THE 2016 presidential primaries have been a study in contrasts. Among Democrats, every party heavyweight save Hillary Clinton declined to run. As a result—despite the best efforts of Bernie Sanders—Mrs Clinton has amassed an all-but-insurmountable lead. On the Republican side, 16 different candidates entered the race with at least a faint hope of winning. The subsequent struggle has been so protracted that betting markets currently put the odds of a “brokered convention”—which occurs if no candidate wins a majority of delegates—at nearly 40%.
Which party will benefit from this imbalance? Democratic leaders—who have been accused of scheduling debates at times of low viewership in order to undermine challengers to Mrs Clinton—seem to believe the “divisive-primary hypothesis”, an argument in political science that candidates who overcome a rocky road to the nomination are likely to underperform in November. To be sure, survivors of rancorous primaries face numerous pitfalls. They often have to take ideologically extreme positions to appeal to partisans, making it harder for them to broaden their appeal later on. They must squander...Continue reading
Source: United States http://ift.tt/1SeZzMR
EmoticonEmoticon