The 2008 presidential nomination was marked by the most aggressive frontloading in recent history; the process was a mess from the outset. Frontloading is the trend in recent presidential nominations in which states schedule their primaries and caucuses near the beginning of the delegate-selection season to have a greater impact on the process. In 1976, 10% of the delegates had been chosen by March 2. In 2008, 70% of the delegates had been chosen by that same date. As part of their ongoing efforts to address frontloading and other problems, both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) revised the schedules and rules for 2008 presidential primary elections and caucuses.

https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=polisci_pubs

Reforming the Presidential Nomination Process

This paper analyzes the utility of using information contained within Twitter posts in predicting electoral outcomes. Particularly, we are interested in patterns in Twitter communications that can help explain differences between published opinion polls and the actual vote. We consider three categories of models. The first is a mentions model that examines the correspondence between the prevalence of communications about a candidate and electoral outcomes. The second series of models treat Twitter similar to a prediction market, aggregating not candidate preferences but predictions of the electoral result. Last, we consider whether the rediffusion of tweets about a candidate is a reliable predictor of the candidate's performance. The results find inconsistent support for the predictive value of Twitter mentions as an estimate of the overall vote, but these communications provide some evidence of otherwise undetected shifts in momentum with respect to the aggregated predictions of candidate performance and message rediffusion via retweets containing information about a particular candidate. Given the nature of the information extractable, these data are most sensitive to detecting changes in momentum.

Psephological investigations: Tweets, votes, and unknown unknowns in the republican nomination process

Psephological Investigations: Tweets, Votes, and Unknown Unknowns in the Republican Nomination Process’, Policy & Internet, , .

Despite very different historical and constitutional bases for how we nominate presidential candidates and elect presidents to office, as well as very different political processes (sequential versus simultaneous voting), both the presidential nominating process and the Electoral College are rooted in state elections, not a national election, and both create state winners and losers. States that vote early in the nomination process benefit, as do battleground or "swing" states in the general election, especially small population states. There are widespread concerns that too much attention is paid to Iowa and New Hampshire, which vote first in the presidential nomination process (Squire 1989; Winebrenner 1998), and to Ohio and Florida, which often play a pivotal role in the general election. Today, there are repeated calls to reform both the presidential nomination process and the Electoral College. Under riding calls for reform of both processes is a desire for fairness and consistency. One solution that appears to have broad appeal is to nationalize elections by adopting a national primary and a national popular vote, circumventing the Electoral College. In this paper, we consider how the public may evaluate such proposals against competing factors that may reduce support. We use a 2008 national panel survey to test the importance of state-based self-interest in support for reform of the Electoral College and nomination process. We expect that people will support reform of presidential elections based on the interest of their state (long-term factors) and will change their opinions about reform based on electoral outcomes (short-term factors). Our analysis shows that citizen opinions on nationalizing presidential elections through a national primary or national popular vote for president are based on strategic decisions defined by short-term electoral politics and long-term self-interest rooted in an individual's state. We find that citizens voting for winning candidates and those who reside in states that have a great deal of influence in the current system are far less supportive of reform than either partisan losers or those living in states that have less influence under the current rules. We argue that a combination of these short and long-term influences shapes support for nationalizing U.S. presidential elections, reforms that an increasing number of citizens and political elites are taking seriously. Reform Efforts to Nationalize Presidential Elections Support for changing election rules in the United States has been gaining momentum since the contested 2000 presidential election, which was followed by a lengthy legal battle in Florida that ultimately ended with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. The decision resolved the dispute in Florida, which handed George W. Bush the presidency even though the Democratic candidate, Vice President AI Gore, had won some 500,000 more votes nationwide. Only on rare occasions in American history has the popular vote winner been defeated, but the controversial election created ripple effects in motivating efforts to reform American elections. But in other ways, the events of 2000 were not new. Since the Civil War, one-third of all presidential candidates and winners of the Electoral College have been elected with a plurality rather than a majority of the national popular vote (Donovan and Bowler 2004). When one considers those voting for the losing presidential candidate and a losing third-party candidate (Perot, Nader, etc.), a majority of Americans who cast a vote for president are on the losing side about a third of the time in recent presidential elections. Some suggest that the failure to secure a majority may continue in the future with the rise of independents and dissatisfaction with the two major political parties (Blais 2008). No other country uses an Electoral College to mediate between a national or direct/popular vote for presidential candidates and the winner. …

