Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:54:59.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advocacy Politics in Presidential Parties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John M. Bruce ,
John A. Clark  and
John H. Kessel
John M. Bruce
Affiliation:
Harvard University
John A. Clark
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
John H. Kessel
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analysis of data from a 1988 survey of presidential parties demonstrates that campaign leaders are better understood as true believers than as either representatives or vote maximizers. Analysis of leaders' attitudes reveals four issue groups in both the Republican and Democratic parties. The dominant coalition in the Republican party is slightly more conservative, and that in the Democratic party is slightly more liberal, than the party median. Comparison with similar 1972 data shows stable patterns of issue advocacy and intraparty cohesion over this time period but somewhat increased issue distance between the parties in 1988.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 1089 - 1105
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almond, Gabriel A., and Powell, G. Bingham 1978. Comparative Politics: System, Process, and Policy. 2d ed.Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Clark, John A., Bruce, John M., Kessel, John H., and Jacoby, William G. 1991. “I'd Rather Switch Than Fight: Lifelong Democrats and Converts to Republicanism Among Campaign Activists.” American Journal of Political Science 35:577–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q. 1961. “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 6:129–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Otto A., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1968. “On the Power and Importance of the Mean Preference in a Mathematical Model of Democratic Choice.” Public Choice 5:59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1964. Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elizabeth R., and Jackson, John E. 1989. “What If Institutions and Preferences Are Endogenous?” Presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elizabeth R., and Jackson, John E. 1990. “Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, C. Richard. 1976. Bias in the News: Network Television Coverage of the 1972 Presidential Election Campaign. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Kessel, John H. 1980. Presidential Campaign Politics: Coalition Strategies and Citizen Response. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Kessel, John H. 1984. Presidential Parties. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Kessel, John H. 1992. Presidential Campaign Politics. 4th ed.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Jeane. 1976. The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics. New York: Russell Sage, Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, Hoffman, Paul J., and O'Hara, Rosemary. 1960. “Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and Followers.” American Political Science Review 54:406–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H. 1974. “Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970.” American Political Science Review 68:951–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1988. Without Consent: Mass-Elite Linkages in Presidential Politics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Jennings, M. Kent. 1986. Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Party Supporters. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66:979–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, David E. 1984. Bringing Back the Parties. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1985. “The New American Political Party.” American Political Science Review 79:1152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Mildred A. 1990. The Party Network: The Robust Organization of Illinois Republicans. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66:555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorauf, Frank J., and Beck, Paul Allen. 1988. Party Politics in America. 6th ed.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Rapoport, Ronald B., and Abramowitz, Alan I. 1990. “The Reagan Revolution and Party Polarization in the 1980s.” In The Parties Respond, ed. Maisel, L. Sandy. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1965. “The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians, and the Two-Party System.” Review of Politics 27:386–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1962. The Amateur Democrat. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77:142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.