Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 689–711 | Cite as

National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012

  • Paul-Henri GurianEmail author
  • Nathan Burroughs
  • Lonna Rae Atkeson
  • Damon Cann
  • Audrey A. Haynes
Original Paper

Abstract

In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. To capture the full impact of divisiveness in presidential campaigns, one must estimate both the impact of national party division (NPD) and the impact of divisive primaries in individual states. To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistent—varying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.

Keywords

Presidential primaries Divisive primaries National party division Presidential elections 

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9332_MOESM1_ESM.doc (61 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 61 kb)

References

  1. Achen, C. (1982). Interpreting and using regression. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. America Votes, 1996–2004. Government Affairs Institute, CQ Inc., Washington D.C., v. 22–26.Google Scholar
  3. Atkeson, L. R. (1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidential campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). Wiley: Hoboken.Google Scholar
  5. Baltagi, B. H., & Wu, P. X. (1999). Unequally spaced panel data regressions with AR(1) disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15, 814–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L., & Zaller, J. (2001). Presidential vote models: A recount. P.S Political Science and Politics, 34, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Nuisance vs. substance: Specifying and estimating time-series-cross-section models. Political Analysis, 6(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein, R. A. (1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. Senate races, 1956-1972. American Political Science Review, 71, 540–545.Google Scholar
  9. Born, R. (1981). The influence of house primary election divisiveness on general election margins, 1962-76. Journal of Politics, 43, 640–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. (1992). Forecasting the presidential vote in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. (2000). The American campaign: U.S. presidential campaigns and the national vote. College Station: Texas A&M Press.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. (2001). The referendum that didn’t happen: The forecasts of the 2000 presidential election. P.S Political Science and Politics, 34, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. (2004). Nomination politics, party unity, and presidential elections. In J. Pfiffner & R. Davidson (Eds.), Understanding the Presidency (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Congressional Quarterly. Guide to U.S. elections, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  15. Echols, M. T., & Ranney, A. (1976). The impact of interparty competition reconsidered: The case of Florida. Journal of Politics, 38, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erikson, R. S., Gerald, C. W., & John, P. M. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hacker, A. (1965). Does a divisive primary harm a candidate’s election chances? American Political Science Review, 59, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson, M., Sunshine Hillygus, D., & Thompson, T. (2010). Sour grapes or rational voting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 499–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrera, R. (1993). Cohesion at the party conventions. Polity, 26, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holbrook, T. M. (1991). Presidential elections in space and time. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, R. A., & Carsey, T. M. (1999). Presidential voting across the American states. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobson, G. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobson, G., & Kernell, S. (1981). Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Karol, D., & Miguel, E. (2007). The electoral cost of war: Iraq casualties and the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Politics, 69, 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1984). The effect of primary divisiveness in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. Journal of Politics, 46, 904–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1987). The relationship between divisive primaries and general outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Key, V. O. (1953). Politics, parties and pressure groups. New York: Thomasy Crowell.Google Scholar
  30. Lazarus, J. (2005). Unintended consequence: Anticipation of general election outcomes and primary election divisiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lengle, J. I., & Owen, D. (1996). Studying divisive primaries. Presented to the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  32. Lengle, J. I., Owen, D., & Sonner, M. (1995). Divisive nominating mechanisms and democratic party electoral prospects. Journal of Politics, 57, 370–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Makse, T., & Sokhey, A. (2010). Revisiting the divisive primary hypothesis. American Politics Research, 38(2), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, W. G. (1996). The divided Democrats. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  35. McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. N.E.S. website at www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide.
  37. Norpoth, H. (2001). Primary colors: A mixed blessing for Al Gore. PS Political Science and Politics, 34, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paolino, P. (2001). Maximum likelihood estimation of models with beta-distributed dependent variables. Political Analysis, 9, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Partin, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of campaign spending in governors’ races. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 213–233.Google Scholar
  40. Poole, Keith T., & Rosenthal, Howard. (1997). A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Poole, K.T. website: http://voteview.com/dwnl.htm.
  42. Rabinowitz, G., Gurian, P.-H., & MacDonald, S. E. (1984). The structure of presidential elections and the process of realignment, 1944-1980. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenstone, S. J. (1983). Forecasting presidential elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Southwell, P. (1986). The politics of disgruntlement: Nonvoting and defection among supporters of nomination losers, 1968–1984. Political Behavior, 8, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Southwell, P. (2010). The effect of nomination divisiveness on the 2008 presidential election. PS Political Science and Politics, 43(2), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. State Personal Income, 1929-2000. 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington D.C. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1984, 1990, 1995, 1999. U.S. Census Bureau, D.CGoogle Scholar
  47. Steger, W. P. (2008). Interparty differences in elite support for presidential nomination candidates. American Politics Research, 36(5), 724–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stimson, J. A. (1985). Regression in time and space: A statistical essay. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 914–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westlye, H. C. (1991). Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wichowsky, A., & Neibler, S. (2010). Narrow victories and hard gains. American Politics Research, 38(6), 1052–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul-Henri Gurian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nathan Burroughs
    • 2
  • Lonna Rae Atkeson
    • 3
  • Damon Cann
    • 4
  • Audrey A. Haynes
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  4. 4.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations