 2nd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007).
Mark S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973): 1360–1380.
Frank K. Salter, Emotions in Command: Biology, Bureaucracy, and Cultural Evolution (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007).
Michael J. Malbin, The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).
David Nickerson, “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments,” American Political Science Review 102 (2008): 49–57.
Wayne P. Steger, Andrew J. Dowdle and Randall E. Adkins, “The New Hampshire Effect in Presidential Nominations,” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2004): 375–390;
Andrew J. Taylor, “Does Presidential Primary and Caucus Order Affect Policy? Evidence from Federal Procurement Spending,” Political Research Quarterly 63 (2010): 398–409.
Randall E. Adkins and Andrew J. Dowdle, “Bumps in the Road to the White House,” Journal of Political Marketing 3 (2004): 1–27; Cohen et al. 2008.
Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
Larry M. Bartels, “Expectations and Preferences in Presidential Nominating Campaigns,” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 804–815;
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.
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). Multiple Donors and the Party as a Network. 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318602_3
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)