Ideological Primary Competition and Congressional Behavior

References

• Barber, Michael, and Nolan McCarty. 2013. “Causes and Consequences of Polarization.” In Task Force on Negotiating Agreement in Politics, eds. Jane Mansbridge and Cathie Jo Martin. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dtingley/files/negotiatingagreementinpolitics.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, Robert A. 1977. “Divisive Primaries Do Hurt: U.S. Senate Races, 1956–1972.” American Political Science Review 71 (2): 540–45. doi: 10.1017/S0003055400267440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake, Robert R., and Jane Sygley Mouton. 1961. “Reactions to Intergroup Competition under Win-Lose Conditions.” Management Science 7 (4): 420–35. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.7.4.420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boatright, Robert G. 2014. Getting Primaried: The Changing Politics of Congressional Primary Challenges. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonica, Adam. 2016. “Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections.” Public Version 2.0 [Computer File]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. https://data.stanford.edu/dime.
   Google Scholar
• Brady, David W., Hahrie Han, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (1): 79–105. doi: 10.3162/036298007X201994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burden, Barry C. 2004. “Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 211–27. doi: 10.1017/S000712340400002X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Scott de Marchi. 2002. “Presidential Approval and Legislative Success.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 491–509. doi: 10.1111/1468-2508.00136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, Jamie L., Michael Crespin, Carrie Eaves, and Emily Wanless. 2011. “Constituency Congruency and Candidate Competition in Primary Elections for the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 461–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00022.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, Jamie L., Michael H. Crespin, Carrie P. Eaves, and Emily O. Wanless. 2012. “Constituency Congruency and Candidate Competition in Primary Elections for the U.S. House.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12 (2): 127–45. doi: 10.1177/1532440012438892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Rebecca B. Morton. 1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law and Economics 14 (2): 304–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Andrew B. 2015. “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 18–42. doi: 10.1017/S0003055414000641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Andrew B., and James M. Snyder. 2015. “Candidate Ideology and Electoral Success in Congressional Elections.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e705/10256c45046afd526bebb7de1f597d60ac47.pdf?_ga=2.6213875.111619951.1553018024-212295969.1553018024
   Google Scholar
• Hassell, Hans. 2016. “Party Control of Party Primaries: Party Influence in Nominations for the U.S. Senate.” Journal of Politics 78 (1): 75–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 2012. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 8th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, Caitlin E., and Sarah A. Treul. 2014. “Competitive Primaries and Party Division in Congressional Elections.” Electoral Studies 35: 140–49. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2014.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanthak, Kristin, and Rebecca Morton. 2001. “The Effects of Electoral Rules on Congressional Primaries.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, eds. Peter F. Galderisi, Marni Ezra, and Michael Lyons. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., chapter 8, 116–31.
   Google Scholar
• Kenney, Patrick J., and Tom W. Rice. 1984. “The Effect of Primary Divisiveness in Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” Journal of Politics 46 (3): 904–15. doi: 10.2307/2130861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenney, Patrick J., and Tom W. Rice. 1987. “The Relationship between Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1): 31–44. doi: 10.2307/2111323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, David C. 1998. “Party Competition and Polarization in American Politics.” Presented at the 1998 Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) annual meeting, Chicago, IL. https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/dking/ExtremePolitics.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lawless, Jennifer, and Kathryn Pearson. 2008. “Primary Competition and Polarization in the House of Representatives.” Presented at the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA) annual Meeting.
   Google Scholar
• McGhee, Eric, Seth E. Masket, Boris Shor, Steven Rogers, and Nolan McCarty. 2014. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 337–51. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12070.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrander, Barbara, and Jay Wendland. 2016. “Open versus Closed Primaries and the Ideological Composition of Presidential Primary Electorates.” Electoral Studies 42: 229–36. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, Jason M., Jacob F. H. Smith, and Sarah A. Treul. 2016. “Party Committee Targeting and the Evolution of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 26 (1): 96–114. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2015.1103744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sides, John, Chris Tausanovitch, Lynn Vavreck, and Christopher Warshaw. 2018. “On the Representativeness of Primary Electorates.” British Journal of Political Science, 1–9. doi: 10.1017/S000712341700062X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southwell, Priscilla L. 1986. “The Politics of Disgruntlement: Nonvoting and Defection among Supporters of Nomination Losers, 1968–1984.” Political Behavior 8 (1): 81–95. doi: 10.1007/BF00987593.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, Walter J. 1986. “The Carryover Effect in Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 80 (1): 271–79. doi: 10.2307/1957095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, Denis G. 1977. “Party Unity: Appearance and Reality.” Political Science Quarterly 92 (4): 635–45. doi: 10.2307/2148848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware, Alan. 1979. “Divisive Primaries: The Important Questions.” British Journal of Political Science 9 (3): 381–4. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400001861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichowsky, Amber, and Sarah E. Niebler. 2010. “Narrow Victories and Hard Games: Revisiting the Primary Divisiveness Hypothesis.” American Politics Research 38 (6): 1052–71. doi: 10.1177/1532673X10369660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zipp, John F. 1985. “Perceived Representativeness and Voting: An Assessment of the Impact of ‘Choices’ vs. ‘Echoes’.” American Political Science Review 79 (1): 50–61. doi: 10.2307/1956118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar