Party–Group Ambivalence and Voter Loyalty: Results From Three Experiments

The concept of ambivalence is important to the study of political psychology and behavior. We examine the causes of partisan ambivalence following the passage of major civil rights legislation to test our argument that the correlates of ambivalence will change following the alteration of long-standing party positions on a highly salient issue. We find support for this hypothesis for White Southerners during this time period—Indeed, our results demonstrate that the strength of one’s partisan attachment is unrelated to partisan evaluations for such individuals immediately following the passage of major civil rights legislation, but is again a predictor by the early 1970s.

supporting

confidence: 90%

Partisan Ambivalence, Partisan Intensity, and Racial Attitudes: The Impact of Shifting Policy Positions on Partisan Evaluations in the 1960s

Lupton

Thornton

2018

“…Overall, Republican delegates are more favorably disposed to their party and nomination process. Consistent with prior research, Republicans appear more loyal to their party than Democrats (Freeman, 1986; Grossman & Hopkins, 2016; Mayer, 1996; Shufeldt, 2018). Republican delegates are more likely than their Democratic counterparts to believe the nomination process was fair, that one should always support the nominee, and to have voted for their party’s nominee.…”

Section: Empirical Strategysupporting

confidence: 77%

“…For Democrats, that frequently means delegates must weigh party success with the goals of discrete groups they represent. For Republicans, that frequently means weighing party success with ideological goals (Freeman, 1986; Grossman & Hopkins, 2016; Mayer, 1996; Shufeldt, 2018). Delegates that are more strongly attached to the party and its goals, and view themselves as a representative of the party, rather than prioritizing other political identities should be more supportive of the nomination process and nominee.…”

Section: Support For the Party’s Nomination Process And Nomineementioning

confidence: 99%

A Rigged Game? How Candidate, Partisan, and Electoral Factors Shape Elite Support for the Party Nomination Process

Jewitt

Shufeldt

2021

Self Cite

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.

“…Similar to Contemporary Conservatives in the Republican Party, the ideological commitments of All-Purpose Liberals do not diminish their party support. Perhaps because their ideological goals are closely linked to the Democrats’ electoral goals, All-Purpose Liberals are more active on behalf of the Democratic cause (Shufeldt, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Commitment Among U.S. Party Factions: A Perspective From Democratic and Republican National Convention Delegates

Conger

Cooperman

Shufeldt

et al. 2019

Self Cite

Parties need to win elections, but they also heed the policy preferences of activists to provide the incentive to mobilize. Moving beyond the debate as to whether parties as a whole are policy or office driven, we examine groups within parties and identify different factions that place differential emphasis on office-seeking versus policy-demanding. Using data from the 2012 Convention Delegate Study of Democratic and Republican Party national delegates, we identify distinct factional groups within each party. We map these factions within each party, finding policy-driven and office-driven factions of delegates in both Republican and Democratic parties. We evaluate each group’s response to political and party involvement, support for the larger party organization, and response to both intra- and interparty conflict. Finally, we make clear the picture of factional relationships within each party by accounting for how factional goals are integrated into the party organization over time.