The 2016 presidential nominations revealed deep, yet distinct, divisions within each major party. These divisions persisted and permeated the general election campaign and were reflected in voters’ dissatisfaction with the candidates. Movements such as the “Bernie or Bust” supporters and the “Never-Trumpers” indicated that vocal portions of the parties were dissatisfied with the party nominees or the processes that selected those candidates. There were also indications that many party elites were not pleased with the nomination processes or the outcome; yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which party elites support the nomination process and their party’s nominee and what explains this support. By combining the 2016 Convention Delegate Study and an original dataset of the nomination electoral rules utilized by the states, we assess how candidate, partisan, and electoral factors shape delegate support for the nomination process and nominee. Our analysis reveals that candidate and party-centric explanations better explain delegate views toward the nomination process and nominee than factors related to the electoral context.
AbramowitzA.StoneW. (1984). Nomination politics: Party activists and presidential choice. Praeger.
3.
AldrichJ. (2012). Why parties? A second look. University of Chicago Press.
4.
AndersonC. J.BlaisA.BowlerS.DonovanT.ListhaugO. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
5.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81.
6.
AndersonC. J.LoTempioA. J. (2002). Winning, losing, and political trust in America. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 335–351.
7.
AtkesonL. R. (1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidential campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 256–271.
8.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2002). Democracy, institutions, and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 371–390.
9.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2012). Effects of competitive US house races on voters. Paper prepared for the2012American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
10.
CarseyT.GreenJ.HerreraR.LaymanG. (2003). The new party professionals?An initial look at national convention delegates in 2000 and over time. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
ClarkeH.AcockA. (1989). National elections and political attitudes: The case of political efficacy. British Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 551–562.
13.
CohenM.NoelH.KarolD.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. University of Chicago Press.
14.
CongerK.CoopermanR.ShufeldtG.LaymanG.KalkanK.GreenJ.HerreraR. (2019). Group commitment among U.S. party factions: A perspective from democratic and republican national convention delegates. American Politics Research, 47(6), 1376–1408.
15.
CraigS.MartinezM.GainousJ.KaneJ. (2006). Winners, losers, and election context: Voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 59(4), 579–592.
16.
DiSalvoD. (2012). Engines of change: Party factions in American politics, 1868-2010. Oxford University Press.
17.
DewittJ.EngstromR. (2011). The impact of prolonged nomination contests on presidential candidate evaluations and general election vote choice: The choice of 2008. Politics & Policy, 39(5), 741–759.
18.
DunhamY.ArecharA.RandD. (2019). From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(3), 373–380.
19.
EriksonR.WlezienC. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections: How campaigns do (and do not) matter. University of Chicago Press.
20.
FlavinP.ShufeldtG. (2016). Party competition and citizens’ political attitudes in the American states. Electoral Studies, 44(4), 234–244.
21.
FreemanJ. (1986). The political culture of the democratic and republican parties. Political Science Quarterly, 101(3), 327–356.
22.
GelmanA.KingG. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable?British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 409–451.
23.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. Oxford University Press.
24.
GurianP.BurroughsN.AtkesonL. R.CannD.HaynesA. (2016). National party division and divisive state primaries in U.S. presidential elections, 1948–2012. Political Behavior, 38(3), 689–711.
25.
HeaneyM.MasketS.MillerJ.StrolovitchD. (2012). Polarized networks: The organizational affiliations of national party convention delegates. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(2), 1654–1676.
26.
HendersonM. (2015). Finding the way home: The dynamics of partisan support in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior, 37(4), 889–910.
27.
HendersonM.HillygusS.ThompsonT. (2010). ‘Sour grapes’ or rational voting? Voter decision making among thwarted primary voters in 2008. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 499–529.
28.
HerreraR. (1996). Understanding the language of politics: A study of elites and masses. Political Science Quarterly, 111(4), 619–637.
29.
HerreraR.TaylorM. (1994). The structure of opinion in American political parties. Political Studies, 42(4), 676–689.
30.
JewittC. (2018). Perceptions of the parties and the 2016 presidential nominations. In GreenJ.CoffeyD.CohenD. (Eds.), The state of the parties 2018: The changing role of contemporary american political parties. Rowman and Littlefield.
31.
JewittC. (2019). The primary rules: Parties, voters, and presidential nominations. University of Michigan Press.
32.
JostJ.HennesE.LavineH. (2013). ‘Hot’ political cognition: Its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. In CarlstonD. (Ed.) The oxford handbook of social cognition. Oxford University Press.
33.
KeyV. O. (1953). Politics, parties, and pressure groups. Thomas Crowell.
34.
KingJ. (2018). Party rules and equitable representation in U.S. presidential nominating contests. American Politics Research, 46(5), 811–833.
35.
KogerG.MasketS.NoelH. (2010). Cooperative party factions in American politics. American Politics Research, 38(1), 33–53.
LaymanG.CarseyT.GreenJ.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American political parties. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 324–346.
OsborneD.SenguptaN.SibleyC. (2019). System justification theory at 25: Evaluating paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 340–361.
StoneW.AbramowitzA. (1983). Winning may not be everything, but it’s more than we thought: Presidential party activists in 1980. The American Political Science Review, 77(4), 945–956.
WildavskyA. (1965). The Goldwater phenomenon: Purists, politicians and the two-party system. The Review of Politics, 27(3), 386–413.
51.
WilsonJ. Q. (1962). The amateur democrat: Club politics in three cities. University of Chicago 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.
