Mobilizing Marginalized Groups among Party Elites
-
Seth E. Masket
Seth Masket is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Denver. His research focuses on political parties, state and local politics, campaigns and elections, and social networks. He is the author ofNo Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, 2009).
,
Michael T. Heaney
Michael T. Heaney is Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies and Political Science at the University of Michigan. His research focuses on the political sociology of interest groups, social movements, and political parties, especially as they interact through social networks. With Fabio Rojas, he is co-author ofParty in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11 , forthcoming from Cambridge University Press in 2015.Dara Strolovitch is an Associate Professor at Princeton University, where she teaches in the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, the Department of Politics, and the Center for African American Studies. Her research explores the politics of marginalization, interest groups and social movements, and the intersecting politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality. She is the author ofAffirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics (University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Abstract
The Democratic Party has long used a system of caucuses and councils to reach out to marginalized groups among convention delegates. This article tests two hypotheses about how this system works within the party. First, the Parties in Service to Candidates Hypothesis holds that caucuses and councils mobilize elites from marginalized groups to increase support for the party nominee. Second, the Group Solidarity Hypothesis holds that caucuses and councils mobilize elites from marginalized groups to enhance group solidarity. Regression analysis of data drawn from an original survey of delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention provides no support to the Service Hypothesis, while the evidence supports the Solidarity Hypothesis in the case of the Women’s Caucus, which became a rallying point for women who were disappointed that Hillary Clinton was not the Democratic Party nominee. A similar survey of delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention did not uncover a parallel system of representing marginalized groups within the Republican Party.
About the authors
Seth Masket is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Denver. His research focuses on political parties, state and local politics, campaigns and elections, and social networks. He is the author of No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, 2009).
Michael T. Heaney is Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies and Political Science at the University of Michigan. His research focuses on the political sociology of interest groups, social movements, and political parties, especially as they interact through social networks. With Fabio Rojas, he is co-author of Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press in 2015.
Dara Strolovitch is an Associate Professor at Princeton University, where she teaches in the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, the Department of Politics, and the Center for African American Studies. Her research explores the politics of marginalization, interest groups and social movements, and the intersecting politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality. She is the author of Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics (University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Acknowledgments
All authors contributed equally to this project. Authors’ names have been ordered based on a predetermined rotation scheme across multiple articles. The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Science Foundation, Small Grants for Exploratory Research #0842474 and #0842371. Survey assistance at the Democratic National Convention was provided by Abby Brown, Art Bamford, Jeffrey Chehuan Shen, Jessa Claeys, Tess Cromer, Mariko Frame, Caitlin Hedberg, Rebecca Hellman, Matt Lieber, Joanne Miller, Jonathan Muellner, Liza Negriff, Adrienne Rosenberg, Kate Sender, Morgan Speer, Katy Troyer, Oscar Wen, and Roxolana Wynar. At the Republican National Convention, assistance was provided by Aaron Cotkin, Aaron Rapport, Adam Dahl, Andrew Twite, Arjun Kataria, Ashly Rieland, Bridget Rathsack, Di Wu, Emilie Gein, Libby Sharrow, Margaret Loeffelholz, Matt Cravens, Matthew Jacobs, Robert Goldaris, Shana Conklin, Joanne Miller, Stephanie Murib, and Yi Zhan. The authors are grateful for helpful suggestions from Daniel DiSalvo, Jo Freeman, Paul Frymer, Joanne Miller, Byron Shafer, and an anonymous employee of the Democratic National Committee. Suzanne Luft assisted in creating Figure 2.
