‘Divisive’ Primaries: The Important Questions

Abstract

A small, but apparently expanding, area of research in the United States has developed around the issue of whether divisive primary elections harm the general election prospects of the winners of such primaries. The subject matter is important, being of interest to students of intra-party democracy, party organization and voting behaviour. Unfortunately the research reported in major American political science journals has been directed, with one exception, towards a trivial question, at the expense of the more complex and interesting ones. The purpose of this Note is to explain why this question is not even a poor substitute for them, and to suggest the problems towards which research in this area should be directed.

Divisive Primaries and Incumbent General Election Performance: Prospects and Costs in U.S. House Races

“…Second, primaries produce winners and losers. Fiercely contested primaries aggravate intraparty divisions, and losers' supporters, angered at the winner over any negative campaigning or simply disappointed by the loss of their most preferred candidate, are far less likely to support the winner in the general election (Lengle, Owen, & Sonner, 1995;Pierson & Smith, 1975;Southwell, 1986;Ware, 1979). Negative campaigning by losing candidates harms the reputation of the primary winner, whereas a particularly nasty campaign can even lead to the selection of a weak general election candidate.…”

“…The problem with Ware's (1979) argument though is that primary divisiveness may be endogenous to the incumbent's primary and general election prospects (Herrnson & Gimpel, 1995;Lazarus, 2005Lazarus, , 2008Stone & Maisel, 2003;Stone, Maisel, & Maestas, 2004). Challengers and incumbents have divisive primaries when the incumbent is perceived to be weak.…”

Moving Toward Unity

“…He argues that weak incumbents or election years that favor one political party over another attract strong political opponents to the nomination stage and that strong political opponents lead to divisive nomination campaigns. Alan Ware (1979) makes a similar point in his critique of the divisive nomination literature. Kenney (1988) also fmds that there is no divisive nomination effect on Senate and House races once candidate quality is included as a control.…”

“…Further, hard fought nomination battles may be indicative of a weak incumbent that is the real culprit in the party's inability to win the election (Ware 1979). This seems very likely in the case for Carter in 1980.…”

Presidential Nomination Politics in the Post-Reform Era

“…Yet, divisiveness may be a consequence and not a cause of party disunity. At the congressional level, weak incumbents attract strong opponents that lead to divisive primaries (Born 1981;Kenney 1988;Ware 1979). In presidential nominations, weak front runners may draw a wider or more viable field of competitors.…”