Reddit reviews The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

People who don't like Nate's predictions (because he says their candidate is going to lose) have always liked to attack Nate as wrong and not knowing what he's talking about.

There's a very legitimate track of criticism against Nate this cycle. One that I followed since last August and one that Nate himself ended up confessing was true: How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump

Nate's not a political scientist. As a pundit he's no more informed than the average pundit, and way less informed than the (rare) knowledgeable pundit. He and many at 538 screwed up in 2015, because they'd tried to fill the Political Science shaped hole in their data journalism by adopting The Party Decides theory. Which wasn't stupid, this was the most popular theory in Political Science up till this year, just so happens 2016 is the election cycle that pretty much proved The Party Decides theory wrong (or at least no longer applicable in the 21st century). So the 538 lost their fig leaf and the gaps in their knowledge was exposed for everyone to see.

But they're still great at data journalism. They've acknowledged their mistakes, which already puts them ahead of 99% of pundits, and unlike in 2015 now in 2016 they've got actual polls and data to work with so imo they are now delivering truly great stuff very much worth following.

Also, I picked Nate Silver for the attention grabber and ease, but he wasn't the only person doing demographic predictions. Nate Cohn did a lot, to name just one other, with equal success. And the demographic models only got more predictive as they got more actual primary voting data to go on.

One of the most-discussed current theories of American politics is "The Party Decides," which basically argues that party members (Governors, Senators, Representatives, as well as party leaders at state and local levels) play a much larger role in selecting their party's Presidential nominee than most people realize. Many primary voters end up following endorsements and other signals from these leaders about what candidate is best for the party. This is why, despite the Tea Party and other right-wing movements that have been around for at least a decade, moderate 'establishment' candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney have actually won the nomination.

Based on that theory, it is very likely that the 2016 Republican nominee will be someone with experience in political office whose views fall within the mainstream of the party. That excludes Trump and Carson. It also strongly suggests that the nominee will be someone that most of the party members like and get along with, which excludes Cruz. Rubio at this point seems to be the candidate with the most support who has government experience and mainstream party views. The fact that the GOP isn't lining up behind him yet is most likely because they don't like or trust him. My prediction is that they'll come around to him when it becomes clear that the other establishment candidates (Bush, Christie, Kasich) are not going to pick up enough support to win.

Edit: Jonathan Chait examines a few theories about why the GOP establishment hasn't coalesced behind Rubio yet.

I keep running into people who think that Hillary cleared the field just by convincing everyone that she was the best person for the job and balk at the idea that she locked up intra-party support by boxing out potential challengers from party institutions so she wouldn't get obama'd. I've got a couple sources to that effect but I could use more. Here's the way i put it:

>It's access to donors, access to policy think tanks, and access to key interest groups etc. The main theroetical text that's cited by political commenters is the party decides. By their very nature, field-clearing is a secretive process that happens behind closed doors, because making such discussions public is inherently damaging to the legitimacy of the primary process.

>A few examples that were made public:

>Warren was told by donors not to run

>Biden was told by Obama not to run

>Wonks: "Clinton has achieved such overwhelming party insider support that the Sanders campaign is largely cut off from access to the kind of para-party policy wonk universe that would allow Sanders to release campaign proposals that pass muster by the traditional rules of the game."

>The belief that everyone lined up behind hillary because of admiration and the idea that a primary was damaging (which isn't empirically true, but remains a talking point anyway) was a polite fiction designed to foster primary unity.

No one has called this out yet? Have you read Nate Silver's reasonings behind Sanders having no chance and Trump maybe having some?

Silver and FiveThirtyEight largely believe that the party decides. Which means ENDORSEMENTS are the biggest indicator of which candidate is the most likely to be the nominee, not poll numbers.

Trump has somewhat of a chance because the Republican party is historically divided. His huge poll numbers have a chance of dazzling the public before the Republican party can get behind a candidate, which will force the party to support him or else they face splitting their base if they refuse to endorse him. This is why you have people like Graham and Pataki dropping out in quick succession because they're doing what's best for the party.

There's a lot going on with Republicans that clears a path for Trump to maybe get it. Meanwhile, Clinton is literally the most supported party candidate in the history of elections on planet Earth. Short of a scandal worse than watergate or her death, her support isn't going anywhere. Not to mention, Silver has already wrote about how it's misguided to compare Sanders to Trump.

And just for kicks, since you seem like the type of person who's going to have some misguided optimism in February when Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, FiveThirtyEight already predicted that Sanders would win those two states and then lose everywhere else.

Maybe you should read what the most accurate statistician actually thinks before criticizing him?

