In this article, we investigate whether it is appropriate to generalize about the ideological and demographic characteristics of American party activists. Many studies on party polarization emphasize the role of activists in encouraging the divisions within the parties, and in so doing, commonly treat activists as a homogeneous group. Here, we show that different forms of political activity attract systematically different types of individuals. Similarly, we show that ideological extremism is more strongly associated with some forms of activism than others. Importantly, we find that extremism is most strongly associated with the forms of activity that are most likely to influence elected officials through the provision of resources, information or support in a nomination. Thus, while our findings broadly support the notion that extremists are more engaged than moderates, we challenge the consensus that the various forms of activism are interchangeable.
BarberMJ (2016) Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of American legislatures. Journal of Politics78: 296–310.
7.
BartelsLM (2016) Failure to converge: presidential candidates, core partisans, and the missing middle in American electoral politics. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science667: 143–165.
8.
BaumerDCGoldHJ (2010) Parties, Polarization, and Democracy in the United States. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
9.
BoatrightRG (2013) Getting Primaried. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
10.
BradyH (1999) Political participation. In: RobinsonJPShaverPRWrightsmanLS (eds), Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 737–801.
11.
BrewerMDStonecashJM (2009) Dynamics of American Political Parties. New York: Cambridge University Press.
BruziosC (1990) Democratic and republican party activists and followers: inter- and intra-party differences. Polity22: 581–601.
14.
CarminesEGEnsleyMJWagnerMW (2013) Why American political parties can’t get beyond the left-right divide. In: GreenJCCoffeyDJCohenDB (eds), The State of the Parties, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 55–72.
15.
CarminesEGWoodsJ (2002) The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Political Behavior24: 361–377.
16.
CohenMKarolDNoelH. (2008) The Party Decides. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
EnosRDHershED (2015) Party activists as campaign advertisers. American Political Science Review109: 252–278.
18.
FranciaPGreenJHerrnsonP. (2003) The Financiers of Congressional Elections. New York: Columbia University Press.
19.
HanHC (2009) Moved to Action: Motivation, Participation and Inequality in American Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
20.
HersheyMRBirkheadNEasterBC (2012) Party activists, ideological extremism, and party polarization. In: BrewerMDSandy MaiselL (eds), The Parties Respond, 5th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2013, pp. 75–102.
21.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76: 405–431.
22.
JacksonJSBigelowNSGreenJC (2003) The state of party elites: national convention delegates 1992–2000. In: GreenJCFarmerR (eds), The State of the Parties, 4th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 54–78.
23.
JacksonJSGreenJC (2010) The state of party elites: national convention delegates, 1992–2008. In: GreenJCCoffeyDJ (eds), The State of the Parties, 6th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 55–77.
24.
KallaJLBroockmanD (2016) Campaign contributions facilitate access to congressional officials. American Journal of Political Science60(3): 545–558.
25.
KogerGMasketSNoelH (2009) Partisan webs: information exchange and party networks. British Journal of Political Science39: 633–653.
26.
La RajaRJWiltseDL (2012) Don’t blame donors for ideological polarization of political parties. American Politics Research40(3): 501–530.
27.
LaymanGC (2014) Party activists. In: HersheyMR (ed), Guide to U.S. Political Parties, Chap 16. Los Angeles: Sage.
28.
LaymanGCCarseyTM (2002) Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science46: 786–802.
29.
LaymanGCCarseyTMGreenJC. (2010) Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review104: 324–346.
30.
LeeFE (2015) How party polarization affects governance. Annual Review of Political Science18: 261–282.
31.
LongJSFreeseJ (2015) Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes Using Stata, 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
32.
MasonL (2015) I disrespectfully agree: the differential effects of partisan sorting on behavioral and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science59: 128–145.
33.
McCloskyHHoffmannPJO’HaraR (1960) Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers. American Political Science Review44: 406–427.
34.
MillerWEKent JenningsM (1986) Parties in Transition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
35.
MillerJMSaundersKL (2016) It’s not all about resources: explaining (or not) the instability of individual-level political participation over timeAmerican Politics Research44(6): 943–981.
36.
MillerGSchofieldN (2008) The transformation of the republican and democratic party coalitions in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics6: 433–450.
37.
NorranderB (2010) The Imperfect Primary. New York: Routledge.
38.
OserJHoogheMMarienS (2013) Is online participation distinct from offline participation?Political Research Quarterly66: 91–101.
39.
OserJLeighleyJEWinnegKM (2014) Participation, online and otherwise: what’s the difference for policy preferences?Social Science Quarterly95: 1259–1277.
QuintelierEvan DethJW (2014) Supporting democracy: political participation and political attitudes exploring causality using panel data. Political Studies62(1): 153–171.
42.
SaundersKLAbramowitzAI (2004) Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research32: 285–309.
43.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyHE (2010) Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the internet. Perspectives on Politics8: 487–509.
44.
StoneWJPietrykaMT (2010) Party, constituency, and representation in congress. In: GreenJCCoffeyDJ (eds), The State of the Parties, 6th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 333–347.
45.
ThomsenDanielle M. (2014). Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress. Journal of Politics76(3): 786–797.
46.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
