The activists decide: the preferences of party activists in the 2016 presidential nominations

ABSTRACT

One view of presidential nominations in the United States [Steger, Wayne P. 2007. “Who Wins Presidential Nominations and Why: An Updated Forecast of the Presidential Primary Vote.” Presidential Research Quarterly 60: 91–97; Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Silver, Nate. 2016. “The Republican Party May Be Failing.” FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-may-be-failing/] claims that the support of political elites is causally related to success in the nomination. The mechanisms for this relationship include party activists, who follow the cues party leaders send and provide necessary support to candidates in primaries and caucuses. This mechanism has not been explicitly tested. This paper explores the preferences of party activists in light of the unified elite preferences among Democrats and the lack of such unity among Republicans. Some activists in each party resist the signals from elites, but the resistance is far less widespread in the Democratic Party, where party leaders exhibited consensus support for the eventual nominee.     

Healing the Pain

The World Bank released its Global Economic Prospects 2010 in June, saying global economic recovery is advancing with developing countries leading it. But high-income countries’     

Ellen Krüsemann: Biotopverbund im Naturschutzrecht

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Welfare gains from optimization in dynamic planning models

This paper compares the results of two multisectoral models used to plan the dynamic consistency of sectoral investment. Solution of an optimizing model forecasts a frontier of the economy's future choice set. This frontier represents a ten year welfare gain only 2 or 3 percent greater than any investment program simulated by a dynamic Leontief system. The paper explains what efficient behavior accounts for the “better” performance of the optimizing model. Developing dynamic programming models is costly in terms of data, computational complexity, man-machine interaction, and solution interpretation. Therefore, it is recommended that the lessons derived by working with the dynamic LP be applied to improve the planner's control of the less expensive input/output simulation model.