Abstract
This study compares the activities of the Democratic and Republican delegations from Tennessee to the 1984 national nominating conventions. Although the two delegations were quite similar in personal attributes, their activities varied contextually with the different circumstances surrounding the two conventions. While the Democratic convention was a genuinely decision-making assembly making for wide dispersion of delegation members' activities, the Republican convention turned the delegates into recipients of party appeals for unified support of the presidential as well as congressional and gubernatorial candidates. The decision of the Republicans to conduct their 1988 convention under the same rules as in 1984, in contrast to the Democrats' decision to have a commission create new rules for 1988, was inevitable given the different contexts of the two conventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramowitz, Alan I., McGlennon, John, and Rapoport, Ronald (1983). The party isn't over: incentives for activism in the 1980 presidential nominating campaign.Journal of Politics 45: 1006–1015.
Crotty, William, and Jackson, John S. III (1985).Presidential Primaries and Nominations. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
David, Paul T., Goldman, Ralph M., and Bain, Richard C. (1960).The Politics of National Party Conventions. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Hitlin, Robert A., and Jackson, John S. III (1977). On amateur and professional politicians.Journal of Politics 39: 786–793.
Jackson, John S. III, Brown, Jesse C., and Brown, Barbara L. (1978). Recruitment, representation, and political values: the 1976 Democratic National Convention delegates.American Politics Quarterly 6: 187–212.
Jackson, John S. III, Brown, Barbara Levitt, and Bositis, David (1982). Herbert McClosky and friends revisited: The 1980 Democratic and Republican party clities compared to the mass public.American Politics Quarterly 10: 158–180.
Key, V.O., Jr. (1958).Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 4th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane (1976).The New Presidential Elite. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Marshall, Thomas R. (1981).Presidential Nominations in a Reform Age. New York: Praeger.
McClosky, Herbert, Hoffman, Paul J., and O'Hara, Rosemary (1960). Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers.American Political Science Review 54: 406–427.
Orren, Gary R. (1985). The Nomination process: Vicissitudes of candidate selection. In Michael Nelson (ed.),The Elections of 1984, pp. 27–82. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Polsby, Nelson W., and Wildavsky, Aaron (1984).Presidential Elections, 6th ed. New York: Scribner's.
Pomper, Gerald M., with Lederman, Susan S. (1980).Elections in America, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Pomper, Gerald M., with colleagues (1985).The Election of 1984: Reports and Interpretations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Roback, Thomas H. (1980). Motivation for activism among Republican National Convention delegates: continuity and change 1972–1976.Journal of Politics 42: 181–201.
Soule, John W., and McGarth, Wilma (1975). A comparative study of presidential nominating conventions: the Democrats 1968 and 1972.American Journal of Political Science 19: 501–517.
Wildavsky, Aaron (1965). The Goldwater phenomenon: purists, politicians, and the future of the two-party system.Review of Politics 27: 386–413.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
King, J.D., Gleiber, D.W. Delegate interactions at the 1984 national party conventions: The Tennessee delegations. Polit Behav 9, 174–187 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987305
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987305