Primary Voters Research Articles

Reading the Tea Leaves: Question Wording and Public Support for the Tea Party Movement

The emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 was a pivotal moment in American politics signaling a right-ward shift among Republican Party primary voters that would later help Donald J. Trump secure the Republican nomination for president in 2016. This article looks back in time analyzing public opinion data concerning the Tea Party movement from 2010 to 2011 examining how opinions changed over time. Specifically, two types of questions are used to plot views of the Tea Party over time: those gauging the favorability of, and support for, the movement. Findings show a decline in Tea Party support over time, with support peaking in November of 2010. This study also examines the influence of question wording on opinions of the Tea Party finding that support or favorability toward the Tea Party movement can vary significantly, depending on the options given to respondents. The implications of these results for the Tea Party movement, and the measurement of public opinion, are also explored.

To caucus or primary? Why state parties change their presidential nomination contests

AbstractPresidential nominations are generally perceived to be under the control of primary voters and caucus‐goers, with party organizations themselves largely powerless to steer outcomes. However, parties are highly active in the background, often switching contests between primaries and caucuses or vice versa in order to influence the nomination. Despite the popular narrative of parties becoming more internally democratic and abandoning caucuses, we find numerous instances of states moving from primaries to caucuses. We examine state party switches between caucuses and primaries between 1980 and 2024, testing various theories of party change. This approach yields few systematic conclusions. Therefore, we shift to examining contemporaneous coverage of state party switches using an inductive qualitative approach, revealing a complex and dynamic nomination system and a variety of reasons why state parties choose one form of contest over another. These findings catch state parties in the act of trying to control nomination contests in surprisingly overt ways.

Can primary voters still “kick the tires?” Trends in candidate events in the New Hampshire primary, 2004–2020

ABSTRACT Ample evidence suggests that presidential primaries are fertile ground for personal appearances by candidates to matter, as candidates strategically decide when and where they appear, and voters learn about and may be more likely to vote for candidates they meet. Are recent presidential candidates engaging in less retail politicking in the New Hampshire primary than candidates in earlier cycles? An analysis of 6,079 candidate events from 2004 to 2020 finds that candidates are holding fewer events, that political parties and affiliated groups are sponsoring more events, and that primary events overall are trending away from ones where voters and candidates can interact. While less known candidates still hope an early state focus will catapult them to their party’s nomination, more famous candidates tend to hold fewer events with less opportunity for citizens to interact with them.

O impacto da participação em primárias presidenciais simultâneas opcionais na porcentagem de votos para o candidato da coalizão na eleição geral: evidências do sistema de dois turnos do Chile

Objective/context: We assess the effect of turnout in multiparty-coalition presidential primaries on the electoral support for the primary winner in two-round presidential elections. Does holding presidential primaries have a positive impact on the vote share received by the primary winner and/or political party in the corresponding presidential election? Methodology: We use municipal-level data in the three election cycles (2013-2021) since adopting optional presidential primaries in Chile to estimate ordinary least squares (OLS) models and assess the effect of turnout in the primaries on vote share in the general election. Conclusions: We identify a positive association between turnout in the primaries and vote share for the coalition candidate in the presidential election, with a higher impact on the runoff than in the first round. Originality: As primaries mobilize more ideological voters, the effect of primary turnout is stronger in the runoff when voters are more likely to align along clearly defined ideological lines than in the first round when primary voters normally have more than one option that matches their ideological preferences.

Pathway to Power: Shifts in Electoral Support for the Australian Labor Party Between the 1966 and 1969 Federal Elections

The House of Representatives election of 2 December, 1972, was a watershed in Australian political history. That election saw the Australian Labor Party terminate the Liberal–Country Party (LCP) Coalition's twenty‐three‐year hegemony and bring to office not only a different type of Labor government but a different prime ministerial style in leader Gough Whitlam. Yet, just six years before, Labor at the 1966 election had suffered a 4.30 per cent two‐party preferred (2PP) swing and the loss of nine seats following Labor's lowest primary vote since 1934. Labor's dramatic reversal of fortunes in just six years therefore remains of enormous historical interest. But, given the 1972 election saw a modest 2.5 per cent 2PP swing to Labor, with the party seizing twelve seats from the Coalition and losing four back to the LCP, the 1969–72 triennium offers little insight into Labor's recovery. In that context, this article, via analyses of House of Representatives election results and public opinion poll data, explores the chronology, demography, and geography of Labor's electoral recovery to argue the 1966–69 triennium remains of far greater value when identifying exactly when, among whom, and where Labor began its pathway to power.

