Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:55:21.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Winning May Not Be Everything, But It's More than We Thought: Presidential Party Activists in 1980

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Walter J. Stone  and
Alan I. Abramowitz
Walter J. Stone
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Alan I. Abramowitz
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies of party activists in the United States have shown an influx of issue-oriented activists into the presidential nominating process since the 1960s. These new activists are described as dogmatic ideologues more interested in promoting their issue concerns than in nominating an electable candidate. Based on our survey of 17,628 delegates attending party conventions in 11 states during the 1980 Democratic and Republican presidential nomination campaigns, we show that activists in both parties weighed electability more heavily than ideology in choosing a party nominee. This finding is in sharp contrast to a strong preference among these same activists for ideological purity over electability when they are presented with questions, typical of past studies, that pose the trade-off only in very general and abstract terms. A partial replication using data from the CPS survey of delegates to the 1972 Democratic national convention supports our findings and leads us to assert that previous studies have underestimated the concern of contemporary party activists with winning.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 945 - 956
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, A. I., McGlennon, J. J., & Rapoport, R. B.Party activists in Virginia. Charlottesville, Va.: Institute of Government, 1980.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J., & Cnudde, C.Probing the bounds of conventional wisdom: a comparison of regression, probit, and discriminant analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 1975, 19, 571–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S.Communication. American Political Science Review, 1973. 67, 567–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFelice, E. G.Separating professionalism from pragmatism: a research note on the study of political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 796–807.Google Scholar
Downs, A.An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Farah, B. G., Jennings, M. K., & Miller, W. E. Convention delegates: reform and the representation of party elites, 1972-1980. Presented to the Conference on Party Activists, Williamsburg, Virginia, 10 1-3, 1981.Google Scholar
Gillespie, M. W.Log-linear techniques and the regression analysis of dummy dependent variables. Sociological Methods and Research, 1977, 6, 103–122.Google Scholar
Hitlin, R. A., & Jackson, J. S. III. On amateur and professional politicians. Journal of Politics, 1977, 39, 786–793.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. S. III, Brown, B. L., & Bositis, D.McClosky, Herbert and friends revisited: 1980 Democratic and Republican party elites compared to the mass publics. American Politics Quarterly, 1982, 10, 158–180.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. S. III, Brown, J. C., & Brown, B. L.Recruitment, representation, and political values: the 1976 Democratic national convention delegates. American Politics Quarterly, 1978, 6, 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. B., & Gibson, J. R.The divisive primary revisited: party activists in Iowa. American Political Science Review, 1974, 68, 67–77.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, J.The new presidential elite. New York: Russell Sage and Twentieth Century Fund, 1976.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. R.Presidential nominations in a reform age. New York: Praeger, 1981.Google Scholar
McClosky, H., Hoffman, P. J., & O'Hara, R.Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers. American Political Science Review, 1960, 54, 406–427.Google Scholar
Nexon, D.Asymmetry in the political system: occasional activists in the Republican and Democratic parties, 1954-64. American Political Science Review, 1971, 65, 716–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, N., & Wildasky, A.Presidential elections: strategies of American electoral politics. New York: Scribners, 1980.Google Scholar
Roback, T. H.Amateurs and professionals: delegates to the 1972 Republican national convention. Journal of Politics, 1975, 37, 436–467.Google Scholar
Soule, J. W., & Clarke, J. W.Amateurs and professionals: a study of delegates to the 1968 Democratic national convention. American Political Science Review, 1970, 64, 888–898.Google Scholar
Soule, J. W., & McGrath, W. E.A comparative study of presidential nomination conventions: the Democrats of 1968 and 1972. American Journal of Political Science, 1975, 19, 501–517.Google Scholar
Sullivan, D. G., Pressman, J. L., Page, B. I., & Lyons, J. J.The politics of representation: the Democratic convention 1972. New York: St. Martin's, 1974.Google Scholar
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H.Participation in America: political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q.The amateur Democrat. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar