Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology*

Abstract

Primary elections in the United States have been under-studied in the political science literature. Using new data to estimate the ideal points of primary election candidates and constituents, we examine the link between the ideological leanings of primary electorates and the ideological orientation of US congressional candidates. We use district-level data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and ideal point estimates for congressional primary election candidates to examine the role of primary electorate ideology in the selection of party nominees. We find that more extreme Republicans are more likely to win their party’s primary and that Republican and Democratic candidates are responsive to different electoral constituencies.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All

Lindsay Nielson, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Bucknell University, 1 Dent Drive, Lewisburg, PA 17837 (lindsay.nielson@bucknell.edu). Neil Visalvanich, Lecturer, Durham University, School of Government and International Affairs, The Al-Qasimi Building, Elvet Hill Road, Durham DH1 5EH, UK (neil.visalvanich@durham.ac.uk). A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association. The authors gratefully thank Gary C. Jacobson, Thad Kousser, the journal editors, and the anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments. The authors also thank Adam Bonica for providing data on candidate ideal points, Stephen Pettigrew for providing data on candidate characteristics, and Christopher F. Karpowitz, J. Quin Monson, Kelly D. Patterson, and Jeremy C. Pope for providing data on 2010 Tea Party endorsements. All interpretations of the data are the sole responsibility of the authors. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.60

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Alan I. Abramowitz , and Kyle L. Saunders . 2008. ‘Is Polarization a Myth?’. Journal of Politics 70(2):542555.

Stephen Ansolabehere , James M. Snyder Jr, and Charles Stewart, III . 2001. ‘Candidate Positioning in US House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 45:136159.

Joseph Bafumi , and Micahel C. Herron . 2010. ‘Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress’. American Political Science Review 104:519542.

Timothy Besley , and Anne Case . 2003. ‘Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States’. Journal of Economic Literature 41(1):773.

Adam Bonica . 2013. ‘Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace’. American Journal of Political Science 57:294311.

David W. Brady , and Edward P. Schwartz . 1995. ‘Ideology and Interests in Congressional Voting: The Politics of Abortion in the US Senate’. Public Choice 84:2548.

Barry C Burden . 2004. ‘Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 34:211227.

Peter T. Calcagno , and Christopher Westley . 2008. ‘An Institutional Analysis of Voter Turnout: The Role of Primary Type and the Expressive and Instrumental Voting Hypotheses’. Constitutional Political Economy 19(2):94110.

Steven Callender , and Catherine H. Wilson . 2007. ‘Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger’s Law’. Journal of Politics 69:10471056.

Elisabeth R. Gerber , and Jeffrey B. Lewis . 2004. ‘Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation’. Journal of Political Economy 112:13641383.

Elisabeth R. Gerber , and Rebecca B. Morton . 1998. ‘Primary Election Systems and Representation’. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14:304324.

Gary C Jacobson . 2012. ‘The Electoral Origins of Polarized Politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study’. American Behavioral Scientist 56:16121630.

Karen M. Kaufmann , James G. Gimpel , and Adam H. Hoffman . 2003. ‘A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation’. Journal of Politics 65:457476.

Eric McGhee , Seth Masket , Boris Shor , Steven Rogers , and Nolan McCarty . 2014. ‘A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology’. American Journal of Political Science 58:337351.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Science Research and Methods
  • ISSN: 2049-8470
  • EISSN: 2049-8489
  • URL: /core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Nielson and Visalvanich supplementary material
Appendix

 PDF (222 KB)
222 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 9 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 115 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.