Generally considered patronage rather than issue oriented, the state of Indiana is usually above the suspicion of harboring political parties that adopt widely differing policy positions. In this study, the policy preferences of three different elite groups are compared with those of rank-and-file party members and Independents. Interestingly enough, each party's leadership sets are fairly tightly clustered. Furthermore, elite interparty cleavages are much greater than those displayed by any of the mass public groupings. Notwithstanding some popular images of Hoosier politics, the choice between Democratic and Republican leaders is real and palpable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, A., J. McGlennon, and R. Rapoport (1983) "The party isn't over: incentives for activism in the 1980 presidential nominating campaign " J. Of Politics45: 1006-1015.
2.
Backstrom, C.H. (1977) "Congress and the Public: how representative is one of the other?" Amer. Politics Q.5. 411-435.
3.
Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure (1978) "Openness, participation and party building: reforms for a stronger Democratic party." Report of the Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure. Washington, DC: Democratic National Committee.
4.
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory Of Democracy. New York. Harper & Row.
5.
Elazar, D.J. (1972) American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Crowell.
6.
Fenton, J.H. (1966) Midwest Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
7.
Fiorina, M. (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections . New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press .
8.
Jackson, J.S. III (1985) "Political party leaders and the mass public: 1980-1984 ." Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois , April 19.
9.
Jackson, J.S. III, B.L. Brown and D. Bositis (1982) "Herbert McClosky and friends revisited: 1980 Democratic and Republican party elites compared to the mass public." Amer. Politics Q.10: 158-180.
10.
Kirkpatrick, J. (1976) The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics. New York: Russell Sage .
11.
Levitin, T.E. and W.E. Miller (1979) "Ideological interpretations of presidential elections ." Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.73: 751-771
12.
Margolis, M. (1977) "From confusion to confusion. issues and the American voter." Amer Pol. Sci. Rev71: 31-43.
13.
Mc Closky, H., P.J. Hoffman, and R. O'Hara (1960) "Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers." Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.54. 406-427
14.
Montjoy, R.S., W.R. Shaffer, and R.E. Weber (1980) "Policy preferences of party elites and masses: conflict or consensus?" Amer. Politics Q.8: 319-340.
15.
Nie, N.H., S. Verba, and J.R. Petrocik (1979) The Changing American Voter. Cambridge. Harvard Umv. Press
16.
Pomper, G.M. (1972) "From confusion to clanty: issues and American voters, 1956-1968 " Amer Pol. Sci. Rev.66415-428
17.
Repass, D.E. (1971) "Issues salience and party choice." Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.65. 389-400.
18.
Smith, E.R A.N. (1980) "The levels of conceptualization: false measures of ideological sophistication." Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.74: 685-696.
19.
Stone, W.J. and A.I. Abramowitz (1983) "Winning may not be everything, but it's more than we thought: presidential party activists in 1980. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.77: 945-956.
20.
Sullivan, J.L., J.E. Piereson, and G.E. Marcus (1978) "Ideological constraint in the mass public: a methodological critique and some new findings." Amer. J. of Pol. Sci.22: 223-249.
21.
Sussman, B. (1976) "Party workers poles apart."Washington Post (September 27; pp. A1-A2).
