A Rigged Game? How Candidate, Partisan, and Electoral Factors Shape Elite Support for the Party Nomination Process

The 2016 presidential nominations revealed deep, yet distinct, divisions within each major party. These divisions persisted and permeated the general election campaign and were reflected in voters’ dissatisfaction with the candidates. Movements such as the “Bernie or Bust” supporters and the “Never-Trumpers” indicated that vocal portions of the parties were dissatisfied with the party nominees or the processes that selected those candidates. There were also indications that many party elites were not pleased with the nomination processes or the outcome; yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which party elites support the nomination process and their party’s nominee and what explains this support. By combining the 2016 Convention Delegate Study and an original dataset of the nomination electoral rules utilized by the states, we assess how candidate, partisan, and electoral factors shape delegate support for the nomination process and nominee. Our analysis reveals that candidate and party-centric explanations better explain delegate views toward the nomination process and nominee than factors related to the electoral context.

“Deal me in”: Hillary Clinton and gender in the 2016 US presidential election

Hillary Clinton’s nomination as the first female presidential candidate to represent a major party in the 2016 US presidential election represented a key moment in US history. The focus on her gender during the campaign was intensified following the accusation by Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, that Clinton was “playing the woman card”. The present article explores US media constructions of Clinton’s orientation to the topic of gender during the presidential campaign. Data were identified by searching the Lexis Advance® database between 4 February 2016 and 8 November 2016. Using a qualitative methodology guided by a Critical Discursive Psychology approach, we identify two discursive repertoires that were repeatedly mobilised in these media accounts: 1) a repertoire in which the principle of merit was used to undermine arguments for gender equality, and 2) a repertoire in which Clinton’s espoused version of feminism was undermined as ‘old-fashioned’. These repertoires functioned to de-legitimise Clinton as a political candidate by positioning her as seeking special treatment as a woman, who played the victim of sexism and was out of touch with the interests and concerns of female voters. We demonstrate how attempts to counter such characterisations can be problematic for female leaders.

Climate Change in the 2019 Canadian Federal Election

In the weeks before the 2019 federal election, climate change strikes occurred in Canada and across the globe, which may have increased the salience of this policy issue. We use two data sources to examine the role of climate change in the 2019 federal election: a representative survey of 1500 Canadians and 2109 Facebook posts from the five major party leaders. After accounting for political ideology and region, we find that concern about climate change was a strong positive predictor of liberal support. We triangulate these findings by analyzing Facebook posts. We find that left-wing politicians were more likely to post about climate change and that posts about climate change received more likes, comments, and shares than other posts. This higher level of user engagement did not differ depending on which political party posted the climate change message. The combination of sources offers news insights into citizen-elite interactions and electoral outcomes. Climate change was important in the election, whether this importance was measured through survey data or user engagement with leaders’ climate change posts.

Brexit and party change: The Conservatives and Labour at Westminster

This article analyses the extent of party change in response to the vote for Brexit in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. It focuses particularly on how both parties struggled to manage internal divisions and ideological conflict, and how each sought to manage the issue in terms of party competition. It argues that the Conservative Party victory at the 2019 UK general election was the result of an ultimately more effective response to the electoral dynamics unleashed by Brexit, as the party adjusted its position to successfully mobilise the coalition of Leave voters into party competition, while Labour struggled to do the same with Remain voters. In short, it suggests that substantial party change, particularly by the Conservatives, effectively averted major party system change and the realignment of British politics many analysts predicted. This case study analysis consequently contributes to the wider theoretical literature on external system shocks and party change.

Candidate name order effects in New Hampshire: Evidence from primaries and from general elections with party column ballots

Research in a few U.S. states has shown that candidates listed first on ballots gain extra votes as a result. This study explored name order effects for the first time in New Hampshire, where such effects might be weak or entirely absent because of high political engagement and the use of party column ballots. In general elections (in 2012 and 2016) for federal offices and the governorship and in primaries (in 2000, 2002, and 2004), evidence of primacy effects appeared in 86% of the 84 tests, including the 2016 presidential race, when Donald Trump gained 1.7 percentage points from first listing, and Hillary Clinton gained 1.5 percentage points. Consistent with theoretical predictions, primacy effects were larger in primaries and for major-party candidates in general elections than for non-major-party candidates in general elections, more pronounced in less publicized contests, and stronger in contests without an incumbent running. All of this constitutes evidence of the reliability and generalizability of evidence on candidate name order effects and their moderators.

Looking back at the past: image of the Soviet Union in the politics of memory the parties (by the example of materials of elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation of the VI and VII convocations)

Almost three decades have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union; however, there is still no unity towards its history – various political actors interpret it differently. Analysis is conducted on the politics of memory of the parties that participated in the last two election campaigns in reference to the Soviet period. The goal of article is to determine the parties with own politics of memory; assess the attitude of the political parties on the Soviet history as a whole and isolated key events; as well as describe experience of using the politics of memory in electoral cycle. The opposition parties – the CPRF, LDPR, Yabloko, PARNAS, and the Communists of Russia – most actively referred to the politics of memory. The center of political attention became the history of the Soviet period, to which different approaches were applied. The liberal parties criticized the USSR and advocated decommunization, while the left-wing parties notices only positive aspects in the Soviet history. The LDPR offered to separate the attitude towards the Soviet regime, and the attitude towards the state. Although the political parties have not fully fulfilled their potential as the actors of the politics of memory, the development of the own strategies of interpretation of history is traced clearly. The politics of memory may evolve into a separate vector of major party politics.

