National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012

In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. To capture the full impact of divisiveness in presidential campaigns, one must estimate both the impact of national party division (NPD) and the impact of divisive primaries in individual states. To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistent—varying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.     

“Commitment Through the Work of Art,” “Commitment Through the Name”: The Case of French Directors of “Social Films” in the 1990s–2000s

What is the commitment of left-leaning artists and intellectuals in a context where the legitimacy of politics and party activism is being called into question? The analysis of the case of the French directors who have made films dealing with social issues in the 1990s–2000s shows the complexity of the boundaries between art and politics and of the possible modes of commitment through their works and/or their name. Some directors who have made one or several films dealing with the working classes in France in this period have been associated with the label “social cinema” by the critic, as well as social scientists or “anti-globalization” activists. Despite the differences in their social and professional backgrounds, they all have in common the rejection of this label, opposing “social cinema” to artistic recognition and carefully distinguishing their artwork from commitment. In order to stabilize their careers and meet professional success, they often have to move from working class issues to more valued topics and from a realistic aesthetic to a more distinguished one. They mostly commit their names for the defence of the “independence of cinema” and for humanitarian causes, rather for more overtly political or partisan issues. More generally, this case study illustrates the forms and repertoires of commitment open to artists and intellectuals in the 1990s–2000s, showing how they try to use their professional skills and resources (including their notoriety) in the service of certain causes without jeopardizing their artistic autonomy, by distancing themselves both from partisan politics and from “commercial cinema.”