Linking Primary Voter Mindsets to General Election Enthusiasm

Linking Primary Voter Mindsets to General Election Enthusiasm

How Much Is a Trump Endorsement Worth?

AbstractFormer president Trump made hundreds of candidate endorsements in the 2022 Republican primaries. The state of Georgia garnered outsized attention because it was ground zero for Trump’s false accusations of a stolen 2020 presidential election. Trump endorsed several candidates in Georgia’s May 2022 GOP primary contests, including candidates challenging Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, incumbents drawing Trump’s ire for upholding the 2020 outcome favoring Joe Biden. In a survey of likely Georgia GOP primary voters randomizing whether they are told which candidate Trump endorsed in five statewide races (governor, US Senate, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and insurance commissioner), our analysis shows substantial variability in the influence of Trump’s endorsement. With scant prior information in low-profile contests (e.g., insurance commissioner), the Trump endorsement has a substantial impact, whereas it is rendered ineffectual in the most high-profile race for governor. Thus, the findings demonstrate the remarkable variability of a Trump endorsement, which is primarily contingent upon the salience of a specific race.

Authoritarianism and support for Trump and Clinton in the 2016 primaries

Research in the wake of the contentious 2016 presidential primaries contends both Democrats and Republicans were internally divided along psychological lines. Specifically, MacWilliams (2016) finds authoritarian personality was strongly related to Trump support among Republican primary voters, and Wronski et al. (2018) finds authoritarianism was strongly related to Clinton support among Democratic primary voters. In this paper, I reassess the relationships between authoritarianism and 2016 primary candidate preferences for both Republicans and Democrats. I analyze two new large, probability-based surveys and generate random effects estimates using these surveys and two national surveys from Wronski et al. (2018) . Overall, I find authoritarianism was moderately associated with support for Clinton over Sanders among Democratic primary voters, but weakly associated with support for Trump among Republican primary voters. My findings indicate authoritarianism may have played a more limited role in shaping Americans’ candidate preferences in the 2016 presidential primary elections than past studies have suggested.

How Do General Election Incentives Affect the Visible and Invisible Primary?

Previous research finds that nominating more centrist candidates increases vote share and win probability in congressional general elections. Yet party primary elections often nominate non‐centrist candidates, increasing polarization between the American parties. We develop a model of choice in nomination politics that shows when and how actors respond to incentives of the general election. We then combine 200 million contribution records with data on 22,400 candidates in 7100 House primary elections from 1980 through 2016. We find that potential candidates and primary voters respond to general election incentives but do not find clear evidence for contributors or the winnowing process. Connecting these results back to our model, this implies that actors in the invisible primary either place higher value on in‐party candidate ideology or have different beliefs about the general election than do primary voters. Our evidence adds to a body of research that suggests primary voters are a larger moderating force than elites in American party politics.

The Dynamics of Hidden Partisanship and Crossover Voting in Semi-Closed Primaries

AbstractAmong US states with party registration, many allow the unaffiliated to choose either the Democratic or Republican primary. States with these semi-closed rules thus provide an option to voters with greater choice than registering with a single political party. Using the synthetic control method, I find that the introduction of semi-closed primaries is associated with growth in unaffiliated registration. However, the likelihood of unaffiliated registration is not even across the electorate in semi-closed states. I show that it is most common where a voter’s party is not competitive and the access unaffiliated registration provides to the strong party’s primary is valuable. Consistent with this instrumental motive, unaffiliated voters in semi-closed states use their freedom of choice to vote in the primary of the stronger party in the electorate. This leads to significant crossover voting among unaffiliated voters who do not identify with that party such as Democrats in red states or Republicans in blue states. These findings show the unintended consequences of electoral institutions and find primary crossover voting is more common under some circumstances than others.

