Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:49:22.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditional Arbiters: The Limits of Political Party Influence in Presidential Nominations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Wayne P. Steger
Wayne P. Steger*
Affiliation:
DePaul University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 2016 Republican presidential nomination challenges arguments about political party insiders’ influence on the outcome. This article argues, first, that party insider influence is conditional on the participation, coalescence, and timing of party stakeholders behind a front-runner during the invisible primary, and second, that party insider influence has probably declined since the 2000 presidential election. Data on endorsements by elite elected officials in open presidential nominations from 1984 to 2016 show that party insiders’ participation and convergence of support behind the front-runner is less extensive than what was found by Cohen, Karol, Noel, and Zaller (2008), though the data sets differ. Party insiders participate and unify more readily when the party coalition is stable and there is a candidate in the race who has demonstrable national support. Party elites remain on the sidelines when the party coalition is divided or when there is uncertainty about the appeal of candidates (Ryan 2011; Whitby 2014). The potency of insider endorsements likely has declined with the rise of social media, the changing campaign finance landscape, and the reemergence of populism in each party.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 709 - 715
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

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

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1989. “Viability, Electability, and Candidate Choice in a Primary Election: a Test of Competing Models.” Journal of Politics 51 (4): 977–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John. 1980. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nominations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher L. 2013. “Which Party Elites Choose to Lead the Nomination Process.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (1): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azaria, Julie. 2016. “A for Effort: Republican Elites Tried to Coordinate but Never Quite Got There.” May 19. http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/5/19/11712612/republican-elites-coordination.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Parties: Groups, Policy Demanders and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Richard. L. 2004. Claiming the Mantle: How Presidential Nominations are Won and Lost Before the Votes are Cast. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowdle, Andrew J., Limbocker, Scott, Yang, Song, and Sebold, Karen. 2013. The Invisible Hands of Political Parties in Presidential Elections: Party Activists and Political Aggregation from 2004 to 2012. New York: Palgrave Pivot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedersdorf, Conor. 2016. “How the Party Decided on Trump.” May 3. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/how-gop-influencers-cued-voters-to-choose-donald-trump/480294/.Google Scholar
Gidron, Noam and Bonikowski, Bart. 2013. Varieties of Populism. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Working Paper Series. No. 13-0004. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Haynes, Audrey A., Gurian, Paul-Henri, Crespin, Michael H., and Zorn, Christopher. 2004. “The Calculus of Concession: Media Coverage and the Dynamics of Winnowing in Presidential Nominations.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 87–83.Google Scholar
Keech, William R. and Mathews, Donald R.. 1976. The Party’s Choice. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Kenney, Patrick J. 1993. “An Examination of How Voters Form Impressions of Candidates’ Issue Positions During the Nomination Campaign.” Political Behavior 315 (2): 265–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolowich, Steve. 2016. “The Life of ‘The Party Decides’: 4 political-science professors contemplate the improbable rise and fall of an obscure academic text in the time of Trump.” May 16. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Life-of-The-Party/236483 Google Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2016. “A Strong Field Does Not Make for a Strong Nominee.” May 24. http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/5/24/11695950/trump-qualified-candidates.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Joshua L., Sebold, Karen, Dowdle, Andrew, Limbocker, Scott, and Stewart, Patrick A.. 2015. The Political Geography of Campaign Finance: Fundraising and Contribution Patterns in Presidential Elections. New York. Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2016. “Why Can’t the GOP Stop Trump.” New York Times, March 1.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 1993. Nomination Choices: Caucus and Primary Outcomes, 1976-88. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 343–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2006. “The Attrition Game: Initial Resources, Initial Contests and the Exit of Candidates During the US Presidential Primary Season.” British Journal of Political Science 36: 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Henry and Scala, Dante J.. 2015. The Four Faces of the Republican Party and the Fight for the 2016 Presidential Nomination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Paulson, Arthur. 2007. Electoral Realignment and the Outlook for American Democracy, Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, Josh M. 2011. “Is the Democratic Party’s Superdelegate System Unfair to Voters? Electoral Studies 30: 756–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheffield, Matthew. 2016. “The Party Can No Longer Decide.” March 10. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-party-can-no-longer-decide/.Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. 2016. “The Republican Party May Be Failing: What ‘The Party Decides’ Could Get Wrong about Donald Trump and the GOP.” January 25. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-may-be-failing/.Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2000. “Do Primary Voters Draw from a Stacked Deck? Presidential Nominations in an Era of Candidate-Centered Campaigns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 30 (4): 727–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2008. “Inter-Party Differences in Elite Support for Presidential Nomination Candidates.” American Politics Research 36 (4): 724–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2013. “Two Paradigms of Presidential Nominations.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (2): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, Wayne. 2015. A Citizen’s Guide to Presidential Nominations: the Competition for Leadership. New York: Routledge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitby, Kenny J. 2014. Strategic Decision Making in Presidential Nominations: When and Why Party Elites Decide to Support a Candidate. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar