Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:53:37.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Nomination Divisiveness on the 2008 Presidential Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2010

Priscilla L. Southwell
Priscilla L. Southwell
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research examines the effect of disgruntlement among primary and caucus voters who supported U.S. presidential nomination losers—a potentially divisive nomination process. I analyze the general election voting behavior of primary and caucus voters in the 2008 presidential election to determine if differences exist between supporters of the winning nominee in each party and backers of other candidates who also sought the nomination. A multivariate analysis of the determinants of “loyal party vote” suggests that Clinton and Edwards supporters showed a significantly higher degree of defection in the general election, although this behavior did not occur among people who voted for Romney or Huckabee in their state's primary or caucus.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 255 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

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

American National Election Studies. 2009. The 2008–2009 ANES Panel Study. http://www.electionstudies.org/Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna R. 1998. “Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes: Another Look at Presidential Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 256–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna R., and Maestas, Cherie D.. 2009. “Meaningful Participation and the Evolution of the Reformed Presidential Nominating System.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42: 59–64.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Robert A. 1977. “Divisive Primaries Do Hurt: U.S. Senate Races, 1956–1972.” American Political Science Review 71: 540–45.Google Scholar
Born, Richard. 1981. “The Influence of House Primary Election Divisiveness on General Election Margins, 1972–76.” Journal of Politics 43: 640–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buell, Emmett H. 1986. “Divisive Primaries and Participation in Fall Presidential Campaigns.” American Politics Research 14: 376–90.Google Scholar
Comer, John. 1976. “Another Look at the Effects of the Divisive Primary: A Research Note.” American Politics Quarterly 4: 121–28.Google Scholar
Goodman, Ellen. 2008. Hillary's Curtain Call Was Bittersweet. http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinion/columns/ellen_goodman__hillary_s_curtain_call_was_bittersweet_08-29-2008.html.Google Scholar
Hacker, Andrew. 1965. “Does a ‘Divisive’ Primary Harm a Candidate's Election Chances?” American Political Science Review 59: 105–10.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S., and Gimpel, James G.. 1995. “District Conditions and Primary Divisiveness in Congressional Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 48: 101–16.Google Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2003. “The Effects of Primary Divisiveness on General Election Outcomes in State Legislative Elections.” American Politics Research 31: 27–47.Google Scholar
Johnson, Donald B., and Gibson, James R.. 1974. “The Divisive Primary Revisited: Party Activists in Iowa.” American Political Science Review 68: 67–77.Google Scholar
Kenney, Patrick J., and Rice, Tom W.. 1987. “The Relationship between Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 31–44.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2005. “Unintended Consequences: Anticipation of General Election Outcomes and Primary Election Divisiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30: 435–61.Google Scholar
Lengle, James I., Owen, Diana, and Sonner, Molly W.. 1995. “Divisive Nominating Mechanisms and Democratic Party Electoral Prospects.” Journal of Politics 57: 370–83.Google Scholar
New York Times. 2008. The New York Times Count of Superdelegates. http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html#.Google Scholar
Piereson, J. E., and Smith, T. B.. 1975. “Primary Divisiveness and General Election Success: A Reexamination.” Journal of Politics 37: 555–62.Google Scholar
Romero, David W. 2003. “Divisive Primaries and the House District Vote.” American Politics Research 31: 178–90.Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla L. 1986. “The Politics of Disgruntlement: Nonvoting and Defections among Supporters of Nomination Losers, 1968–1984.” Political Behavior 8: 81–95.Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla L. 1994. “Prenomination Preferences and General Election Voting Behavior.” Social Science Journal 31: 69–77.Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla L. 2004. “Nader Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election: What Would They Have Done Without Him?” Social Science Journal 41: 423–31.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J. 1986. “Prenomination Candidate Choice and General Election Behavior: Iowa Presidential Activists in 1980.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 361–78.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Atkeson, Lonna R., and Rapoport, Ronald. 1992. “Turning On and Turning Off? Mobilization and Demobilization Effects of Participation in Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 665–91.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Denis G. 1977–78. “Party Unity: Appearance and Reality.” Political Science Quarterly 92: 635–45.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, and Squire, Peverill. 2009. “Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42: 27–32.Google Scholar
Ware, Alan. 1979. “Divisive Primaries: The Important Questions.” British Journal of Political Science 9: 381–84.Google Scholar
Zipp, John F. 1985. “Perceived Representativeness and Voting: An Assessment of the Impact of ‘Choices’ vs. ‘Echoes.’” American Political Science Review 79: 50–61.Google Scholar