Does a divisive primary contest harm a candidate’s chances in the general election? This question is addressed in an analysis of legislative campaigns in nine states during the 1994 and 1996 election cycles. Findings indicate that primary divisiveness does affect general election outcomes but in the opposite direction than anticipated. Greater divisiveness in a candidate’s primary leads to a higher vote share in the general election. Similarly, greater divisiveness in a general election opponent’s primary leads to a candidate receiving a lower vote share. Simply the presence of a primary challenge is found to exert a substantial positive influence for a candidate in the general election, particularly in open seat contests. Such counterintuitive results are attributed to the low levels of information that voters typically possess about state legislative primaries and to the strategic decisions of candidates who seek legislative office.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, A. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82, 385-403.
2.
Ansolabehere, S., & Gerber, A. (1994). The mismeasure of campaign spending: Evidence from the 1990 U.S. House elections. Journal of Politics, 56, 1106-1118.
3.
Atkeson, L. R. (1993). Moving toward unity: Attitudes in the nomination and general election stages of a presidential campaign. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 272-289.
4.
Atkeson, L. R. (1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidential campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 256-271.
5.
Bernstein, R. A. (1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. Senate races 1956-1972. American Political Science Review, 71, 540-545.
6.
Berry, W. D., Berkman, M. B., & Schneiderman, S. (2000). Legislative professionalism and incumbent reelection: The development of institutional boundaries. American Political Science Review, 94, 859-874.
7.
Born, R. (1981). The influence of House primary election divisiveness on general election margins, 1962-76. Journal of Politics, 43, 840-861.
8.
Carey, J. M., Niemi, R. G., & Powell, L. W. (2000). Incumbency and the probability of reelection in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics, 62, 671-700.
9.
Carlson, J. M. (1989). Primary divisiveness and general election outcomes in state legislative races. Southeastern Political Review, 17, 149-157.
10.
Comer, J. (1976). Another look at the effects of the divisive primary: A research note. American Politics Quarterly, 4, 121-128.
11.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
12.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Garand, J. (1991). Electoral marginality in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16, 7-28.
14.
Gierzynski, A., & Breaux, D. (1991). Money and votes in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16, 203-217.
15.
Gierzynski, A., & Breaux, D. (1996). Legislative elections and the importance of money. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21, 337-357.
16.
Grau, C. (1981). Competition in state legislative primaries. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6, 35-54.
17.
Hacker, A. (1965). Does a divisive primary harm a candidate’s election chances? American Political Science Review, 59, 105-110.
18.
Herrnson, P. S., & Gimpel, J. G. (1995). District conditions and primary divisiveness in congressional elections. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 101-116.
19.
Hogan, R. E. (1997). Voter contact techniques in state legislative campaigns: The prevalence of mass media advertising. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 551-571.
20.
Jacobson, G. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491.
21.
Jewell, M. E. (1967). Legislative representation in the contemporary South. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22.
Jewell, M. E., & Breaux, D. (1988). The effect of incumbency on state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 495-514.
23.
Johnson, D. B., & Gibson, J. R. (1974). The divisiveness primary revisited: Party activists in Iowa. American Political Science Review, 68, 67-77.
24.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. Senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Kenney, P. J. (1988). Sorting out the effects of primary divisiveness in congressional and senatorial elections. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 756-777.
26.
Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1984). The effects of primary divisiveness in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. Journal of Politics, 46, 904-915.
27.
Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1987). The relationship between divisive primaries and general election outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 31-44.
28.
Kenny, C., & McBurnett, M. (1994). An individual-level multiequation model of expenditure effects in contested House elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 699-707.
29.
Key, V. O. (1956). American state politics: An introduction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
30.
Lengle, J. I. (1980). Divisive presidential primaries and party electoral prospects, 1932-1976. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 261-277.
31.
Miller, P. M., Jewell, M. E.Sigelman, L. (1988). Divisive primaries and party activists: Kentucky, 1979 and 1983. Journal of Politics, 50, 459-470.
32.
Moncrief, G. F. (1998). Candidate spending in state legislative races. In J. A. Thompson & G. F.Moncrief (Eds.), Campaign finance in state legislative elections (pp. 37-58). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
33.
Piereson, J. E., & Smith, T. B. (1975). Primary divisiveness and general election success: A reexamination. Journal of Politics, 37, 555-562.
34.
Pritchard, A. (1992). Strategic considerations in the decision to challenge a state legislative incumbent. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 381-393.
35.
Rae, D., & Taylor, M. (1970). The analysis of political cleavages. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
Salmore, S. A., & Salmore, B. G. (1985). Candidates, parties, and campaigns: Electoral politics in America. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
37.
Southwell, P. L. (1986). The politics of disgruntlement: Nonvoting and defections among supporters of nomination losers, 1968-1984. Political Behavior, 8, 81-95.
38.
Stone, W. J., Atkeson, L. R., & Rapoport, R. (1992). Turning on and turning off? Mobilization and demobilization effects of participation in presidential nomination campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 665-691.
39.
Van Dunk, E. (1997). Challenger quality in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 793-807.
40.
Ware, A. (1979). Divisive primaries: The important questions. British Journal of Political Science, 9, 381-384.
41.
Westlye, M. C. (1991). Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
