Dumping Trump and Electoral Bumps: The Causes and Consequences of Republican Officeholders’ Endorsement Decisions
-
Nicole Asmussen Mathew
Nicole Asmussen Mathew is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Oakland University in Rochester, MI.
Abstract
Endorsement of the party’s nominee by the vast majority of that party’s top elected officials is a foregone conclusion in most presidential campaigns. But in 2016, Republican lawmakers were slow to endorse Donald Trump, lackluster in their enthusiasm, and a substantial number never endorsed or withdrew their endorsements by the campaign’s end. What explains lawmakers’ decisions to endorse, and the timing and strength of their endorsements? I find that primary endorsements were most likely to come from anti-immigration moderates, but as the campaign wore on, conservatives and members from more Republican districts became more supportive in their endorsements. Women were highly influenced by the release of the Access Hollywood tape, while Ted Cruz’s endorsers were stingy in their support until Cruz himself issued a late September endorsement. To see if these endorsement decisions made a difference in the election, I compare the performance of endorsers and non-endorsers in the 2016 congressional elections, and I compare Trump’s performance in districts in which he was endorsed to those in which he wasn’t. Rather than the traditional presidential coattails, I find evidence of negative coattails and reverse coattails. Endorsers did about 1.7 percentage points worse than non-endorsers, while Trump did 1.4 percentage points better in districts where the incumbent Republican endorsed him.
About the author
Nicole Asmussen Mathew is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Oakland University in Rochester, MI.
Appendix
Ordered Logit Regression of Support for Trump by Republican Members of Congress, 2016.
| Endorsed as of: | Model A1 | Model A2 | Model A3 | Model A4 | Model A5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12 | May 31 | July 20 | Aug. 9 | Oct. 11 | |
| Ideology (Common Space score) | 0.799 (1.026) | 1.065 (1.053) | 0.639 (1.021) | 1.242 (1.076) | 1.881 (1.013)† |
| Anti-Immigration (Numbers USA vote score) | 0.017 (0.005)** | 0.016 (0.005)** | 0.025 (0.005)*** | 0.020 (0.005)*** | 0.011 (0.005)* |
| Female | −0.566 (0.379) | −0.351 (0.385) | 0.498 (0.380) | −0.153 (0.398) | −1.010 (0.374)** |
| Minority | 0.503 (0.648) | 0.264 (0.648) | −1.537 (0.624)* | 0.247 (0.652) | −0.517 (0.580) |
| Age | 0.038 (0.012)** | 0.042 (0.012)*** | −0.001 (0.012) | 0.036 (0.013)** | 0.004 (0.012) |
| Senator | −0.279 (0.300) | −0.587 (0.308)† | −0.356 (0.289) | −0.674 (0.312)* | −0.496 (0.297)† |
| Endorsed Cruz | −1.660 (0.380)*** | −1.526 (0.395)*** | −1.087 (0.362)** | −1.629 (0.395)*** | −0.417 (0.374) |
| 2012 Republican Two-Party Vote | 0.030 (0.021) | 0.034 (0.022) | 0.046 (0.021)* | 0.065 (0.023)** | 0.066 (0.021)** |
| Median Household Income (logged) | −0.725 (0.140)*** | −1.200 (0.143)*** | 0.236 (0.131)† | −1.019 (0.145)*** | −2.258 (0.129)*** |
| Percent Evangelicals | 0.001 (0.016) | 0.002 (0.017) | 0.003 (0.016) | −0.008 (0.017) | −0.023 (0.016) |
| Percent Mormons | 0.011 (0.016) | 0.007 (0.016) | 0.006 (0.015) | −0.006 (0.017) | −0.042 (0.016)** |
| Percent Catholic | 0.038 (0.018)* | 0.039 (0.018)* | 0.024 (0.017) | 0.029 (0.018) | 0.005 (0.017) |
| Percent Mainline Protestant | −0.008 (0.028) | −0.031 (0.029) | 0.021 (0.027) | −0.030 (0.030) | −0.042 (0.028) |
| Percent White Male No College | −0.006 (0.029) | −0.002 (0.030) | 0.060 (0.029)* | −0.030 (0.031) | −0.035 (0.028) |
| Percent Unemployed | 0.079 (0.099) | 0.192 (0.102)† | 0.193 (0.098)† | 0.156 (0.106) | −0.240 (0.099)* |
| Percent Hispanic | −0.036 (0.012)** | −0.037 (0.012)** | −0.013 (0.012) | −0.030 (0.013)* | −0.005 (0.011) |
| Trump Won State Primary | −0.060 (0.247) | −0.187 (0.260) | 0.042 (0.254) | 0.035 (0.272) | 0.509 (0.263)† |
| N | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
| AIC | 813.795 | 752.535 | 986.099 | 709.334 | 836.502 |
Coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. Intercept not shown.