This is just untrue. From the very beginning, there were [voter issues in Iowa all the way to Arizona] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html) There was a [voter purge in NY] (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/officials-investigating-why-126000-voters-were-purged-from-ny-rolls/) and [California had bizarre voting rules] (http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/california-voter-suppression-election-fraud-primary-lawsuit-examples-photos-registration-changes/). I am not implying that Clinton's campaign rigged the primaries because the primaries were [always set up to serve power] (https://www.amazon.com/Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations-American/dp/0226112373)

It's not even really Nate's theory to begin with.

https://www.amazon.com/Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations-American/dp/0226112373

Theres a very famous book in political circles called 'the party decides.' Basically they analyzed every election before and after and got a feel for who the party wanted to nominate before the primaries and who they actually ended up nominating. They found that the president is always, without exception, picked by the party. So if trump won, that means the establishment didnt throw everything they had at stopping him

https://www.amazon.com/Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations-American/dp/0226112373

All well and good to accuse people of being shills, but that doesn't make them wrong. Silver and Enten have both addressed why the missed on trump several times. As I'm sure you would agree that a lot was different this election. Most notably divergence from traditionally held ideas about primary contests and the effect of party elites. Even in this year at least on the dem side Endorsements turned out to be a pretty good predictor.

The latter predictive was more unfavorable toward Trump because Trump had almost no establishment support, which prior to this electoral cycle had been a very reliable indication of a dead-in-the-water candidate.

The presidential primaries started out as optional, non-binding referenda held by the parties to see how candidates selected by party elites would fare in elections. There have been various reforms that made them more binding over the years, but historically they were generally just a way to weed out the unelectable candidates.

The early voting states vote early due to historical accident more than anything else, but now there are interests vested in keeping them early. Iowa set their caucus date early when the Democrats made major primary reforms in 1968 and they've been there since. As the primaries have become more important, the influence of going first has grown and Iowa and NH have worked to make sure they keep voting early by moving their dates up whenever someone tries to leapfrog them.

I'd recommend reading The Party Decides if you're interested in the primaries. The analysis doesn't include 2016, there might be something more recent that takes it into account, but I'd recommend it anyway.

I mean you say that but there have been very clear efforts by the leaders of the republican party to stop Trump. Trumps entire candidacy has pretty much debunked the party decides.

Clinton was also one of the most popular figures in America prior to being the nominee. Things change once elections start. Yall think that the GOP would just let a "socialist" run without trying to take him down, really? You think that Trump's alt right base was mad about women but wouldn't go absolutely nuts on a Jew? You think Bernie, in his bubble, was better equipped to deal with a bully than Clinton, who spent a career brushing off bullshit and hate on a national level?

The DNC absolutely, under no circumstances, preferred Trump to Bernie. Man, you gotta better understand coalition politics. I'd start with something like this.

> I see where you're coming from, but with Trump now at over 40% in polls against 12 or 13 other candidates, I'd say it's the GOP's loyalties that aren't in line with the party.

I'd agree, but generally, when such situations happen, the party elites generally have more sway than the general public. That's the general thesis of this book. There are tons of situations where the poll-leader ended up losing the nomination.

Basically, the party can act as a biased referee in a sports match. They have a lot of ability to manipulate how decisions are made or adjust schedules or scenarios to essentially penalize candidates they don't like, and donate money to PACs for or against candidates.

That's the reason people like McCain and Romney usually end up winning. They're more appealing to the establishment, for lack of a better term. Trump isn't as appealing because he is unlikely to keep in line for the sake of the party or the benefits of the higher ups in the party.

Trump actually winning would be very unprecedented and the first time really in modern history that such an upset happened. The party clearly wanted Bush or Christie, and Rubio is kind of controversial as a backup as he leans toward Tea Party. Trump might end up happening because party elites seem more focused on stopping Cruz than Trump and can't decide on a candidate.

Ben Thompson explored Facebook's effect on elections two years ago:

> This [engaging content rising to the top] is a big problem for the parties as described in The Party Decides. Remember, in Noel and company’s description party actors care more about their policy preferences than they do voter preferences, but in an aggregated world it is voters aka users who decide which issues get traction and which don’t. And, by extension, the most successful politicians in an aggregated world are not those who serve the party but rather those who tell voters what they most want to hear.

As South China Morning Post points out, if your candidate selection process is hijacked, you only get the illusion of control.

Look at the recent Italian election. The recently formed Five Star Movement gained 31% of the votes earlier this month.

From Bloomberg:

> The five stars in its name represent the five issues it cares most about: public water, sustainable transport, sustainable development, the right to internet access and environmentalism.

Meanwhile, Americans traffic the conventional wisdom that a vote for the environmentalist or libertarian fringe candidate will have an adverse affect on that voter's preferences. Every American, like me, who was offered Bush vs Kerry AND Clinton vs Trump in their voting lifetime has an obligation to evangelize something like the alternatives offered in /r/endFPTP.

> Where in the world did you get that?

It's "The Party Decides" analysis - still a major theory in American political science, even if the Republican party seemed to completely fail at it in 2016.

I didn't say blindly, just that party establishment leaders at all levels have a large amount of influence over primary voters, especially when they decide to work together.

And in the beginning of this cycle endorsements was considered a major factor. The book The Party Decides was much discussed and part of why people expected Bush to walk away with the election. They were wrong, but wrong in hindsight does not mean it was a bad idea. And since that was the idea then Clinton's massive number of endorsements would have gotten plenty of media coverage. Rather than simply being a number buried it would have been story after story.

>Hence, I say bring on endorsements to the Democrats and expose more for not putting their beliefs into their actions. That will make it easier to get ALL corrupted politicians out (so we can dream).

