The Divisive Primary Revisited: Party Activists in Iowa

Conventional wisdom suggests that presidential nomination campaigns are inherently divisive and that the intraparty division fostered during the nomination campaign continues into the general election contest. Division occurs within the party between those preferring a nomination winner, the in-group, and those preferring a nomination loser, the out-group. This study examines in-group/out-group relations during the 1980 presidential nomination and general election campaigns. The author found clear evidence of intraparty division during the nomination period. However, during the general election the in-group/out-group relationship is ameliorated The author suggests that the institutional process, moving from a nomination to a general election campaign, helps to reduce factional division among the party's rank-and-file membership.

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 82%

Moving Toward Unity

Atkeson

1993

“…While this hypothesis is appealing, countervailing evidence calls it into question. Other members also touched by scandal-Diggs of Michigan, Flood of Pennsylvania, and Patten of New Jersey as examples-all survived both primary battles and general election contests against candidates who should have been able to unify the opposition (see Johnson and Gibson, 1974;Hacker, 1965). Table 3 also reveals that 14 of the 19 who beat incumbents won primary campaigns to gain their party's nomination.…”

Section: New Members Defeating Incumbentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Congressional Elections in 1978

Sandy Maisel

1981

This article examines two aspects of the 1978 congressional elections. The major task undertaken involves an analysis of the type and amount of electoral competition in each of the 435 districts. How often were there contested primaries and/or contested general elections? How competitive were these contests? In addition the article looks at the new members of the 96th Congress. The electoral process provides for recruitment of new House members. What can be said about the motives and characteristics of those recruited? While acknowledging that many questions remain unanswered, more attention must be devoted to the role of parties and to electoral rules as each has important implications for congressional recruitment.

“…To date, only one of these potential explanations has been put to the empirical test. Johnson and Gibson (1974) found that divisiveness did produce a loss of campaign workers in November. Using survey data collected in 1972 and 1976, a second explanation will be confirmed here: that supporters of losing contenders are more likely to defect in general elections.…”

Section: Divisive Primaries and Defection In General Electionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divisive Presidential Primaries and Party Electoral Prospects, 1932-1976

Lengle

1980

Using two different units of analysis, this article examines the impact of divisive presidential primaries on party electoral prospects. First, an examination of state-level data from 1932 to 1976 shows that divisive presidential primaries hurt both parties' chances of winning those same states in the November general election. This effect is stronger for Democrats and remains even after controlling for incumbency and state party orientation. Second, an examination of survey data collected in 1972 and 1976 shows that supporters of losing contenders are likely to defect in general elections. Here again, the effect is present for both parties, but more pronounced for Democrats.