†p<0.1, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 (two-tailed test).
References
Anderson, Christopher L. 2013. “Which Party Elites Choose to Lead the Nomination Process?” Political Research Quarterly 66 (1): 61–76.10.1177/1065912911430669Search in Google Scholar
Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise. 2016. “Legislators Say They’ll Support Trump.” June 12. URL: http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/news/state/legislators-say-they-ll-support-trump.Search in Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Laura W. Arnold, and Christopher J. W. Zorn. 1997. “The Strategic Timing of Position Taking in Congress: A Study of the North American Free Trade Agreement.” The American Political Science Review 91 (2): 324–338.10.2307/2952359Search in Google Scholar
Bradner, Eric. 2016. “Paul Ryan: I’m just not ready’ to back Donald Trump.” CNN. May 6. URL: https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gop-nominee/index.html.Search in Google Scholar
Brune, Tom. 2016. “Peter King: Paul Ryan will try to unite GOP behind Donald Trump.” Newsday. May 12. URL: https://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle/peter-king-paul-ryan-will-try-to-unite-gop-behind-donald-trump-1.11793394.Search in Google Scholar
Bycoffe, Aaron. 2016. “The Endorsement Primary.” FiveThirtyEight.com. June 7. URL: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/.Search in Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Christopher Zorn. 2004. “Strategic Timing, Position-Taking, and Impeachment in the House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (4): 517–527.10.1177/106591290405700401Search in Google Scholar
Cillizza, Chris. 2016. “Dear Republicans: ‘Endorse’ and ‘support’ mean the same thing.” The Washington Post May 17. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/17/dear-republican-candidates-you-cant-have-it-both-ways-with-donald-trump/?utm_term=.6580040542c0.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226112381.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Glazer, Amihai, Robert Griffin, Bernard Grofman, and Martin Wattenberg. 1995. “Strategic Vote Delay in the US House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20: 37–45.10.2307/440148Search in Google Scholar
Hasecke, Edward B., Scott R. Meinke, and Kevin M. Scott. 2013. “Congressional Endorsements in the Presidential Nomination Process: Democratic Superdelegates in the 2008 Election.” American Politics Research 41 (1): 99–121.10.1177/1532673X12450906Search in Google Scholar
King, Ritchie, and Kshitij Aranke. 2016. “The Seven Levels of Trump Support in Congress.” FiveThirtyEight.com. July 20. URL: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-7-levels-of-trump-support-in-congress/.Search in Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad, Scott Lucas, Seth Masket, and Eric McGhee. 2015. “Kingmakers or Cheerleaders? Party Power and the Causal Effects of Endorsements.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (3): 443–456.10.1177/1065912915595882Search in Google Scholar
Krieg, Gregory, Jim Acosta, Jeremy Diamond, Manu Raju, and Tom LoBianco. 2016. “Rubio not interested as Trump narrows VP list.” CNN. May 10. URL: https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/marco-rubio-donald-trump-vice-president/index.html.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Huchen, and Gary C. Jacobson. 2018. “Republican Candidates’ Positions on Donald Trump in the 2016 Congressional Elections: Strategies and Consequences.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 48 (1): 49–71.10.1111/psq.12414Search in Google Scholar
Massie, Christopher. 2016. “Pat Toomey On Trump As The Nominee: ‘I Guess This Is Where We Are.’” BuzzFeed News. May 6. URL: https://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/pat-toomey-on-trump-as-the-nominee-i-guess-this-is-where-we?utm_term=.gsJdAO9KM#.icJVKpv2x.Search in Google Scholar