The COVID States Project #19: Pandemic-related factors associated with candidate preferences

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic fallout is the defining issue of the 2020 presidential election. Over 226,000 people in the United States have died from the disease as of this writing, and the daily lives of essentially everyone in the country have been disrupted in some way. It is unsurprising, then, that citizens consistently rated the pandemic as the most important problem facing the country throughout the summer (our team plans to publish a deeper dive into the issues voters see as most important later this week on covidstates.org).Moreover, the major party presidential candidates have taken markedly different stances regarding the threat that the pandemic poses, and how to best address it through changes to personal behaviors and public policy. President Trump has generally downplayed the threat posed by the virus by encouraging the resumption of activities from in-person public school to major sporting events, repeatedly claiming that the virus will eventually go away on its own, and continuing to hold campaign rallies (even while he himself was at risk of infecting others with the virus). By contrast, Joe Biden has expressed skepticism that the country is ready to return to normal, endorsed more direct government intervention to mitigate the spread of the disease, and adopted a more socially-distant campaign in general.While the pandemic has certainly commanded a plurality of attention during this campaign season, it remains unclear how it will influence the election’s outcome. Levels of concern regarding the pandemic and support for pandemic-related public policy measures are sharply divided along partisan lines, which is likely at least in part due to the polarized messages communicated by partisan leaders regarding the severity of COVID-19. And while economic downturns of the scale we are currently experiencing would normally predict serious electoral problems for an incumbent president, the unusual nature of this recession − precipitated by deliberate changes to the domestic economy, with the goal of slowing the spread of a deadly disease − may make voters reluctant to blame President Trump for the poor economic conditions.In this report, we provide preliminary evidence regarding one aspect of the relationship between the ongoing pandemic and the 2020 election. Specifically, we ask about the degree to which vote choice is associated with attitudes and behaviors regarding the pandemic, and whether the pandemic may be making voters who would otherwise be likely to support Donald Trump for re-election reluctant to do so. Throughout, our analysis is restricted to likely participants in the two-party contest this November − that is, respondents who say they are registered to vote, are very likely to vote in the 2020 election or have already voted, and are supporting Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or are undecided.

The Expression of Religion and Identity in International Funding

Donor preference is a significant component that can either promote or inhibit sustainable development results, yet the involvement of private donors in international development work has not yet been examined in academic literature. Models for integrative negotiation in funding processes have been proposed, but without having the voice of donors present in literature, all previous negotiation models are incomplete because a major party to the negotiation is absent from the model. Conflict analysis and resolution is a new approach that will bring clarity to the role of private donors in international development work and generate integrative solutions for donors to employ in their work should they choose. This phenomenographic study analyzed the content, process, identity, and relational aspects of conflict in private international development projects through the viewpoint of donors. The research goals were to (1) generate understanding about how private donors understand their role in the international development work they fund, (2) ascertain how donors experience conflict in the course of this work, and (3) determine which conflict resolution techniques can be integrated to align their intentions, resources, and outcomes more accurately. The purposive snowball sample was comprised of six donors who fund private international work outside the US. The interrelated culmination of knowledge generated from this study demonstrates a broad landscape of experiences that describe how donors experience conflict and what may motivate them to consider alternative behaviors that can change the course of their work.

From a Farmhand to the Head of an Institute: Life of the Historian Otto Augustovich Lidak

The history of the Bolshevik party figured prominently in the reform of postrevolutionary Soviet science. After the Civil War, many revolutionaries who took accelerated special learning courses subsequently became professors and heads of newly organized academic institutions. Their aim was to prepare new ideologically strong specialists for the country. However, despite their considerable contribution to higher education in the prewar USSR, a significant number of “red professors” became victims of repression in the 1930s. Otto Augustovich Lidak — one of the main Leningrad historians of the Bolshevik party in the 1930s — was a bright representative of this generation. As a Bolshevik in the Civil war, he traveled from Lithuania to the Siberian city of Minusinsk and from Petrograd to Persia. Having all the necessary qualities (social background, revolutionary experience, connections, etc.), O. A. Lidak was able to build a successful academic career within a short period. At various times, he was the head of the Institute of History of the CPSU(b) and the Communist Institute of Journalism. He was also a professor in the Leningrad branch of the Communist Academy, Communist University, Leningrad State University. Finally, he was an active member of the Society of Marxist Historians, the Society of Former Political Prisoners and Exiles, etc. Thus, he was involved in the work of all the major party institutions that prepared “pro-Soviet” cadres. This article considers the milestones of Lidak’s biography and also explores his contribution to the historiography of the Russian Revolution.

Money for Nothing? Financing the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential Nomination Campaigns

The aim of the paper is to analyze the relationship between campaign money and winning the 2016 and 2020 presidential nominations in the United States. While in the last two decades of the twentieth century candidates who raised most money almost always became major party nominees, the record is mixed for presidential cycles 2004-2012. By comparing various dimensions of campaign finance, including activities of candidates' campaign committees and outside groups, the Author demonstrates that while successful fundraising, resulting in dozens of millions of dollars at the disposal of candidates, seems necessary to run a competitive campaign, raising the most money is no longer pre-requisite for becoming major party presidential nominee.