A divisive primary isn’t going to cost GOP the White House.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

The analysis I've seen looks at divisive primaries in relation to the party with the White House. The conclusion is that divisive primaries have minimal effect on the challenging party. They do have an effect of the party defending the Presidency. In the period from 1864 to the present a presence or lack of a contested nomination in the incumbent party has forecast the outcome over 90% of the time.

Lichtman's Keys, huh? Let's look at the times the Democrats have the lost White House to the Republicans...

2000*
1980
1968
1952
1920
1896
1884*
1860

*-The Democrat won the popular vote. I don't think Cleveland had a serious challenger. Gore did have Bill Bradley, but that didn't last very long. The Democrats had divisive primaries in the remaining races.

It doesn't seem to be as good a predictor for the Republicans, but as they're not the incumbent party, it's not really relevant.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

The analysis I've seen looks at divisive primaries in relation to the party with the White House. The conclusion is that divisive primaries have minimal effect on the challenging party. They do have an effect of the party defending the Presidency. In the period from 1864 to the present a presence or lack of a contested nomination in the incumbent party has forecast the outcome over 90% of the time.

That makes sense when the incumbent president himself is running, but when the incumbent president isn't running, isn't there always a contested nomination battle in both parties?  I mean, even in 2000, Gore didn't run for the nomination unopposed.

Just cause there's a contest doesn't mean it's a divisive one. Gore made pretty quick work of Bill Bradley, and the elder Bush did the same with Bob Dole. Hell, even McCain had a relatively easy time once the balloting actually started. Nixon in 1960 also did not have a contest as Rockefeller and Goldwater both declined to run.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

The analysis I've seen looks at divisive primaries in relation to the party with the White House. The conclusion is that divisive primaries have minimal effect on the challenging party. They do have an effect of the party defending the Presidency. In the period from 1864 to the present a presence or lack of a contested nomination in the incumbent party has forecast the outcome over 90% of the time.

That makes sense when the incumbent president himself is running, but when the incumbent president isn't running, isn't there always a contested nomination battle in both parties?  I mean, even in 2000, Gore didn't run for the nomination unopposed.

Just cause there's a contest doesn't mean it's a divisive one. Gore made pretty quick work of Bill Bradley, and the elder Bush did the same with Bob Dole. Hell, even McCain had a relatively easy time once the balloting actually started.

By that standard, every Republican contest in the post-reform era except 1976 was quick and bloodless.  Sure, things can get resolved pretty quickly once the voting starts.  But so what?  I think it's a bit of a reach to try to draw grand conclusions when lumping together elections from pre- and post-McGovern/Fraser reforms, incumbent presidents running vs. their successors running, etc.  There are only so many presidential election to choose from, and lumping these things together in this convoluted way, including making arbitrary decisions about what counts as "divisive", seems like a reach.

Like I said, it doesn't predict things as well when Republicans are the incumbents, but it seems to be pretty solid when Democrats are, as they are now. 2000's the only election since 1884 that Democrats lost (as the incumbents) when their nominee had a bloodless path to the nomination, but Gore did win the popular vote.