References
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Seth Masket, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–597.10.1017/S1537592712001624Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226112381.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Cole, Elizabeth R., Alyssa N. Zucker, and Joan M. Ostrove. 1998. “Political Participation and Feminist Consciousness among Women Activists of the 1960s.” Political Psychology 19 (2): 349–371.10.1111/0162-895X.00108Suche in Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–167.Suche in Google Scholar
Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Democratic National Committee. 2010. The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States. Amended August 20. http://www.democrats.org/pdf/.../Charter_and_Bylaws_2010-08-20 (November 28, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
Dodson, Debra L. 1990. “Socialization of Party Activists.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1119–1141.10.2307/2111474Suche in Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. 1998. “Bill Clinton and His Crisis of Governance.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 28 (4): 754–760.Suche in Google Scholar
Freeman, Jo. 1986. “The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” Political Science Quarterly 101 (3): 327–356.10.2307/2151619Suche in Google Scholar
Freeman, Jo. 1987. “Whom You Know Versus Whom You Represent.” In The Women’s Movements of the United States and Western Europe, edited by Mary Katzenstein and Carol Mueller, 215–244. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 2010. Uneasy Alliances. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Goss, Kristin A. 2006. Disarmed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Goss, Kristin A., and Michael T. Heaney. 2010. “Organizing Women as Women.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 27–52.10.1017/S1537592709992659Suche in Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L. and Taeku Lee. 2011. Why Americans Don’t Join the Party. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400838776Suche in Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition.” Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79.Suche in Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1985. “The Political Economy of Group Membership.” American Political Science Review 79 (1): 79–96.10.2307/1956120Suche in Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T., and Fabio Rojas. 2007. “Partisans, Nonpartisans, and the Antiwar Movement in the United States.” American Politics Research 35 (4): 431–464.10.1177/1532673X07300763Suche in Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T., Seth E. Masket, Joanne M. Miller, and Dara Z. Strolovitch. 2012. “Polarized Networks.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (12): 1654–1676.10.1177/0002764212463354Suche in Google Scholar
Herrera, Richard. 1993. “Cohesion at the Party Conventions.” Polity 26 (1): 75–89.10.2307/3234996Suche in Google Scholar
Jamal, Amaney. 2005. “The Political Participation and Engagement of Muslim Americans.” American Politics Research 33 (4): 521–544.10.1177/1532673X04271385Suche in Google Scholar
Kagan, Daniel. 2008. “The Battle of Denver.” Alegre’s Corner. http://web.archive.org/web/20090605052841/http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1554 (November 30, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel P., Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809477Suche in Google Scholar
Kiely, Kathy, and Jill Lawrence. 2008. “Clinton Makes Case for Wide Appeal.” USA Today, May 8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm (November 30, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Scheve. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data.” American Political Science Review 95 (1): 49–69.10.1017/S0003055401000235Suche in Google Scholar
Kornblut, Anne, and Shailagh Murray. 2008. “Clintons Move to Ease Some Racial Friction.” Washington Post, January 12, A8.Suche in Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, John C. Green, Richard Herrera, and Rosalyn Copperman. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 324–346.10.1017/S000305541000016XSuche in Google Scholar
Li, Qiong, and Marilynn B. Brewer. 2004. “What Does It Mean to Be an American?” Political Psychology 25 (5): 727–739.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00395.xSuche in Google Scholar
Little, Roderick J. A. 1988. “Missing Data Adjustments in Large Surveys.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 6 (3): 287–296.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur, Christopher Wlezien, and Anne Hildreth. 1991. “A Reference Group Theory of Partisan Coalitions.” Journal of Politics 53 (4): 1134–1149.10.2307/2131871Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick. 2004. “Threat as a Motivator of Political Activism: A Field Experiment.” Political Psychology 25: 507–523.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00384.xSuche in Google Scholar
Mooney, Alexander. 2008. “Clinton Touts Support From ‘White Americans.’” CNN Political Ticker, May 8. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/ (November 30, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
Munger, Frank, and James Backhurst. 1965. “Factionalism in the National Conventions, 1940–1964.” Journal of Politics 27 (2): 375–394.10.2307/2128079Suche in Google Scholar
