Abstract
Until 1964, ideological conservatives tended to participate in presidential campaign activities at higher rates than liberals. Since then, Beck and Jennings (1980, 1984) have shown the variable nature of the participation-ideology relationship, arguing that ideologically extreme candidates have successfully mobilized their followers in particular elections. In this paper, we explain the “anomaly” of the 1980 election in which strong liberals participated at higher rates despite a very strong conservative on the Republican side. Using data collected over time in 1980 by the University of Michigan's Center for Political Studies (CPS/NES), we broaden the Beck-Jennings model to include participation during the primary season and hypothesize that mobilization of ideological groups may result from ideological candidatesand the competitiveness or closeness of a nomination contest. We find that the ideological candidate model explains general election participation to a significant degree, while competitiveness considerations are more important for mobilization during the primaries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartels, Larry M. (1985). Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns.American Political Science Review 79 (3)804–815.
Beck, Paul A., and Jennings, M. Kent (1979). Political periods and political participation.American Political Science Review 73:737–750.
Beck, Paul A., and Jennings, M. Kent (1984). Updating political periods and political participation.American Political Science Review 78:198–201.
Bernstein, Robert (1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. senate races 1956–1972.American Political Science Review 71:540–545.
Conway, M. Margaret (1985).Political Participation in the United States. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Finkel, Steven E., and Norpoth, Helmut (1984). Candidates and issues in the 1980s: the ideological connection.Political Behavior 6:61–77.
Johnson, D. B., and Gibson, J. R. (1974). The divisive primary revisited: party activists in Iowa.American Political Science Review 68:67–77.
Markus, Gregory B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: a report on the NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76:538–560.
Milbrath, Lester, and Goel, M. Lal (1977).Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Shanks, J. Merrill, and Palmquist, Bradley (1982). Changing determinants of candidate preferences: Design issues in studying electoral behavior before and after the major party conventions. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association.
Stone, Walter J. (1986). The carryover effect in presidential elections.American Political Science Review 80:271–279.
Stone, Walter J., and Abramowitz, Alan I. (1983). Winning may not be everything. But it's more than we thought: presidential party activists in 1980.American Political Science Review 77:945–957.
Wattenberg, Martin (1985). Participation in the nominating process: the role of the parties. InBefore Nomination: Our Primary Problems. George Grassmuck (ed.), Washington: American Enterprise Institute.
Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. (1972).Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Finkel, S.E., Trevor, G. Reassessing ideological bias in campaign participation. Polit Behav 8, 374–390 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988438
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988438