Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:51:03.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Party Context and Norms among Delegates to the 2000 National Party Conventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Thomas M. Carsey ,
John C. Green ,
Richard Herrera  and
Geoffrey C. Layman
Thomas M. Carsey
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
John C. Green
Affiliation:
University of Akron
Richard Herrera
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Geoffrey C. Layman
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists have increasingly viewed party activists as important catalysts for party behavior and change in American politics. Understanding the decisionmaking norms of these activists should help inform scholars' broader understanding of party performance. We examine the norms of party decisionmaking expressed by a select group of party activists: delegates to both parties' 2000 national conventions. We focus on how state contextual factors shape the norms these activists hold regarding the proper balance between ideological purity and the pragmatic pursuit of electoral success. The contextual factors we consider include the rules for delegate selection, the financial capacity of state parties, electoral competitiveness between the two parties, party polarization, and state political culture. We find evidence that norms respond as expected to some elements of state party context, but not to others.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Fall 2006 , pp. 247 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Aldrich, John H. 1983. “A Spatial Model with Party Activists: Implications for Electoral Dynamics.” American Political Science Review 41:63–100.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 42:337–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William, Fording, Richard, and Hanson, Russell. 2000. “An Annual Cost of Living Index for the American States, 1960-1995.” Journal of Politics 62:550–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G. 1991. “The Logic of Party Alignments.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 3:65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M. 1995. “The Contextual Effect of Race on White Voter Behavior: The 1989 New York City Mayoral Election.” Journal of Politics 57:221–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M. 2000. Campaign Dynamics: The Race for Governor. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John C., Herrera, Richard, and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2003. “The New Party Professionals? An Initial Look at National Convention Delegates in 2000 and Over Time.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Henry W. Jr., and Keech, William R.. 1986. “Policy Motivation and Party Differences in a Dynamic Spatial Model of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 80:881–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, M. Margaret, and Feigert, Frank B.. 1968. “Motivations, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization.” American Political Science Review 62:1159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFelice, E. Gene. 1981. “Separating Professionalism from Pragmatism: A Research Note on the Study of Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 25:796–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elazar, Daniel. 1966. American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1998. “Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach.” Journal of Politics 60:355–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Jo. 1986. “The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” Political Science Quarterly 101:327–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Citrin, Jack. 1994. “Measurement Error and the Structure of Attitudes: Are Positive and Negative Judgments Opposites?” American Journal of Political Science 38:256–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, John C., ed. 1994. Politics, Professionalism, and Power: Modern Party Development and the Legacy of Ray C. Bliss. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Herrera, Richard. 1993. “Cohesion at the Party Conventions, 1980-1988.” Polity 26:75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershey, Marjorie H. 2005. Party Politics in America. 11th ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, C. Richard. 1971. “The Amateur Politician: A Problem in Construct Validation.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Kohfeld, Carol Weitzel. 1989. Race and the Decline of Class in American Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Robert A., and Carsey, Thomas M.. 2006. “Voter Mobilization in the 1998 Midterm Election: Did U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Campaigns Get Out the Vote?” Electoral Studies. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Jackson, John S., and Hitlin, Robert A.. 1976. “A Comparison of Party Elites: The Sanford Commission and the Delegates to the Democratic Mid-Term Conferences.” American Politics Quarterly 4:441–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Green, John C.. 1993. “Knowing God's Many People: Denominational Preference and Political Behavior.” In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, eds. Leege, David C. and Kellstedt, Lyman A.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Lyman A., Green, John C., Guth, James L., and Smidt, Corwin E.. 1996. “Grasping the Essentials: The Social Embodiment of Religion and Political Behavior.” In Religion and the Culture Wars, eds. Green, John C., Guth, James L., Smidt, Corwin E., and Kellstedt, Lyman A.. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. [1949] 1984. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. 1976. The New Presidential Elite. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M.. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46:786–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michels, Robert. [1915] 1959. Political Parties. Trans. Eden Paul and Cedar Paul. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary, and Schofield, Norman. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97:245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Kent Jennings, M.. 1986. Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Party Supporters. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1983. Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prysby, Charles. 1998. “Purist versus Pragmatic Orientations.” In Party Organization and Activism in the American South, eds. Steed, Robert P., Clark, John A., Bowman, Lewis, and Hadley, Charles D.. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Roback, Thomas H. 1975. “Amateurs and Professionals: Delegates to the 1972 Republican National Convention.” Journal of Politics 37:436–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roback, Thomas H. 1980. “Motivation for Activism among Republican National Convention Delegates: Continuity and Change.” Journal of Politics 42:181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R., eds. 1995. Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silbey, Joel H. 1994. “Party Organization in Nineteenth Century America.” In Parties and Politics in American History, eds. Maisel, L. Sandy and Shade, William G.. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Soule, John W., and Clarke, James W.. 1970. “Amateurs and Professionals: A Study of Delegates to the 1968 Democratic National Convention.” American Political Science Review 64:888–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, John W., and McGrath, Wilma E.. 1975. “A Comparative Study of Presidential Nomination Conventions: The Democrats of 1968 and 1972.” American Journal of Political Science 19:501–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Abramowitz, Alan I.. 1983. “Winning May Not Be Everything, But It's More Than We Thought.” American Political Science Review 77:945–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Dennis G. 1977-78. “Party Unity: Appearance and Reality.” Political Science Quarterly 92:635–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1965. “The Goldwater Phenomenon: Purists, Politicians, and the Two-Party System.” Review of Politics 27:393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1962. The Amateur Democrat. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1977. “Contextual Models of Electoral Behavior: The Southern Wallace Vote.” American Political Science Review 71:497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar