bq. Which factors allowed the Democratic Party to heal the rift created by the 2008 presidential nominating campaign? Using original data from surveys of 449 pledged delegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, this research examines the conditions under which the delegates for one candidate embrace the opposing candidate. Specifically, when do delegates for Barack Obama embrace Hillary Clinton, and vice versa? The results demonstrate that Clinton delegates’ network centrality in the convention caucus network exacerbates, rather than heals, the rift in the party. Clinton delegates’ friendship networks perpetuate the rift when they are homophilous, but contribute to healing when they are heterophilous. Network effects influence the attitudes of Clinton delegates toward Obama, but not the perspective of Obama delegates toward Clinton. Experience with party institutions and views on intra-party democracy contribute to healing the rift for both sets of delegates. Clinton’s endorsement of Obama moved Obama’s delegates in her direction, but failed to sway her own supporters.
That’s from a new working paper by Michael Heaney, Seth Masket, Joanne Miller, and Dara Strolovitch. (See also Seth’s post.) So, other things equal Clinton delegates at the center of party networks (measured with participation in various party caucuses) were more constrained and less likely to support Obama. But those who described their personal network of friends as including Obama supporters (a “heterophilous” network) were more likely to support Obama themselves, presumably because of some kind of persuasive interaction with these friends. Those with more experience in party institutions and who expressed more support for majority rule were also more likely to embrace Obama.
Interestingly, these factors were less relevant in explaining whether Obama supporters embraced Clinton supporters. But a main factor was simply Clinton’s speech endorsing Obama: Obama supporters interviewed after the speech were more likely to view Clinton delegates favorably.
Essentially, this paper is trying to adjudicate between two visions of social networks. In one vision, these networks are what builds trust and cooperation — particularly within a diverse party organization. In another vision, these networks can also foment cliquishness and factionalism. Heaney et al. conclude that the latter is as important or more important than the former.