Sorting Out the Effects of Primary Divisiveness in Congressional and Senatorial Elections

IN LAMENTING the use of the direct primary as a nominating device, V.O. Key (1946: 169) warned of unforeseen consequences flowing from a system that . . placed a premium on individualistic politics rather than on the collaborative politics of party. Clearly, one of the unexpected consequences is the divisive primary. Individualistic camp4igns that highlight intraparty factionalism are a natural byproduct of the direct primary. If supporters of losing candidates fail to rally behind the nominee, then this suggests a direct relationship between primary divisiveness and general election outcomes. The theoretical rationale of the divisive primary hypothesis has two foundations. Although the foundations are conceptually distinct they are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, researchers have reasoned that followers of losing candidates develop a psychological attachment to their candidates. The psychological framework rests firmly on the notion that individuals develop a positive affect toward a candidate during the primary season and that their attachment is reinforced throughout the primary battle. Sullivan (1977-78: 637) assumes a psychological attachment and contends that the primary season .. can only serve to increase the psychological investment toward candidates. Kenney and Rice (1987) in step with Sullivan (1978) contend that individuals' attachments to candidates are similar to the loyalties social-psychologists have observed among members of small groups engaged in conflict over scarce resources. Individuals develop intense loyalties to their group, the ingroup (i.e., their candidate) and foster hostilities toward the out-group (i.e., the other candidate). The psychological perspective stands in contrast to the notion of sour grapes or what Southwell (1986) calls disgruntlement. Individuals may simply become angry at the winning candidate and find it impossible to support the nominee in the general election, even though they may not be psychologically attached to another candidate. The source of the displeasure may be as sophisticated as policy differences or as simple as concerns over style or personality.