Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:32:02.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

Lindsay Nielson  and
Neil Visalvanich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Primary elections in the United States have been under-studied in the political science literature. Using new data to estimate the ideal points of primary election candidates and constituents, we examine the link between the ideological leanings of primary electorates and the ideological orientation of US congressional candidates. We use district-level data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and ideal point estimates for congressional primary election candidates to examine the role of primary electorate ideology in the selection of party nominees. We find that more extreme Republicans are more likely to win their party’s primary and that Republican and Democratic candidates are responsive to different electoral constituencies.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 397 - 408
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Lindsay Nielson, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Bucknell University, 1 Dent Drive, Lewisburg, PA 17837 ([email protected]). Neil Visalvanich, Lecturer, Durham University, School of Government and International Affairs, The Al-Qasimi Building, Elvet Hill Road, Durham DH1 5EH, UK ([email protected]). A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association. The authors gratefully thank Gary C. Jacobson, Thad Kousser, the journal editors, and the anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments. The authors also thank Adam Bonica for providing data on candidate ideal points, Stephen Pettigrew for providing data on candidate characteristics, and Christopher F. Karpowitz, J. Quin Monson, Kelly D. Patterson, and Jeremy C. Pope for providing data on 2010 Tea Party endorsements. All interpretations of the data are the sole responsibility of the authors. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.60

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. ‘Is Polarization a Myth?’. Journal of Politics 70(2):542–555.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr, and Stewart, III, Charles. 2001. ‘Candidate Positioning in US House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 45:136–159.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Micahel C.. 2010. ‘Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress’. American Political Science Review 104:519–542.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 2003. ‘Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States’. Journal of Economic Literature 41(1):7–73.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. ‘Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace’. American Journal of Political Science 57:294–311.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Schwartz, Edward P.. 1995. ‘Ideology and Interests in Congressional Voting: The Politics of Abortion in the US Senate’. Public Choice 84:25–48.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., Han, Hahrie, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2007. ‘Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(1):79–105.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2004. ‘Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 34:211–227.Google Scholar
Calcagno, Peter T., and Westley, Christopher. 2008. ‘An Institutional Analysis of Voter Turnout: The Role of Primary Type and the Expressive and Instrumental Voting Hypotheses’. Constitutional Political Economy 19(2):94–110.Google Scholar
Callender, Steven, and Wilson, Catherine H.. 2007. ‘Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger’s Law’. Journal of Politics 69:1047–1056.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. ‘Whatever Happened to the Median Voter?’. Technical Report, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2004. ‘Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation’. Journal of Political Economy 112:1364–1383.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Morton, Rebecca B.. 1998. ‘Primary Election Systems and Representation’. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14:304–324.Google Scholar
Hassell, Hans J. G. 2012. ‘The Party’s Primary’. Presented at the 2012 Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, 12–15 April.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition in U.S. House Elections, 1946–1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York City, NY: Pearson Publishers.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2012. ‘The Electoral Origins of Polarized Politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study’. American Behavioral Scientist 56:1612–1630.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm. 1984. Parties and Primaries: Nominating State Governors. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin, and Rebecca B. Morton. 2001. ‘The Effects of Primary Systems on Congressional Elections’. In Peter F. Galderisi, Marni Ezra and Michael Lyons (eds), Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen M., Gimpel, James G., and Hoffman, Adam H.. 2003. ‘A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation’. Journal of Politics 65:457–476.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke J., and Stimson, James A.. 2005. ‘Independents and Party Polarization’. Presented at the 2005 Meetings of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC, 31 August –3 September.Google Scholar
King, David C. 2003. ‘Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter’. Working Paper, School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McGhee, Eric, Masket, Seth, Shor, Boris, Rogers, Steven, and McCarty, Nolan. 2014. ‘A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology’. American Journal of Political Science 58:337–351.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Maisel, L. Sandy, and Lowman, Trevor C.. 2012. ‘Boehner’s Dilemma: A Tempest in a Tea Party?’. In Mark Brewer and L. Sandy Maisel (eds), The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns, 213–236. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Westley, Christopher, Calcagno, Peter T., and Ault, Richard A.. 2004. ‘Primary Election Systems and Candidate Shirking’. Eastern Economic Journal 30(3):365–376.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Nielson and Visalvanich supplementary material

Appendix

Download Nielson and Visalvanich supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 222.2 KB