Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTThe 2016 Republican presidential nomination challenges arguments about political party insiders' influence on the outcome. This article argues, first, that party insider influence is conditional on the participation, coalescence, and timing of party stakeholders behind a front-runner during the invisible primary, and second, that party insider influence has probably declined since the 2000 presidential election. Data on endorsements by elite elected officials in open presidential nominations from 1984 to 2016 show that party insiders' participation and convergence of support behind the front-runner is less extensive than what was found by Cohen, Karol, Noel, and Zaller (2008), though the data sets differ. Party insiders participate and unify more readily when the party coalition is stable and there is a candidate in the race who has demonstrable national support. Party elites remain on the sidelines when the party coalition is divided or when there is uncertainty about the appeal of candidates (Ryan 2011; Whitby 2014). The potency of insider endorsements likely has declined with the rise of social media, the changing campaign finance landscape, and the reemergence of populism in each party.

This study compares the leading primary vote forecasts for a common set of candidates and nomination campaigns, updated through 2008. Pre‐primary and post–New Hampshire primary forecasts are estimated. Models that predicted well the primary vote from 1980 to 2000 produce substantial errors in prediction for the 2004 and 2008 presidential nominations. This suggests that the factors driving presidential nominations during the 1980s and 1990s are changing in ways that have increased the potency of campaign momentum in presidential nominations. Post–New Hampshire forecasts, which capture the effects of momentum from the early contests, continue to predict well candidates' primary vote shares.

Examines challenges faced by Mark Kirk, the incumbent Republican representative for the 10th congressional district of IL, in his 2008 reelection campaign. Despite an environment heavily favoring the Democrats, Kirk was successfully able to defend his seat. Characteristics of the 10th district are examined, exploring reasons why it did not experience the boost in Democratic support spurred by presidential candidate Barack Obama & widespread disapproval of Republican politics. It is suggested that the decentralized, pragmatic nature of US politics benefited incumbents like Kirk by allowing them to deviate from national party positions in line with the preferences of their local constituencies. The power of Kirk's position as a moderate Republican & ability to provide benefits & services to his constituency as a result of his incumbent position are analyzed as key factors in his victory. H. Hyatt Stewart

Understanding why certain candidates get nominated is an important aspect of political scientists. This topic is a narrow one and influences a wider variety of subjects such as the political parties, general elections, and even the extent to which the United States is a democratic country. Presidential nominees matter—they become the foremost spokesperson and the personified image of the party (Miller and Gronbeck 1994), the main selectors of issues and policies for their party's general election campaign (Petrocik 1996; Tedesco 2001), a major force in defining the ideological direction of a political party (Herrera 1995), and candidates that voters select among in the general election. This volume is devoted to presidential nominations and the 2008 nomination specifically.

Studies of the 1970s and 1980s viewed the political party insiders as having little influence on the selection of the presidential nominees. Recent studies, however, find a significant effect for party elite endorsements in presidential nomination campaigns. This study presents a theory of elite influence in the postreform presidential nomination system and analyzes patterns of elite party endorsements to address questions of when and why elites converge on a preferred candidate. Both party- and candidate-centric factors appear to affect elite endorsements of presidential candidates. Elite elected officials are mainly motivated to have a nominee with electoral appeal. Fewer elite Democratic elected officials endorse presidential candidates, they endorse later, and they tend to divide their endorsements among the presidential candidates to a greater degree than do elite Republican elected officials.