Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Forum

A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics

Ed. by Disalvo, Daniel / Stonecash, Jeffrey

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.397

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.476
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.331

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 12, Issue 2 (Jul 2014)


Mobilizing Marginalized Groups among Party Elites

Seth E. Masket
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Denver, Department of Political Science, 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Michael T. Heaney
  • University of Michigan, Organizational Studies Program and Department of Political Science, 722 Dennison Building, 500 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dara Z. Strolovitch
  • Princeton University, Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies and Department of Politics, 303 Robertson Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-08-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2014-5007


The Democratic Party has long used a system of caucuses and councils to reach out to marginalized groups among convention delegates. This article tests two hypotheses about how this system works within the party. First, the Parties in Service to Candidates Hypothesis holds that caucuses and councils mobilize elites from marginalized groups to increase support for the party nominee. Second, the Group Solidarity Hypothesis holds that caucuses and councils mobilize elites from marginalized groups to enhance group solidarity. Regression analysis of data drawn from an original survey of delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention provides no support to the Service Hypothesis, while the evidence supports the Solidarity Hypothesis in the case of the Women’s Caucus, which became a rallying point for women who were disappointed that Hillary Clinton was not the Democratic Party nominee. A similar survey of delegates to the 2008 Republican National Convention did not uncover a parallel system of representing marginalized groups within the Republican Party.


  • Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Bawn, Kathleen, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Seth Masket, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–597.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Cole, Elizabeth R., Alyssa N. Zucker, and Joan M. Ostrove. 1998. “Political Participation and Feminist Consciousness among Women Activists of the 1960s.” Political Psychology 19 (2): 349–371.Google Scholar

  • Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–167.Google Scholar

  • Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Democratic National Committee. 2010. The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States. Amended August 20. http://www.democrats.org/pdf/.../Charter_and_Bylaws_2010-08-20 (November 28, 2012).

  • Dodson, Debra L. 1990. “Socialization of Party Activists.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1119–1141.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edwards, George C. 1998. “Bill Clinton and His Crisis of Governance.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 28 (4): 754–760.Google Scholar

  • Freeman, Jo. 1986. “The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” Political Science Quarterly 101 (3): 327–356.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Freeman, Jo. 1987. “Whom You Know Versus Whom You Represent.” In The Women’s Movements of the United States and Western Europe, edited by Mary Katzenstein and Carol Mueller, 215–244. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

  • Frymer, Paul. 2010. Uneasy Alliances. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goss, Kristin A. 2006. Disarmed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goss, Kristin A., and Michael T. Heaney. 2010. “Organizing Women as Women.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 27–52.Google Scholar

  • Hajnal, Zoltan L. and Taeku Lee. 2011. Why Americans Don’t Join the Party. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition.” Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, John Mark. 1985. “The Political Economy of Group Membership.” American Political Science Review 79 (1): 79–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heaney, Michael T., and Fabio Rojas. 2007. “Partisans, Nonpartisans, and the Antiwar Movement in the United States.” American Politics Research 35 (4): 431–464.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heaney, Michael T., Seth E. Masket, Joanne M. Miller, and Dara Z. Strolovitch. 2012. “Polarized Networks.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (12): 1654–1676.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Herrera, Richard. 1993. “Cohesion at the Party Conventions.” Polity 26 (1): 75–89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jamal, Amaney. 2005. “The Political Participation and Engagement of Muslim Americans.” American Politics Research 33 (4): 521–544.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kagan, Daniel. 2008. “The Battle of Denver.” Alegre’s Corner. http://web.archive.org/web/20090605052841/http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1554 (November 30, 2012).

  • Kahneman, Daniel P., Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kiely, Kathy, and Jill Lawrence. 2008. “Clinton Makes Case for Wide Appeal.” USA Today, May 8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm (November 30, 2012).

  • King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Scheve. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data.” American Political Science Review 95 (1): 49–69.Google Scholar

  • Kornblut, Anne, and Shailagh Murray. 2008. “Clintons Move to Ease Some Racial Friction.” Washington Post, January 12, A8.Google Scholar

  • Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, John C. Green, Richard Herrera, and Rosalyn Copperman. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 324–346.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Li, Qiong, and Marilynn B. Brewer. 2004. “What Does It Mean to Be an American?” Political Psychology 25 (5): 727–739.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Little, Roderick J. A. 1988. “Missing Data Adjustments in Large Surveys.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 6 (3): 287–296.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Arthur, Christopher Wlezien, and Anne Hildreth. 1991. “A Reference Group Theory of Partisan Coalitions.” Journal of Politics 53 (4): 1134–1149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick. 2004. “Threat as a Motivator of Political Activism: A Field Experiment.” Political Psychology 25: 507–523.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mooney, Alexander. 2008. “Clinton Touts Support From ‘White Americans.’” CNN Political Ticker, May 8. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/ (November 30, 2012).

