On the other hand, political scientists have actually looked at this question. Do divisive primaries hurt candidates in the general election?
- Allan Ware (1979) writes in the British Journal of Political Science that the existing research is unclear--some sources say divisive primaries hurt candidates chances, some say they don't. He proposes more specific hypotheses to test about contested primaries--8 possible reasons they might hurt the candidate, and 6 reasons that they help the candidate.
- Kenney and Rice (1987) write in the American Journal of Political Science that primaries of one party that are more divisive than the other party's create in-group loyalties amongst party factions that lead to worse performance in the general election.
- Jeffery Lazarus (2005), writes in Legislative Studies Quarterly that those studies mistake the direction of causality. Instead of divisive primaries leading to poor election outcomes, what really happens is that expectations about weak general election performance lead to more energetic primary challenges, not the other way around.
More recently, political scientists have looked at this after the 2008 election. A quick search turned these up:
- Henderson et al (2010) write in Political Science Quarterly that while "sour grapes" voting does have a small effect, it is overwhelmed by underlying political preferences and whether the voter is in a battleground state.
- Southwell (2010) writes in PS: Political Science that while there was some defection on the Democratic side in 2008, Romney or Huckabee supporters did not defect in 2008 (although Republicans in general did tend to defect, compared to 2004).
That doesn't mean it won't, though. Interested parties might take a look at the more specific conditions that Ware hypothesizes would cause a primary to be good or bad. From on campus, this [link] might take you directly there, or you could search for it (use ware=author, primaries=title at the JSTOR search window).
Seems to me that the amount of infighting in the primary may be caused by the lack of a clear, iconic sort of candidate that could garner broad appeal outside of the primary voting base. Since no one is satisfied with any of the candidates, it has really become a decision between the lesser of two (or three or four) evils. This creates the perception that there is chance that the hardest fighting candidate will prevail, all he has to do is make the public think less of his opposition than they do of him. So the dirt throwing increases, and they are all dragged even lower in the opinion of not only independents and liberals, but even their own party members. The conservative base will of course vote for whatever the primary yields despite the fact that they are not very enamored with the result. They are more concerned with their ideological differences with Obama, etc. Independents on the other hand, mostly moderate and not as responsive to ideology, will base their opinions more on their perception of the candidates pragmatism, character, image, etc, than on their ideological positions. I would predict that with the lack of a compelling option on the republican side, they will flock to Obama.
ReplyDeleteNow that I've written all that I think I basically just echoed Lazarus. I would like to highlight though that the cause is the poor field of candidates rather than the expectation of poor general election results. Are these two the same? Probably.
Daniel DeCarlo
Mattie,
ReplyDeleteI often wonder myself how the GOP presents its unity through these rather nasty debates. I don't think devicive primaries are that dangerous. Ultimately the party will unite, but I think it will more than you think it will, and that the Democrats are actually more worried than they let on.
I have read previously in another course the powerful influence of three things that decide presidential elections: pre-campaign economy, state of the incumbency, and the public opinion of the incumbent’s approval. Here is the article:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/JEPOPArticle2004.pdf
I think that the President, who has a slight advantage because he is the incumbent, will still have a very difficult time energizing his party like he did in 2008. I also think the Democrats know this, as well as the Republicans. No incumbent president in our nation’s history has been reelected with the public opinion and economy in the state it is in. For President Obama to gain reelection would me for his campaign to overturn 200+ years in election history.
This primary season has been quite intense compared to past GOP primaries. The Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina primaries are so influential. In past years, these three have been the only importance in the party deciding it candidate. But afterwards there is still no clear winner, and that’s a good indication to me that the elites know whoever gets the GOP nomination will most likely be our next president.
Marcus Abernethy
I have found divisiveness is everywhere. The differences the candidates present are not unlike the differences within their party. As we spoke of little platoons in class today I began to realize that these platoons are everywhere. As George professed today he is a Yankee. A lot of us are Southerners. We all came from different platoons, but we are all in the same army. Americans will come together when necessary, like the way we did in the weeks following September 11. There were no northerners and southerners, just Americans.
ReplyDeleteIt is in this spirit, that the platoons will join behind the GOP candidate, even if it was not their first choice. The battle is for the White House.
Primary's are great because they allow you to vote for whom you truly like. There are 50 states, with no two voters being exactly alike. Working with the traditions of supporting the candidate closest to you first, then like a ripple we will move on to the next best choice for us.
When we remove the fact that we are political scientist, and by default political junkies, we must try to view these primary's through the eyes of the general public. They are not watching every debate, and not studying the issues in the way we do. A lot of Americans will vote for the same person for different reasons. Some even vote for a candidate because he is more attractive, or looks good in blue jeans. Does that divide those who are in the know from those who are not?
Those who vote in primary's tend to be a little more politically involved than those who only vote in the general elections. One thing for certain is that the differences in the 2 frontrunners are not really that different. It would not be of any great difference for a true party line voter. The variation comes in the undecided crowd. Will the battle for a GOP nomination turn off an undecided? I say possibly, but the battle will attract as many as it shuns.