I really have no idea what that means.

And if they hadn't picked Obama, Kennedy, and Reagan, they would have picked McCain, Nixon, and Carter, none of whom were terrible choices either. Primaries are not especially democratic and before this year "The Party Decides" was the prevailing theory for how nominees were effectively chosen. It's only when the party elites have lost control over the electorate that we end up with candidates like Trump. It's no secret that the DNC was dealing behind the scenes to give Clinton an edge over Sanders, as they should.

I've been saying from the beginning that the process, that the party insiders have the opportunity to ultimately control who gets the nomination, is wholly undemocratic. I'm not using it now as an convenient excuse to explain Bernie's loss.

If you want to increase voter turnout, you have to instill some confidence in the American people that their vote actually counts and that they have a say in the outcome.

In the last general election, 25% of the people who didn't vote had said they did not vote because they felt that their vote would not matter. A majority of Democrats said that the 2016 primaries had not been a good way of determining the best-qualified nominees.

If you want the voters to be more enthusiastic when they vote and that you want them to vote Democratic, we need to ensure that the entire election process is more democratic. Primaries included.

ETA:

In March 2016, WaPo wrote that superdelegates have strong incentive to follow public input. But that didn't happen. In several states you would see that some superdelegates would refuse to be bound with their constituents despite the fact Bernie had won a large majority for that state primary or caucus.



State | Result | Margin | HRC supers | Bernie supers | Total supers
---|---|----|----|----|----
Vermont | 86%-14% | 72% | 5 | 5| 10
Alaska | 80%-20% | 60% | 1 | 1 | 4
Washington | 73%-27% | 46% | 11 | 0 | 17
Hawaii | 70%-30% | 40% | 5 | 2 | 9
Democrats Abroad | 69%-31% | 38% | 2.5 | 0.5 | 3
Kansas | 68%-32% | 36% | 4 | 0 | 4
Maine | 64%-36% | 28% | 4 | 1 | 5
Minnesota | 62%-38% | 24% | 12 | 2 | 16
New Hampshire | 60%-38% | 22% | 6 | 1 | 8
Colorado | 59%-41% | 18% | 9 | 0 | 12
Wisconsin | 57%-43% | 14% | 9 | 1 | 10
Wyoming | 56%-44% | 12% | 4 | 0 | 4

Additional reading - The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform

> Throughout the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, politicians and voters alike worried that the outcome might depend on the preferences of unelected superdelegates. This concern threw into relief the prevailing notion that—such unusually competitive cases notwithstanding—people, rather than parties, should and do control presidential nominations. But for the past several decades, The Party Decides shows, unelected insiders in both major parties have effectively selected candidates long before citizens reached the ballot box.

>The DNC is a private organization that fields and funds candidates that run our government. You cannot entirely separate the two.

I agree that fielding candidates for public office intertwines the DNC in government. But this intertwinement is not the same as actually being the government. What’s at issue here is the Democratic Primary, not the General Election.

This is an important distinction.

Historically, even after the modern primary system replaced smoke-filled backrooms, the party establishment has always signaled its preferences to the base and created procedural mechanisms to skew the playing field in favor of its preferred candidate and against insurgent outsiders. That sucks when you’re backing the outsider. But it’s not surprising. It’s par for the course. In fact, people were openly calling for the Republican Party to do it to Trump.

I don’t condone Wasserman-Schultz’s antics. She deserved to lose her chairmanship. As a progressive Democrat who didn’t vote for Clinton in the primary, I wonder whether a fairer playing field would have yielded a different outcome. I’d like to see such a playing field. But my concerns about the fairness of the Democratic Primary pale in comparison to the prospect of losing the General.

> Also, you're doing exactly what the corporate media is doing

And what, exactly, is that? What sources in the monolithic corporate media am I parotting, exactly?

> probably at the behest of the DNC:

I wish I got paid to express my political views. That actually seems like a pretty cool gig. Much better than what I do for a living now. Where can I apply?

>distract from the real information being leaked by ... focusing on who is to blame for the leaks (i.e. witch hunt) and

Show me where I’m “focusing” on blame or engaging in a “witch hunt.”

In response to your agreement with Putin's comments, I merely stated that the identity of the hacker(s), as well as their motivations, taken in light of the fact that these leaks are likely selective, are relevant things to know when considering the leaked information itself. I never said—and don’t believe—that the leaked information is not worth considering at all, or that the information was fabricated. In fact, Wasserman-Schultz’s resignation tends to show that it wasn’t.

But it’s also not a fabrication to say that Assange has an agenda beyond neutral let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may sunshine. He’s not releasing information as soon as he obtains it. Rather, he’s timing the release for maximum political effect. He’s trying to influence the election.

I’m sorry, but that’s not a side story or distraction.

> ... character assassinate Assange so people pay less attention to the real information he leaks.

Stating facts about Assange—such as his having an agenda, or noting that he’s said that he plans more strategically-timed leaks—isn’t character assassination. By all means, look at the information. But know where it’s coming from and what the objective of the leak is.

>You're part of the problem.

If you say so.