A Rigged Game? How Candidate, Partisan, and Electoral Factors Shape Elite Support for the Party Nomination Process

• Author: Gregory Shufeldt,Caitlin E. Jewitt
• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211022317
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211022317

American Politics Research

2021, Vol. 49(6) 681 –694

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X211022317

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

The 2016 presidential contest was a particularly bitter and

divisive affair. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ended the

campaign as the least favorable nominees in polling history

(Saad, 2016). On the Democratic side, the “Bernie or Bust”

crowd proved to be a thorn in the side of Secretary Clinton as

twelve percent of Sanders’ primary supporters voted for

Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, in the general election

(Kurtzleben, 2017). Sanders and his supporters also clamored

for, and succeeded in obtaining, reforms to address perceived

biases in the process that benefited Clinton (Rafferty, 2016).

Across the aisle, a record number of viable candidates con-

tested the open Republican seat. Even after it was apparent

that Donald Trump was going to be the nominee, questions

about this choice arose. In addition to the “Never Trump”

movement, countless elected Republican officials refused to

acknowledge their vote choice publicly or offered tepid sup-

port like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan who quipped that

the party needed a “standard-bearer that bears our standards”

(Steinhaur & Burns, 2016). Even after winning the Electoral

College (but losing the popular vote), many called for

“Hamilton Electors” or faithless electors to cast their votes

for someone other than Trump (O’Donnell, 2016).

The 2016 race provides a unique lens to assess percep-

tions of the nomination process. Both parties prominently

featured outsiders (Trump and Sanders) and allegations that

the process was “rigged,” which sprang namely from these

candidates and their supporters. On the Republican side, the

outsider won the Republican nomination without the support

of the party establishment while Democrats nominated the

insider candidate preferred by party elites. Throughout the

nomination processes and extending beyond the general

election, both voters and party elites voiced disdain about the

2016 nominees and the processes that selected them. Clearly,

some people were vocally unhappy; yet, we lack a system-

atic understanding of how rampant or deep this dissatisfac-

tion with the process and the nominees is. Jewitt (2018)

shows that most 2016 voters have negative views toward the

nomination process, but given the uproar and vocal

1022317APRXXX10.1177/1532673X211022317American Politics ResearchJewitt et al.

research-article2021

1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

2Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, USA

The Corresponding Contributor and all co-authors of the Contribution

are collectively referred to as “Contributors” and individually as a

“Contributor.”

Corresponding Author:

Caitlin E. Jewitt, Virginia Tech, 531 Major Williams Hall, 220 Stanger

Street, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.

Email: cjewitt@vt.edu

A Rigged Game? How Candidate,

Partisan, and Electoral Factors Shape

Elite Support for the Party Nomination

Process

Caitlin E. Jewitt1 and Gregory Shufeldt2

Abstract

The 2016 presidential nominations revealed deep, yet distinct, divisions within each major party. These divisions persisted and

permeated the general election campaign and were reflected in voters’ dissatisfaction with the candidates. Movements such

as the “Bernie or Bust” supporters and the “Never-Trumpers” indicated that vocal portions of the parties were dissatisfied

with the party nominees or the processes that selected those candidates. There were also indications that many party elites

were not pleased with the nomination processes or the outcome; yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of the extent

to which party elites support the nomination process and their party’s nominee and what explains this support. By combining

the 2016 Convention Delegate Study and an original dataset of the nomination electoral rules utilized by the states, we

assess how candidate, partisan, and electoral factors shape delegate support for the nomination process and nominee. Our

analysis reveals that candidate and party-centric explanations better explain delegate views toward the nomination process

and nominee than factors related to the electoral context.

Keywords

delegates, presidential nominations, party elites, support for the party