Do divisive primaries hurt incumbents? If so, does the electoral calendar condition their effects? Potential challengers are predatory and estimate their electoral chances before running against an incumbent, meaning electoral prospects influence both primary divisiveness and general election performance. However, divisive primaries may waste precious campaign resources and damage the primary winner’s reputation. The evidence suggests that although divisive primaries generally hurt incumbents and help challengers as electoral prospects theory predicts, these effects wane and eventually disappear the closer the primary is to the general election.
America Votes. (various years). New York: Macmillan.
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.
Ansolabehere, S., Hansen, J.M., Hirano, S., & Snyder, J.M., Jr. (2007). The incumbency advantage in U.S. primary elections. Electoral Studies, 26, 660-668.
4.
Atkeson, L.R. ( 1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidential campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 272-289.
5.
Bernstein, R.A. ( 1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. Senate races, 1956-1972 . American Political Science Review, 71, 540-545.
6.
Born, R. ( 1981). The influence of House primary election divisiveness on general election margins, 1962-76. Journal of Politics , 43, 640-661.
7.
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. ( 1996). A dynamic analysis of the role of war chests in campaign strategy. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 352-371.
8.
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R., & Golder, M. ( 2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 13, 1-20.
9.
Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D.W., & Cogan, J.F. ( 2002). Out of step, Out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96, 127-140.
10.
Carson, J.L. ( 2005). Strategy, selection, and candidate competition in U.S . House and senate elections. Journal of Politics, 67, 1-28.
11.
Cox, G.W., & Katz, J.N. ( 1996). Why did the incumbency advantage grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40, 478-497.
12.
Erikson, R.S., & Wright, G.C. ( 1997). Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections . In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (4th ed., pp. 77-107). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
13.
Feld, S.L., & Grofman, B. ( 2007). The Laakso-Taagepera index in a mean and variance framework . Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19, 101-106.
14.
Hacker, A. ( 1965). Does a divisive primary harm a candidate’s election chances? American Political Science Review, 59, 105-110.
15.
Haggard, S., & McCubbins, M. D. (Eds.). (2001). Presidents, parliaments, and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Herrnson, P.S., & Gimpel, J.G. ( 1995). District conditions and primary divisiveness in congressional elections. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 117-134.
17.
Hetherington, M.J., Larson, B., & Globetti, S. ( 2003). The redistricting cycle and strategic candidate decisions in U.S. House races. Journal of Politics, 65, 1221-1234.
18.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections . American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491.
19.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 1987). The marginals never vanished: Incumbency and competition in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-82. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 126-141.
20.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 1996). The 1994 House elections in perspective. Political Science Quarterly, 111, 203-223.
21.
Jacobson, G.C. ( 2001). A House and Senate divided: The Clinton legacy and the congressional elections of 2000. Political Science Quarterly , 116, 5-27.
22.
Jacobson, G.C., & Kernell, S. ( 1983). Strategy and choice in congressional elections (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Jones, M.P. ( 1999). Electoral laws and the effective number of candidates in presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 61, 171-184.
24.
Kenney, P.J. ( 1988). Sorting out the effects of primary divisiveness in congressional and senatorial elections. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 765-777.
25.
Kenney, P.J., & Rice, T.W. ( 1984). The effect of primary divisiveness in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. Journal of Politics, 46, 904-915.
26.
Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. ( 1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
27.
Lazarus, J. ( 2005). Unintended consequences: Anticipation of general election outcomes and primary election divisiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30, 435-461.
28.
Lazarus, J. ( 2008). Incumbent vulnerability and challenger entry in statewide elections. American Politics Research, 36, 108-129.
29.
Lengle, J.I. ( 1980). Divisive presidential primaries and party electoral prospects, 1932-1976. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 261-277.
30.
Lengle, J.I., Owen, D., & Sonner, M. ( 1995). Divisive nominating mechanisms and Democratic party electoral prospects. Journal of Politics, 57, 370-383.
31.
Mainwaring, S., & Shugart, M. S. (Eds.). (1997). Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Peterson, D.A., & Djupe, P.A. ( 2005). When primary campaigns go negative: The determinants of campaign negativity. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 45-54.
33.
Pierson, J.E., & Smith, T.B. ( 1975). Primary divisiveness and general election success: A re-examination. Journal of Politics, 37, 555-562.
34.
Romero, D.W. ( 2003). Divisive primaries and the House district vote: A pooled analysis. American Politics Research, 31, 178-190.
35.
Southwell, P.L. ( 1986). The politics of disgruntlement: Nonvoting and defection among supporters of nomination losers, 1968-1984. Political Behavior, 8, 81-95.
36.
Stone, W.J., & Maisel, L.S. ( 2003). The not-so-simple calculus of winning: Potential U.S. House candidates’ nominations and general election prospects. Journal of Politics, 65, 951-977.
37.
Stone, W.J., Maisel, L.S., & Maestas, C. ( 2004). Quality counts: Extending the strategic politician model of incumbent deterrenceAmerican Journal of Political Science , 48, 479-495.
38.
Stratmann, T. ( 2005). Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. Public Choice, 124, 135-156.
39.
Ware, A. ( 1979). Divisive primaries: The important questions. British Journal of Political Science, 9, 237-250.
40.
Zaller, J.R. ( 1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Zaller, J.R., & Feldman, S. ( 1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
