Next, a discussion about National Political party nominations, scandal, and comebacks, as well as rules changes for the 2016 election. This is part of the state of the parties conference. It runs just under two hours. We have four papers to be presented. We hope you will have great interest in what they present. More than anything else, we hope you will have Great Questions because this group of individuals have not only studied what has been, but are giving us perspective of what is to come. I think youll find their perspectives very interesting. About party a paper power and the causal effects of endorsements. Seth is at the university of denver and eric is at the public posse institute of california. I will shut up and let them talk. Whats were here presenting this on behalf of our other co authors. We are trying to come up with a measurement of the impact of a Party Endorsement in a primary, which is traditionally a tricky thing to measure. Study toing a fun case do this. This is t
Nominations i dont have my line in here but you only have a few that are not competitive. Versus incumbent renominations that rarely are these things competitive. Betweennd difference these indicators, democrats versus republicans. There is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. Campaigns contents are bit more competitive overall. Republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. Intraparty trends. This is perhaps the most fascinating thing as far as looking ahead toward 2016 and beyond. Haveratic nominations become somewhat less competitive over time. This is suggesting democratic a couple of things. One, the Democratic Party is a little more unified. It also could mean perspective candidates are little more strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. Republican nominations in contrast, basically competitive in the 1970s. Ray nagin reagan comes along and you have a great deal of unity in the party and that maybe fragmenting in