Strategic Discrimination in the 2020 Democratic Primary

AbstractPrimary voters frequently support the candidates they think have a greater chance of winning the general election over the candidates who most closely reflect their policy preferences—a perception referred to as “electability.” While electability is typically taken to mean ideological moderation, recent research highlights the potential for candidates’ demographic characteristics to affect such perceptions. Using a conjoint experiment conducted with a sample of nearly 3,000 likely Democratic primary voters in June 2019, we show that women and candidates of color were seen as less electable than their white, male counterparts despite being preferred more frequently, holding policy stances and general election strategies constant. These effects were independent of respondents’ hostile sexism and racial resentment, and mediation analysis indicates that electability concerns reduced overall support for women and candidates of color. The results replicate and extend recent findings related to “strategic discrimination” in the US electorate.

Electability salience can bias voting decisions

“Electability” received considerable attention during the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, with some critics claiming that the term was code for sexism. From a rational choice perspective, “electability” could affect voting in multiple ways, including via expected utility; previous scholarship suggests that many voters consider it as such. Yet this scholarship ignores the role that salience plays in decision making, and is silent on which sorts of candidate might benefit from the effects of priming electability. To address these issues, we conducted a survey experiment during the 2020 primary season, measuring Democratic primary voters’ preferences for candidates, electability estimates, and candidate rankings. Our experiment manipulated salience by randomizing the order in which preferences and electability were elicited. We show that electability salience caused a substantial increase in the probability that a respondent made decisions based only on electability.

Electoral Effect of Protracted Presidential Primaries

Divisive presidential primaries have become common in the United States following the McGovern—Fraser reforms. Both politicians and political scientists have argued that parties that experience divisive primaries may be disadvantaged in the general election, with several political scientists demonstrating a relationship between a nominee receiving a smaller share of the primary vote and a smaller share of the general election vote. However, demonstrating that divisive primaries cause worse general election results is difficult because candidate weakness or other factors may cause poor performance in both primary and general elections. I use a linear regression model to estimate the effect of divisive presidential primaries on general election outcomes. I compare near-border counties in states that did not experience contested primaries to near-border counties in states that did experience contested primaries. I find that there is generally a penalty for parties that experience divisive primaries, but the effect varies over election cycles.

Should I vote-by-mail or in person? The impact of COVID-19 risk factors and partisanship on vote mode decisions in the 2020 presidential election.

While the evidence is clear that 2020 voters shifted away from Election Day voting in favor of vote-by-mail and early voting, we know very little about how health risk versus party polarization around risk assessment influenced how and when to vote. We rely on individual-level observational data in the form of high-quality official voter administrative records from the State of New Mexico to ask how pandemic-related risk factors, especially voter age along with partisanship influenced voter decision-making. To identify causal factors, we use a difference-in-differences design and hazard model that compare 2020 general election and primary voter behavior to 2018 and 2016. We find that age and party were large factors in vote mode decisions in 2020, but not in 2016 or 2018. We consider the implications of our findings on how health risk and partisanship interact to influence decision-making.

Albo crosses the line: the Labor win in the 2022 Australian federal election

ABSTRACT Labor has won a slim majority in the House of Representatives in the 2022 Australian federal election. Labor pursued a ‘small target’ strategy, focusing on economic issues. Labor and the Coalition combined won only about two-thirds of the primary vote. The new government faces a deteriorating economy and significant energy issues. However, Labor will make climate action a higher priority, also giving attention to such matters as a constitutionally enshrined indigenous ‘voice’ to parliament and a federal integrity commission. Internationally, Labor claims to be more effective than the Coalition, with some prospect of improved relations with China.

Who Feels the Bern? An Analysis of Support for Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic Primary

Researchers remain divided over the cause of Bernie Sanders’ strong appeal in recent Democratic primaries, alternately positing identity or ideology as decisive drivers of Sanders support. Using data from 2020 Nationscape, we conduct linear probability models that show how identity, ideology, and their interaction all explain Sanders support. Demographically, we find that Sanders voters are disproportionately young, Hispanic, and Independent. Sanders voters also differ significantly from other Democratic primary voters across several ideology variables, and are especially supportive of policies that were central to Sanders’ campaign, such as providing government-run health insurance to all Americans. Finally, we demonstrate that age cohort, the most important predictor of Sanders support, has an effect that is highly dependent upon key ideology variables. Overall, those who did not vote for Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary are quite demographically and ideologically distinct from those voters that “felt the Bern.”

