American Review of Politics

Clearing the Field: How do Presidential Primary Candidates Win Big on Super Tuesday?

2021-01-08T06:52:35-06:00

In presidential primaries, Super Tuesday elections play a significant role in winnowing candidate fields and establishing nomination frontrunners. Despite their importance, scholars know little about why and how candidates win or lose the states comprising these events. This study explores which factors help explain candidate performance in Super Tuesday primaries between 2008 and 2016. Using pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis, the results indicate three key drivers of Super Tuesday success: candidate viability, public attention, and media attention. These findings imply that presidential campaigns continue to be complex electoral events beyond the early primary states and suggest that underdog candidates can still win states under the right conditions. Future research should explore the interrelatedness of these three critical factors.

Emotional Voting, Racial Animus and Economic Anxiety in the 2016 Presidential Election

2021-01-08T07:08:34-06:00

In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory, several competing theories were offered purporting to explain Trump’s appeal to American voters. These included arguments that Trump voters were more prone to hold authoritarian tendencies (Choma 2017); that Trump’s mostly “white working class” voters felt left behind in an increasingly globalized economy; or that Trump voters were attracted to the candidate’s racialized and sexist language (Schaffner et. al 2017). This paper utilizes data from AdSAM, an emotional response survey system, to measure the emotive responses of likely voters toward candidates in the 2016 election. The survey also measured emotional responses towards issues including abortion, immigration, the economy, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The results suggest that the strongest predictors for voting for Trump were negative feelings towards the economy and negative responses to the BLM movement, and emphasizes emotional, rather than cognitive responses as explaining support for Trump.

A Mix of Motives

2021-01-15T06:19:10-06:00

Scholarly debates over the nature of political parties and the identity of their principal actors have been hampered by relative inattention to the historical processes of internal party change. This study, drawing on archival sources, interviews, and one of the co-author’s personal experiences, analyzes the Georgia delegate challenge to the 1968 Democratic Convention as a case of internal party conflict generating lasting institutional reform, with implications for existing theories of party development, nominating politics, and democratic representation. In a convention marked by an unusually large number of challenges to state party delegations, the Georgia delegate challenge was unique. There, a conflict between the segregationist regulars and the moderate and liberal Democrats was complicated by an internal division in the latter camp between Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy supporters. The McCarthy forces’ success in garnering a dominant position within the challenge delegation alienated many of the Georgia movement’s organizers and leaders. The McCarthy campaign's takeover also linked this southern challenge both to the antiwar politics coloring the national nomination fight and to a particular conception of representation that would influence subsequent party reform efforts. In tracing the origins, dynamics, and aftermath of Georgia’s delegate challenge, we show both that group- and candidate-driven efforts together shape party development over time, and that normative ideas concerning representation can play causal roles in party development.

Geographic Differences of Individual Views toward the Role of Government

2021-01-15T06:35:00-06:00

Government, through the provision of public services, plays an integral role in the lives of American citizens. In consequence, public opinion of government involvement has been consistently measured through the use of national surveys in order to better evaluate the public’s reaction to specific public policies. While measuring of aggregate public opinions on government involvement is valuable, there are certainly differences across various groups of Americans. The United States may be divided when it comes to partisanship and ideology, but perhaps there are also significant divisions between Americans based on their geography, or “place”. Using data from the American National Election Survey from 1994-2008, this study examines the differences in opinion on government spending towards public services, welfare programs, and Social Security. Rooted in the idea that different “places” harbor varying degrees of support for the government, I hypothesize that the role of government is viewed differently between urban and rural America, further demonstrating that America experiences an urban-rural division in regard to perceptions of American politics. The findings demonstrate that ideology drives Americans’ support for these specific policies and that “place” can serve as a conditioning effect on the standard ideological view. Specifically, liberals living in rural areas are less supportive of government spending than their liberal counterparts living in more urban areas. Additionally, rural liberals are less supportive of welfare spending; however, are more supportive of Social Security than liberals from urban areas.