Revisiting the divisive primary hypothesis: 2008 and the Clinton-Obama nomination battle

American Politics Research

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 233-265

  Makse, Todd ^a   Sokhey, Anand E ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

2008 presidential election; Barack Obama; Defection; Hillary Clinton; Political participation; Primaries; Primary competition; Turnout

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649224717     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: 15523373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X09359560     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adolph, C., King, G., Herron, M., & Shotts, K. (2003). A consensus on second-stage analyses in ecological inference models. Political Analysis, 11, 86-94.
2. Anselin, L., & Tam Cho, W. (2002). Spatial effects and ecological inference. Political Analysis, 10, 276-297.
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, 256-271.
5. Barreto, M., & Segura, G. (2009, Oct. 1-4). Estimating the effects of traditional predictors, group specific forces, and anti-Black affect on 2008 presidential vote among Latinos and non-Hispanic Whites. Paper presented at the Mershon Conference on the Transformative Election of 2008, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
6. Beck, P., Dalton, R., Huckfeldt, R., & Nichols, S. (1994). The social-embededness of political cleavages. Paper presented at the Cross-National Election Project Conference, Nuffield College, Oxford University, UK.
7. Benoit, K., & King, G. (2003). EzI: A(n easy) program for ecological inference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://gking.harvard.edu/stats.shtml.
8. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Bernstein, R. (1977). Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. Senate races, 1956-1972. American Political Science Review, 71, 540-545.
10. Buell, E.H., Jr. (1986). Divisive primaries and participation in presidential campaigns: A study of the 1984 New Hampshire Primary activists. American Politics Quarterly, 14, 376-390.
11. Burden, B.C., & Kimball, D.C. (2002). Why Americans split their tickets: Campaigns, competition, and divided government. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
12. Bullock, C.S., & Shafer, D. (1997). Party targeting and electoral success. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 573-584.
13. Converse, P.E. (1966). The concept of a normal vote. In A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.
14. Djupe, P.A., & Peterson, D.A.M. (2002). The impact of negative campaigning: Evidence from the 1998 Senatorial Primaries. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 845-860.
15. Gainsborough, J.F. (2005). Voters in context: Cities, suburbs, and presidential vote. American Politics Research, 33, 435-461.
16. Green, D.P., & Gerber, A.S. (2006). Can registration-based sampling improve the accuracy of midterm election forecasts? Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(2), 197-223.
17. Hacker, A. (1965). Does a divisive primary harm a candidate's election chances? American Political Science Review, 59, 105-110.
18. Hawkings, D., & Nutting, B. (2003). CQ's politics in America 2004: The 108th Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
19. Herron, M.C., & Shotts, K. (2003). Using ecological inference point estimates as dependent variables in second-stage linear regression. Political Analysis, 11, 44-64.
20. Huckfeldt, R. (1986). Politics in context: Assimilation and conflict in urban neighborhoods. New York: Agathon Press.
21. Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P., Dalton, R., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1025-1054.
22. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1992). Political parties and electoral mobilization: Political structure, social structure, and the party canvass. American Political Science Review, 86, 70-86.
23. Jewell, M., & Olson, D. (1982). American state political parties and elections (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
24. Johnson, D.B., & Gibson, J.R. (1974). The divisive primary revisited: Party activists in Iowa. American Political Science Review, 68, 67-77.
25. Kenney, P.J. (1988). Sorting out the effects of primary divisiveness in congressional and senatorial elections. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 765-777.
26. Kenney, P.J., & Rice, T.W. (1984). The effect 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. Key, V.O., Jr. (1956). American state politics: An introduction. New York: Knopf.
29. King, G. (1997). A solution to the ecological inference problem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. Lacy, D. (2001). A theory of non-separable preferences in survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 239-258.
31. Lengle, J.I. (1980). Divisive presidential primaries and party electoral prospects, 1932-1976. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 261-277.
32. Lengle, J.I., Owen, D., & Sonner, M.W. (1995). Divisive nomination mechanisms and Democratic Party electoral prospects. Journal of Politics, 57, 370-383.
33. Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Mayer, W.G. (1996). The divided Democrats: Ideological unity, party reform, and presidential elections. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
35. McDonald, M.P. (2007). The true electorate: A cross-validation of voter file and election poll demographics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 588-602.
36. McDonald, M.P., & Popkin, S. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political Science Review, 95, 963-974.
37. Norrander, B. (1989). Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 570-587.
38. Piereson, J.E., & Smith, T.B. (1975). Primary divisiveness and general election success: A re-examination. Journal of Politics, 37, 555-562.
39. Stone, W.J. (1984). Pre-nomination candidate choice and general election behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 372-389.
40. Stone, W.J., Atkeson, L.R., & Rapoport, R.B. (1992). Turning on or turning off? Mobilization and demobilization effects of participation in presidential nomination campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 665-691.
41. Tam Cho, W.K. (1998). Iff the assumption fits. . . A comment on the King ecological inference solution. Political Analysis, 7, 143-163.
42. Tam Cho, W.K. (2001). Latent groups and cross-level inferences. Electoral Studies, 20, 243-263.
43. Tam Cho, W.K., & Gaines, B.J. (2004). The limits of ecological inference: The case of split-ticket voting. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 152-171.
44. Thomsen, S. (1987). Danish elections 1920-79. A logit approach to ecological analysis and inference. Aarhus, Denmark: Politica.
45. Ware, A. (1979). Divisive primary: The important questions. British Journal of Political Science, 9, 381-384.
46. Weisberg, H. & Devine, C. (2009, Oct. 1-4). Racial attitude effects on voting in the 2008 presidential election. Paper presented at the Mershon Conference on the Transformative Election of 2008, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
47. Wiseman, A. (2005). Partisan strategy and support in state legislative elections: The case of Illinois. American Politics Research, 33, 376-403.