IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v112y2018i03p509-524_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Punishes Extremist Nominees? Candidate Ideology and Turning Out the Base in US Elections

Author

Listed:
  • HALL, ANDREW B.
  • THOMPSON, DANIEL M.

Abstract

Political observers, campaign experts, and academics alike argue bitterly over whether it is more important for a party to capture ideologically moderate swing voters or to encourage turnout among hardcore partisans. The behavioral literature in American politics suggests that voters are not informed enough, and are too partisan, to be swing voters, while the institutional literature suggests that moderate candidates tend to perform better. We speak to this debate by examining the link between the ideology of congressional candidates and the turnout of their parties’ bases in US House races, 2006–2014. Combining a regression discontinuity design in close primary races with survey and administrative data on individual voter turnout, we find that extremist nominees—as measured by the mix of campaign contributions they receive—suffer electorally, largely because they decrease their party’s share of turnout in the general election, skewing the electorate towards their opponent’s party. The results help show how the behavioral and institutional literatures can be connected. For our sample of elections, turnout appears to be the dominant force in determining election outcomes, but it advantages ideologically moderate candidates because extremists appear to activate the opposing party’s base more than their own.

Suggested Citation

  • Hall, Andrew B. & Thompson, Daniel M., 2018. "Who Punishes Extremist Nominees? Candidate Ideology and Turning Out the Base in US Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 509-524, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:112:y:2018:i:03:p:509-524_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055418000023/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steven Callander & Juan Carlos Carbajal, 2022. "Cause and Effect in Political Polarization: A Dynamic Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(4), pages 825-880.
    2. Yi Liu & Pinar Yildirim & Z. John Zhang, 2022. "Implications of Revenue Models and Technology for Content Moderation Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 831-847, July.
    3. Stommes, Drew & Aronow, P. M. & Sävje, Fredrik, 2023. "On the Reliability of Published Findings Using the Regression Discontinuity Design in Political Science," I4R Discussion Paper Series 22, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    4. Sarah Binder, 2020. "How we (should?) study Congress and history," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 415-427, December.
    5. Schnakenberg, Keith & Turner, Ian R, 2023. "Dark Money and Politician Learning," SocArXiv 3bzex, Center for Open Science.
    6. Robert Chuchro & Kyle D'Souza & Darren Mei, 2019. "Dancing with Donald: Polarity in the 2016 Presidential Election," Papers 1901.07542, arXiv.org.
    7. Morelli, Massimo & Gennaro, Gloria & Lecce, Giampaolo, 2021. "Mobilization and the Strategy of Populism Theory and Evidence from the United States," CEPR Discussion Papers 15686, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Raghul S. Venkatesh, 2020. "Political activism and polarization," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(5), pages 1530-1558, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:112:y:2018:i:03:p:509-524_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.