By Seth Masket and Julia Azaria |
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott has formally filed the paperwork to enter a presidential nominating contest that, by some measures, looks a lot like previous ones. That is, there's an obvious leader in the polls whom everyone knows about, and challenges from lesser-known rivals. The leading candidate has vulnerabilities that competitors are trying to exploit, and they've been doing the usual candidate things like visiting Iowa and New Hampshire and preparing for the candidate debates that will start this summer. But the informal rules that have governed these contests in the past have frayed, leading to far greater unpredictability in just how this competition will unfold. In 2016, Donald Trump skeptics sought refuge in an informal set of rules that had emerged in response to the primary changes of the 1970s. Those changes had led to a dramatic increase in the number and importance of primary elections and caucuses. As a result, party voters (rather than party leaders) now seemed to be in control of nominations. But after the 1970s revisions, party elites found other ways of getting the sorts of candidates they wanted by coordinating with one another and steering money and endorsements toward the candidates they thought were reliable and electable, and away from riskier ones. This is a preview of Seth Masket and Julia Azaria's latest article. Read the full column here. |
