Primaries II

1. Primaries II

2. How do primary rules affect candidate behavior? • Have to win the nomination by appealing to primary voters who may demand extreme positions (depending on primary rules) • May make it more difficult to run in a moderate general election • Have to expend resources to win the nomination • May make it more difficult to win the general election (depending on timing, competitiveness of the primary)

3. Question: Do party organizations in fact try to manipulate primary elections? Under what circumstances?

4. Why would a party organization WANT to manipulate a primary election? • To conserve resources • To ensure a high quality candidate runs

5. Thesis • Parties should try to manipulate primaries when the general election is expected to be competitive, and not bother when the general election outcome is assured.

6. Conventional View of Congressional Nominations • Driven exclusively by candidate entry decisions • Strategic, sophisticated candidates think about: • National political conditions • Incumbency • District/state partisanship • Parties have little to offer, and largely stay out of nomination races

7. Hypotheses

8. Hypotheses

9. Hypotheses

10. Hypotheses

11. What could the party do to influence a primary election? • Gerrymander • Recruit/Discourage • Express unified support for one candidate • Endorsements • Financial contributions

12. Observable party elite actors • National and state party committees • Loyal partisan donors • Loyal partisan groups and PACs • Partisan elected officials • Local party officials

13. Data collected on each primary race • Data collected on each primary race: • Candidate biographies (coded for candidate quality) • Party-loyal individual donations • Party-loyal PAC contributions • National party committee donations • Elected and party official endorsements • Party-loyal group endorsements • Official state party endorsements • Dependent variable, “Party Favorite” coded based on available party support data.

14. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat Strong candidates  Many Many Few Party Involvement theory Strong candidates Many Few Few Candidate-centered theory Candidate behavior in each primary type

15. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat 2.04 (1.34) 1.53 (1.01) .88 (.72) Average number of candidates who have elected office experience (S.D.) Fewer sophisticated candidates run as general elections become more difficult to win * All between-group differences statistically significant.

16. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat 1.52 (2.08)  2.97 (2.01) 2.83 (2.15) Average difference in CPQ scores of highest and second highest quality candidates (S.D) Open-safe seats produce more hotly contested primaries * Difference between open-safe and open-competitive is statistically significant

17. Findings: Candidate Emergence • Competitive seat primaries are less hotly contested, less divisive of the party, than safe seat primaries.

18. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat Party elites Split Split Split Party Involvement theory Party elites Split Unified Unified Candidate-centered theory Hypotheses about Party Elite Behavior

19. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat 37% 65% 82% Number of races 27 40 40 Percent of each race type where there is party elite unity around one primary candidate Parties unify most often in competitive seats * Difference between open-safe and open-competitive is statistically significant

20. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat Party elites Unified Unified Unified Party Involvement theory Party elites Split Unified Unified Candidate-centered theory When only one strong candidate runs…

21. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat 6 20 16 Number of races where only one strong candidate runs 11 25 19 Number of races with unified party elites around that one candidate Percent 54% 80% 84% When only one strong candidate runs… * Difference between open-safe and open-competitive is statistically significant ** All open-safe races with unity were in Republican seats.

22. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat Party elites Split Split Split Party Involvement theory Party elites Split Unified Unified Candidate-centered theory When several strong candidates run…

23. Open-safe Open-competitive Out-party in competitive incumbent seat 3 4 6 Number of races where several strong candidates run 14 13 8 Number of races with unified party elites around one candidate Percent 21% 31% 75% When several strong candidates run…

24. Does the party unify only around obviously highly qualified candidates? • 14 races with low-quality “party favorites” • 12 in competitive seats • 2 in safe seats

25. Open-safe Open-Competitive Out-Party in Competitive IncumbentSeat Low Quality Candidate (CPQ=0) 11% 21% 33% Average Quality Candidate (CPQ=3.6) 22% 38% 54% High Quality Candidate (CPQ=7) 40% 59% 73% Likelihood of party unifying around one primary candidate, given the candidate quality score of the highest qualified candidate in the race

26. Results • Candidates enter races in response to both difficulty of winning and party needs • Elites unify most often in competitive races • Elites unify around both high and low quality candidates • Elites unify most often around any quality candidate in races to nominate challengers to vulnerable incumbents

28. Frequency overall (percent of all candidates) Frequency in sample (percent of all respondents) Won primary 171 (35%) 108 (40%) Incumbent 39 (8%) 19 (7%) Candidate elected experience Not elected State legislature Statewide Congress 194 (40%) 77 (16%) 14 (3%) 49 (11%) 122 (45%) 50 (19%) 8 (3%) 29 (11%) Elected experience 207 (43%) 129 (48%) Incumbent in the primary 136 (28%) 79 (30%) Race is competitive 287 (59%) 161 (60%) Race is guaranteed loss 66 (13.5%) 33 (13%) Race is guaranteed win 132 (28%) 75 (28%) Democrats 238 (49%) 128 (48%) Senate 71 (14.6%) 39 (14.5%) Total Respondents 269 (55%)