Rochon, Thomas R., and Ravi Roy. 2001. “Adaptation of the American Democratic Party in an Era of Globalization.” International Journal of Political Economy 31 (3): 12–32.10.1080/08911916.2001.11042864Suche in Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillian.Suche in Google Scholar
Pear, Robert. 1986. “Rights Unit Chief Urging Parties to Scrap Caucuses for Minorities.” New York Times, July 15, A21.Suche in Google Scholar
Preston, Julia, and Fernanda Santos. 2012. “A Record Latino Turnout, Solidly Backing Obama.” New York Times, November 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/with-record-turnout-latinos-solidly-back-obama-and-wield-influence.html (November 27, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
Sanchez, Gabriel R. 2006. “The Role of Group Consciousness in Latino Public Opinion.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (3): 435–446.10.1177/106591290605900311Suche in Google Scholar
Sanders, Lynn, Carah Ong, and Adam Hughes. 2012. “What’s Up with White Women in 2012? Nothing New!” http://millercenter/org/blog/whats-up-with-white-women-in-2012.Suche in Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.23943/princeton/9780691154848.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Shafer, Byron E. 2010. “The Pure Partisan Institution: National Party Conventions as Research Sites.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, edited by L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffrey M. Berry, 264–284. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542628.003.0014Suche in Google Scholar
Sherwell, Philip. 2008. “Hillary’s Inquisitor is Underwhelmed by Tears.” Sunday Telegraph (London), January 12. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1575396/Hillarys-inquisitor-underwhelmed-by-tears.html (November 29, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
Simien, Evelyn M. 2005. “Race, Gender, and Linked Fate.” Journal of Black Studies 35 (5): 529–550.10.1177/0021934704265899Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, Adam C. 2008. “Florida Finally Counts in Democratic Race.” St. Petersburg Times, June 1. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article569510.ece (November 29, 2012).Suche in Google Scholar
Soule, John W., and James W. Clarke. 1970. “Amateurs and Professionals.” American Political Science Review 64 (3): 888–898.10.2307/1953470Suche in Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla L. 2012. “A Backroom without the Smoke?” Party Politics 18 (2): 267–283.10.1177/1354068810376782Suche in Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226777450.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2012. “Intersectionality in Time.” Politics and Gender 8 (3): 386–396.10.1017/S1743923X12000372Suche in Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J. 2010. “Activists, Influence, and Representation in American Elections.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, 285–302. edited by L. Sandy Maisel and J. M. Berry Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542628.003.0015Suche in Google Scholar
Sullivan, Denis G., Jeffrey L. Pressman, and F. Christopher Arterton. 1976. Explorations in Convention Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Suche in Google Scholar
Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Suche in Google Scholar
Walgrave, Stefaan, and Joris Verhulst. 2011. “Selection and Response Bias in Protest Surveys.” Mobilization 16 (2): 203–222.10.17813/maiq.16.2.j475m8627u4u8177Suche in Google Scholar
Wallace, Sophia J. 2012. “It’s Complicated.” Social Science Quarterly 93 (5): 1360–1383.10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00922.xSuche in Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2011. When Protest Makes Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.1285595Suche in Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. “Explaining Women’s Rights Realignment.” Political Behavior 24 (3): 237–282.10.1023/A:1021872508054Suche in Google Scholar
©2014 by De Gruyter
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Introduction
- Even the Geeks are Polarized: The Dispute over the ‘Real Driver’ in American Elections
- The Evolution of Mass Ideologies in Modern American Politics
- Mobilizing Marginalized Groups among Party Elites
- Modern Reconstructive Presidential Leadership: Reordering Institutions in a Constrained Environment
- Independent Spending in State Elections, 2006–2010: Vertically Networked Political Parties Were the Real Story, Not Business
- The Paradoxes of Politics in Colorado Springs
- Disclosing Disclosure: Lessons from a “Failed” Field Experiment
- Book reviews
- Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War
- How Change Happens – Or Doesn’t: The Politics of US Public Policy
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Introduction
- Even the Geeks are Polarized: The Dispute over the ‘Real Driver’ in American Elections
- The Evolution of Mass Ideologies in Modern American Politics
- Mobilizing Marginalized Groups among Party Elites
- Modern Reconstructive Presidential Leadership: Reordering Institutions in a Constrained Environment
- Independent Spending in State Elections, 2006–2010: Vertically Networked Political Parties Were the Real Story, Not Business
- The Paradoxes of Politics in Colorado Springs
- Disclosing Disclosure: Lessons from a “Failed” Field Experiment
- Book reviews
- Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War
- How Change Happens – Or Doesn’t: The Politics of US Public Policy