/pdf/polls-and-elections-support-for-nationalizing-presidential-1ufa0bbzhr.pdf

Polls and Elections: Support for Nationalizing Presidential Elections

Introduction Presidential debates, whether in the general election or during the preprimary and primary seasons, have long held a fascination for not just political junkies and the press corps, but also for the general public. These events often attain large viewing audiences hoping to not only catch glimpses of insight into their presumptive leaders' policy positions, but also to compare these competitors in terms of intelligence, personality, and values. While viewership might be diminished during primary debates, with mainly dedicated partisans paying close attention, these events can play a key role in defining who the major contenders for a party's nomination will be, leading to change in opinions toward, and support of, candidates among the undecided (Benoit, McKinney, and Stephenson 2002, 316; Fridkin et al. 2007; Lanoue and Schrott 1989; Yawn et al. 1998). However, as noted by Hillygus and Jackman (2003, 595) "the effect of a campaign event depends on previous preferences, partisan dispositions, and political context," a finding seen more specifically in debate audiences (Benoit and Hansen 2004; Benoit, McKinney, and Stephenson 2002; Lang and Lang 1978; Munro et al. 2002; Yawn et al. 1998). Although policy positions certainly play a role in candidate assessment, during debates they take a back seat to viewer evaluation of candidate performance, with primary debates focusing on policy less and character more than general election debates (Benoit 2011). As a result, self-presentation and connection with the audience, both live at the debate venue and watching via mass media (Peifer and Holbert 2013), is important for conveying personality and character--of which nonverbal behavior plays an important role. Competing candidates walk a fine line between assertiveness and politeness toward their opponents (Bull and Wells 2002; Dailey, Hinck, and Hinck 2005; Pfau and Rang 1991; Seiter and Weger 2005; Seiter et al. 2010) in which mastery of their facial displays (Newton et al. 1987; Patterson et al. 1992; Stewart 2012; Stewart and Ford Dowe 2013; Stewart, Salter, and Mehu 2009; Sullivan and Masters 1988), body language (Dumitrescu, Gidengil, and Stolle 2015; Gentry and Duke 2009; Koppensteiner and Grammer 2010; Koppensteiner, Stephan, and Jaschke 2015; Kramer, Arend, and Ward 2010), and vocal behavior (Gentry and Duke 2009; Kalkhoff and Gregory 2008) plays a key role in viewer assessment. Although research on nonverbal behavior by candidates, and how it communicates intelligence, personality, values and stress levels, is a burgeoning field (Bucy 2011; Bucy and Bradley 2004; Dumitrescu, Gidengil, and Stolle 2015; Grabe and Bucy 2009; Koppensteiner, Stephan, and Jaschke 2015), relatively little attention has been given to audience attention to the candidates and their response in the form of applause, laughter, and boos. (1) While other nonverbal cues can have an effect on the viewing audience, especially if greater attention is given the candidates in terms of their speaking time, perhaps more important for those watching the televised coverage is how the debate audiences react to the candidates. This is because primary debates, which by their nature involve in-group competition among the candidates for the mantle of leadership, may be seen as relying upon the mobilization of support from the audience that is audibly evidenced through laughter and applause. Lanoue and Schrott (1989, 305n.7) note in their analysis of a 1984 Democratic Party presidential primary debate "that the two candidates most often interrupted by applause and laughter in Dallas (Jackson and Gore) were the ones most often chosen by our subjects as having 'won' the debate." Furthermore, primary debates are much more raucous affairs than general election debates, with substantially more applause and laughter. Specifically, Stewart (2012) found nearly two and four times more audience laughter, respectively, in preprimary and primary debates when compared with the general election debates during the 2008 presidential election. …

Polls and Elections: Do the Presidential Primary Debates Matter? Measuring Candidate Speaking Time and Audience Response during the 2012 Primaries

This article explores how results from Iowa may affect outcomes in subsequent nomination contests. We suggest that how Iowa matters may be determined, at least in part, by how voters and the news media assess whether or not candidates meet or exceed expectations there.

/pdf/beyond-expectations-effects-of-early-elections-in-us-1oqfcj9a29.pdf

Beyond Expectations: Effects of Early Elections in US Presidential Nomination Contests

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Rob Hunsaker

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Beyond Expectations: Effects of Early Elections in US Presidential Nomination Contests