Mathew, Nicole Asmussen. 2018. “Evangelizing Congress: The Emergence of Evangelical Republicans and the Polarization of Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 43 (3): 409–455.10.1111/lsq.12200Search in Google Scholar
Pathe, Simone. 2016. “Vulnerable Freshman Thinks Trump Will ‘Win It All.’” Roll Call. March 28. URL: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/vulnerable-freshman-thinks-trump-will-win.Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Amber. 2016. “The 10 most tortured Republican responses to Donald Trump.” The Washington Post. May 20. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/20/the-10-most-tortured-republican-responses-to-donald-trump/?utm_term=.d192132b1a4c.Search in Google Scholar
Schoenberger, Robert A. 1969. “Campaign Strategy and Party Loyalty: The Electoral Relevance of Candidate Decision-Making in the 1964 Congressional Elections.” The American Political Science Review 63 (2): 515–520.10.2307/1954704Search in Google Scholar
Singer, Paul. 2016. “Exclusive: USA TODAY Survey Shows that a Quarter of Elected Top Republicans won’t Endorse Trump.” USA Today. Oct. 11. URL: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/10/11/elected-republicans-not-supporting-donald-trump-president-congress-governors/91913668/.Search in Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P. 2007. “Who Wins Nominations and Why?: An Updated Forecast of the Presidential Primary Vote.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 91–99.10.1177/1065912906298597Search in Google Scholar
Steger, Wayne P. 2008. “Interparty Differences in Elite Support for Presidential Nomination Candidates.” American Politics Research 36 (5): 724–749.10.1177/1532673X07311542Search in Google Scholar
Tartar, Andre, and Kendall Breitman. 2016. “The Donald Trump GOP Unity Tracker.” Bloomberg Politics. May 31. URL: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-31/the-donald-trump-gop-unity-tracker.Search in Google Scholar
Thorson, Mitchell. 2016. “Who Supports Trump?” USA Today. Oct. 11. URL: https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections/trump-support/.Search in Google Scholar
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Articles
- Moral Foundations, System Justification, and Support for Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election
- Explaining and Predicting Midterm Congressional Election Outcomes: Factoring in Opposition Party Strategy
- Dumping Trump and Electoral Bumps: The Causes and Consequences of Republican Officeholders’ Endorsement Decisions
- Using Journal Impact Factor to Assess Scholarly Records: Overcorrecting for the Potter Stewart Approach to Promotion and Tenure
- Deconstructing Popular Mythologies about Millennials and Party Identification
- Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election
- “One Difficulty…of a Serious Nature”: The Overlooked Racial Dynamics of the Electoral College
- The Myth of the Bipartisan National Popular Vote Plan
- Book reviews
- Review of Choosing the Leader: Leadership Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives
- Review of Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Articles
- Moral Foundations, System Justification, and Support for Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election
- Explaining and Predicting Midterm Congressional Election Outcomes: Factoring in Opposition Party Strategy
- Dumping Trump and Electoral Bumps: The Causes and Consequences of Republican Officeholders’ Endorsement Decisions
- Using Journal Impact Factor to Assess Scholarly Records: Overcorrecting for the Potter Stewart Approach to Promotion and Tenure
- Deconstructing Popular Mythologies about Millennials and Party Identification
- Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election
- “One Difficulty…of a Serious Nature”: The Overlooked Racial Dynamics of the Electoral College
- The Myth of the Bipartisan National Popular Vote Plan
- Book reviews
- Review of Choosing the Leader: Leadership Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives
- Review of Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America