  • Munger, Frank, and James Backhurst. 1965. “Factionalism in the National Conventions, 1940–1964.” Journal of Politics 27 (2): 375–394.Google Scholar

  • Rochon, Thomas R., and Ravi Roy. 2001. “Adaptation of the American Democratic Party in an Era of Globalization.” International Journal of Political Economy 31 (3): 12–32.Google Scholar

  • Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar

  • Pear, Robert. 1986. “Rights Unit Chief Urging Parties to Scrap Caucuses for Minorities.” New York Times, July 15, A21.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Julia, and Fernanda Santos. 2012. “A Record Latino Turnout, Solidly Backing Obama.” New York Times, November 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/with-record-turnout-latinos-solidly-back-obama-and-wield-influence.html (November 27, 2012).

  • Sanchez, Gabriel R. 2006. “The Role of Group Consciousness in Latino Public Opinion.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (3): 435–446.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sanders, Lynn, Carah Ong, and Adam Hughes. 2012. “What’s Up with White Women in 2012? Nothing New!” http://millercenter/org/blog/whats-up-with-white-women-in-2012.

  • Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Shafer, Byron E. 2010. “The Pure Partisan Institution: National Party Conventions as Research Sites.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, edited by L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffrey M. Berry, 264–284. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sherwell, Philip. 2008. “Hillary’s Inquisitor is Underwhelmed by Tears.” Sunday Telegraph (London), January 12. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1575396/Hillarys-inquisitor-underwhelmed-by-tears.html (November 29, 2012).

  • Simien, Evelyn M. 2005. “Race, Gender, and Linked Fate.” Journal of Black Studies 35 (5): 529–550.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, Adam C. 2008. “Florida Finally Counts in Democratic Race.” St. Petersburg Times, June 1. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article569510.ece (November 29, 2012).

  • Soule, John W., and James W. Clarke. 1970. “Amateurs and Professionals.” American Political Science Review 64 (3): 888–898.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Southwell, Priscilla L. 2012. “A Backroom without the Smoke?” Party Politics 18 (2): 267–283.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2012. “Intersectionality in Time.” Politics and Gender 8 (3): 386–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stone, Walter J. 2010. “Activists, Influence, and Representation in American Elections.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, 285–302. edited by L. Sandy Maisel and J. M. Berry Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sullivan, Denis G., Jeffrey L. Pressman, and F. Christopher Arterton. 1976. Explorations in Convention Decision Making. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar

  • Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

  • Walgrave, Stefaan, and Joris Verhulst. 2011. “Selection and Response Bias in Protest Surveys.” Mobilization 16 (2): 203–222.Google Scholar

  • Wallace, Sophia J. 2012. “It’s Complicated.” Social Science Quarterly 93 (5): 1360–1383.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weldon, S. Laurel. 2011. When Protest Makes Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. “Explaining Women’s Rights Realignment.” Political Behavior 24 (3): 237–282.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Seth E. Masket

Seth Masket is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Denver. His research focuses on political parties, state and local politics, campaigns and elections, and social networks. He is the author of No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, 2009).

Michael T. Heaney

Michael T. Heaney is Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies and Political Science at the University of Michigan. His research focuses on the political sociology of interest groups, social movements, and political parties, especially as they interact through social networks. With Fabio Rojas, he is co-author of Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press in 2015.

Dara Z. Strolovitch

Dara Strolovitch is an Associate Professor at Princeton University, where she teaches in the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, the Department of Politics, and the Center for African American Studies. Her research explores the politics of marginalization, interest groups and social movements, and the intersecting politics of race, class, gender, and sexuality. She is the author of Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics (University of Chicago Press, 2007).

Corresponding author: Seth E. Masket, University of Denver, Department of Political Science, 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208, USA, e-mail:

Published Online: 2014-08-08

Published in Print: 2014-07-01

Citation Information: The Forum, ISSN (Online) 1540-8884, ISSN (Print) 2194-6183, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2014-5007.

Export Citation

©2014 by De Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Elizabeth A. Sharrow, Dara Z. Strolovitch, Michael T. Heaney, Seth E. Masket, and Joanne M. Miller
Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 2016, Volume 37, Number 4, Page 394

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in