The Political Geography of Campaign Finance

Mitchell, Joshua; Sebold, Karen; Dowdle, Andrew; Limbocker, Scott; Stewart, Patrick A.

doi:10.1057/9781137432650

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Part of the TPD argument is that collusion among party elites and group leaders enables a front-runner to gain more of these campaign resources. Party elite and group leader support does in fact facilitate fundraising from donors tied into party networks (e.g., Dowdle, et al 2013; Mitchell et al 2015). Candidates depended on this access more in the 1980s and 1990s than in the most recent nomination cycles.…”

Section: Elite Endorsements During the Invisible Primary Of 2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Steger

2016

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2016 Republican presidential nomination challenges arguments about political party insiders' infl uence on the outcome. This article argues, fi rst, 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 infl uence has probably declined since the 2000 presidential election. Data on endorsements by elite elected offi cials 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 diff er. 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 fi nance landscape, and the reemergence of populism in each party.

show abstract

Section: Elite Endorsements During the Invisible Primary Of 2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Steger

2016

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the results of prior research indicated that these are likely to be small contributions, rather than the very large contributions solicited through personal contacts. To the extent that Fox delivers trusted ideological cues about candidates in an election (Coe et al ; Iyengar and Hahn ; Holbert, Hmielowski, and Weeks ), it could drive contributors seeking to give money to ideologically pure candidates to give in patterns very different from those contributors seeking to give money to the candidates who are most likely to be successful in an election, who may even be living in different areas (Mitchell et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage and Campaign Coffers in 2012: Enduring Strategies and Changes in Presidential Primaries

Cassino¹

2018

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mutz’s seminal work on the effect of media coverage on campaign contributions is now more than 20 years old. Using a combination of Federal Election Commission contribution data, aggregated polling data, and analysis of media content from news broadcasts, Tobit regression analysis is used to determine which factors led small and large contributors to give money to candidates in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. The results largely confirm Mutz’s findings, showing the highly strategic behavior of both small and large contributors, though large contributors seem to be much more effective in giving money where it is likely to make a difference.

show abstract

Spatial Polarization of Presidential Voting in the United States, 1992–2012: The “Big Sort” Revisited

Johnston

Manley

Jones

2016

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms Much has been written in recent years about the claimed polarisation of the US electorate, with substantial differences as to whether there has been greater spatial polarisation, at several geographical scales, over recent decades. To assess the veracity of those alternative views, a bespoke data set showing percentage support for the Democratic Party's presidential candidates at the County, State and Divisional scales has been analysed using a robust, statistically-based measure of polarisation/segregation. The ecological results provide clear and compelling evidence of a trend towards greater polarisation across the nine Census Divisions, across the 49 States within those Divisions, and across the 3077 Counties within the States -with strong evidence that the differences over time at the last of those scales are highly statistically significant. Within those general trends, polarisation has been greater in some States than others and also within some States more than othersidentifying additional geographies calling for further research.

show abstract

The Political Geography of Campaign Finance

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Coverage and Campaign Coffers in 2012: Enduring Strategies and Changes in Presidential Primaries

Spatial Polarization of Presidential Voting in the United States, 1992–2012: The “Big Sort” Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About