DIVISIVE PRIMARIES AND GENERAL-ELECTION OUTCOMES - ANOTHER LOOK AT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS

Theory: The divisive primary hypothesis asserts that the more divisive the presidential primary contest compared to that of the other party the fewer votes received in the general election. Thus the party candi date with the most divisive primary will have a more difficult general election fight. However, studies at the presidential level have faile d to consider candidate quality, prior vulnerability of the incumbent president or his party, the national nature of the presidential race, and the unique context of each presidential election campaign. Once th ese factors are taken into account presidential primaries should have a more marginal or even nonexistent effect in understanding general el ection outcomes. Hypothesis: Including appropriate controls for electi on year context in a state-by-state model and creating a national mode l that controls for election year context, candidate quality, and the nature of the times should diminish the effect of nomination divisiven ess on general election outcomes. Methods.-Regression analysis is used to examine the effect of presidential divisive nomination campaigns o n general election outcomes. Results: Once election year context in th e state-by-state model is controlled for, divisiveness has a much more modest effect. This modest effect does not appear to change general e lection outcomes. In addition, the election year model, which posits t hat presidential elections are national elections and not state-by-sta te elections, indicated that divisiveness was not significantly differ ent from zero.