What Went Down In The Indiana Primary

Now that we can call Trump the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, I suppose, Democrats seem to be bouncing back and forth between glee and panic. Which is the more evidence-based emotion? Back when we thought political science mattered, there were two pretty consistent schools of thought that suggested candidates and campaigns were less important than news reports often suppose. Election forecasts based on what political scientists like to call the “fundamentals” — the state of the economy, how long the incumbent party has been in office, and how popular the incumbent is — are usually pretty accurate. Second, polarization has emerged as a powerful force in American politics. With an electorate that’s pretty set in its party preferences, it’s not too hard to figure out what the vote might look like. All of this suggests that the GOP nominating a wild card like Trump doesn’t matter that much. But candidates do sometimes underperform based on what the “fundamentals” suggest, and campaigns may well play a role in helping voters figure out the cues from the political environment. In particular, voter mobilization seems to have been a big part of the story for Obama’s last two campaigns. Mobilization is perhaps the biggest question mark for a Trump general-election candidacy. He’s made some friends within the elite party tent, but not that many. Will the party coalesce around him and mobilize on his behalf? Or does the candidate really matter when it comes to inspiring these efforts?