Trump, Sanders and the Future of Parties
Jan 26, 2016 2:25 PM EST
By Jonathan Bernstein
Many scholars, myself included, have long argued that political parties control presidential nominations. The rise of insurgent candidacies in the 2016 race, however, has led some to conclude that this time is different, that the theory is wrong or that it may be days away from being proved wrong. Given the vigorous debate, lets go through what the theory is, what it isnt, and why its important.
Nate Silver explained the theory this week in a very useful column about "The Party Decides," the much-cited book that lays out one version of the idea of party control. For Silver, the book's thesis boils down to: You ought to pay attention to what influential people who care about a party nomination are doing, since they can have a lot of say in the outcome.
The influential people Silver is talking about are those I call party actors -- the politicians, campaign and governing professionals, formal party officials and staff, donors and activists, and party-aligned interest groups and media who make up U.S. political parties. They care deeply about nominations because these define parties, and determine not only the choice of candidate, but also the party agenda and priorities.
For my money, saying parties can have a lot of say in the outcome understates their role: Parties have determined nominations from the 1980s through 2012. But other party scholars would probably be more comfortable with the more modest claim.
An important distinction is that were talking about nominations, not pre-Iowa polls or individual primaries. So the Washington Post's Dan Drezner is wrong to say that the theory predicts that Hillary Clinton will win Iowa and New Hampshire and that those primaries are an easy test. The test is whether Clinton, who has overwhelming support from party actors, wins the Democratic nomination.
MORE...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-26/trump-sanders-and-the-future-of-parties