Party over preference? Strategic primary voting in the age of outsiders*

AbstractObjectiveSome primary voters cast their ballot for a candidate they do not most prefer in hopes that doing so will increase their party's chances of winning the general election. However, the emergence of party “outsider” candidates challenges prevailing assumptions about the persuasive pull of electability arguments on voter decision making. In this project, we analyze whether and when supporters of “outsider” candidates resolve strategic dilemmas relative to supporters of “insider” candidates.MethodsWe administer survey experiments to Republicans and Democrats immediately before the 2016 and 2020 primaries, respectively.ResultsAlthough voters in both parties are willing to vote strategically, there are critical differences when it comes to the loyalty primary voters feel to outsider primary candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.ConclusionStrategic voting decisions are not based merely on electability, particularly in the case of “outsider” candidates. Scholars should integrate additional factors into future work on voter behavior in primaries.

Divisions in the Big Tent: Group Sentiments and Candidate Preferences within the Democratic Party

Work in political psychology has found that the two major political parties are sorted based on individual’s group attachments. This sorting has resulted in the Democratic Party’s electorate and elites being made up of members from various racial, religious, and social groups. Given this heterogeneity, how do social group identities impact voter preferences in the Democratic primary? Based on social identity theory, I hypothesize that an individual’s feelings toward racial or gender groups should be associated with their candidate preference in the primary election, but only when a candidate’s group identities are known. Using the 2018 American National Elections Studies (ANES) pilot and a nationally diverse survey of 2020 Democratic primary voters, I find that the strength of sentiments toward racial or gender identities is associated with candidate preference and this association is conditioned by the ability to link the candidates to racial or gender groups. This paper shows that the effects of group identity extend beyond simply sorting individuals into one of the two major parties and have the potential to create group-based divisions within the “big tent” of the Democratic Party.

Pragmatic bias impedes women’s access to political leadership

Progress toward gender equality is thwarted by the underrepresentation of women in political leadership, even as most Americans report they would vote for women candidates. Here, we hypothesize that women candidates are often disadvantaged by pragmatic bias, a tendency to withhold support for members of groups for whom success is perceived to be difficult or impossible to achieve. Across six studies (N = 7,895), we test whether pragmatic bias impedes women's access to a highly significant political leadership position-the US presidency. In two surveys, 2020 Democratic primary voters perceived women candidates to be less electable, and these beliefs were correlated with lower intentions to vote for women candidates (Studies 1 and 2). Voters identified many reasons women would be less electable than men, including others' unwillingness to vote for women, biased media coverage, and higher requirements to prove themselves. We next tested interventions to reduce pragmatic bias. Merely correcting misperceptions of Americans' reported readiness for a woman president did not increase intentions to vote for a woman (Study 3). However, across three experiments (including one preregistered on a nationally representative sample), presenting evidence that women earn as much support as men in US general elections increased Democratic primary voters' intentions to vote for women presidential candidates, an effect driven by heightened perceptions of these candidates' electability (Studies 4 to 6). These findings highlight that social change efforts can be thwarted by people's sense of what is possible, but this may be overcome by credibly signaling others' willingness to act collectively.

Voter Behaviour amongst Kenyan Youths in relation to Party Primaries and General Elections: A Focus on Students at Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology during the 2017 Election Cycle

This research study was conducted in 2017 at the Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology situated in Kakamega County, Kenya. It was motivated by the desire to gain insights into the political attitudes, inclinations and perceptions of Kenyan youths towards voting in party primaries and general elections. The study site was purposively selected. The Fisher’s formula of determining sample size was used to arrive at 338 respondents who were picked through the simple random sampling procedure. Observation, structured interviews, unstructured interviews, and focus group discussions were deployed. The exploratory research design was utilized given that it was a fact-finding endeavour. Data was analyzed through descriptive statistical analysis with the aid of SPSS. It was revealed that 52% of respondents had taken part in the 2017 party primaries, 47% did not, while 1% failed to respond. A majority of respondents (88%) indicated they would participate in the 2017 general elections. Most respondents (91%) had registered to take part in the election exercise. On the importance of voting in elections, an overwhelming majority of 97% argued in favour of participation, 2% against, while 1% failed to give a clear response. The study concluded that despite electoral hurdles most youths in Kenya faced, they still recognized the importance of expressing their democratic preferences during party primaries and general elections. Key Words: Voter Behaviour, Kenyan Youths, Party Primaries, General Elections DOI: 10.7176/PPAR/11-4-09 Publication date: May 31 st 2021