Since 1980, more than 175 scholarly articles, chapters, or books have been published about the post-reform presidential nomination system. Numer ous authors investigate primary rules, media coverage, candidates, voters, or momentum. Less well covered are the subjects of interest groups, win nowing of candidates, campaign contributors, and connections to other phases of the presidency Research on presidential nominations has to con tend with an ever-changing environment as rules change, candidates exit the contests, and the primary season progresses from February through June. This environmental complexity adds to the challenge of investigating the first phase of the presidential selection process. Coupling this environ mental complexity with a lack of consensus among scholars on measure ment, model building, and theory leads to contradictory findings in a number of areas. Nevertheless, much has been learned about the patterns of presidential nominations.

Presidential Nomination Politics in the Post-Reform Era:

Super Tuesday 1988 was the first successful attempt to get several states in one region to hold their presidential primaries on the same day Its success--or lack thereof--will affect the way presidents are elected for many years to come Reaching beyond Super Tuesday and the nominations of George Bush and Michael Dukakis, Barbara Norrander's book presents the nation's first regional primary as the latest chapter in the ever-changing system through which US political parties choose their presidential candidates Norrander's research details how changes in technology, candidate and media strategies, and historical circumstances have influenced recent presidential nominations and how they set the stages for the South's primary in 1988 Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries emerges as an authoritative source not only on Super Tuesday but on many other aspects of presidential nominations This book demonstrates that much of current conventional wisdom about presidential nominations is wrong Norrander traces candidate strategies from 1976 to 1988 and calculates turnout rates from 1960 to 1988 She also examines the composition of the Super Tuesday electorate with respect both to preconceived notions of who participates in presidential primaries and to deliberate attempts by the Democratic and Republican parties to manipulate voter turnout in the South's regional primary Her analysis of the timing and process of nomination victories from 1976 to 1988 emphasizes the importance of the overlooked role of candidate attrition over candidate momentum Of special interest to political scientists--and to political observers--concerned with parties, elections, and votingbehavior, Norrander's book will reshape the examination of presidential contests in 1992 and beyond

Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries

Many observers of American politics have been highly critical of the proliferation of primaries that occurred in the 1970s. One of the reasons given for this unfavorable assessment is that the direct primary cannot consistently yield candidates who have broad electoral support--something that is thought necessary to win general elections. And since the major goal of parties is to win elections, this perceived shortcoming is cause for concern. In this article I show, however, that the problem lies not with the direct primary itself, but rather with the rules that govern presidential primaries. In fact, if parties would allocate delegates proportionally to candidates, adopt a preference ballot, and allow independents and "swing" voters to participate, the direct primary would offer an excellent opportunty to nominate candidates with broad support.

/pdf/rules-governing-presidential-primaries-1xnlxaq174.pdf

Rules Governing Presidential Primaries

Candidates in multicandidate presidential nomination campaigns allocate their financial resources to maximize delegates and momentum. Gurian (1986) demonstrated that, in the campaigns of 1976 and 1980, well-known established candidates emphasized delegates while relatively unknown long-shot candidates emphasized momentum. The resource allocation strategy of established candidates is based on the simple fact that the candidate with a majority of the delegates wins the nomination. The resource allocation strategy of long-shot candidates is based on financial constraints: they lack the resources to compete effectively in delegate-rich primaries; thus, they attempt to maximize momentum, which leads to greater public (including financial) support. This study extends the previous research to the 1984 and 1988 campaigns with a more fully specified model and a more consistent measure of momentum. By doing so, we hope to contribute to the growing body of literature concerning nomination politics (Aldrich 1980; Bartels 1988; Campbell 1983; Castle 1991; Hammond 1980; Kessel 1988; Marshall 1981; Nice 1980; Norrander 1989; Parent, Jillson, and Weber 1987; Wattier 1983). In presidential nomination campaigns, candidates make strategic decisions to maximize their chances of nomination. Depending on competitive circumstances, candidates employ differing means to achieve that end. There exist at least two strategic goals that candidates pursue: maximizing delegates and maximizing momentum. By momentum, we refer to the consequences of winning or exceeding expectations in the early contests (Aldrich 1980). Success in the early contests tends to lead to extensive positive media coverage as well as increases in public recognition and financial support. According to their position in the competitive environment, candidates attempt to maximize a weighted combination of these goals. Therefore, resources are allocated to state contests in proportion to each state's potential contribution to strategic goals. At the beginning of the campaign, many candidates are relatively unknown and thus are at a disadvantage in terms of attracting votes and contributions. Long-shot candidates prefer small, early, heavily covered primaries (like New Hampshire) because such contests are less expensive

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2111535.pdf

Campaign Strategy in Presidential Primaries, 1976-88

Scholarly inquiry concerning influences on electoral outcomes in the presidential nomination process, though extensive, has been conducted almost exclusively with data collected at the individual level of analysis. The Michigan model of normal vote analysis suggests that long-term influences measured at the aggregate level, such as the sociodemographic, economic, and ideological characteristics of the states, are also important in determining electoral outcomes. We present an aggregate-level analysis of state characteristics that affected the Hart, Jackson, and Mondale vote proportions in the 1984 Democratic caucuses and primaries. Our primary election models explain between 65% and 83% of the variance in candidate vote shares, with sociodemographic and economic factors as the leading indicators. In the caucuses, we find that campaign spending and sociodemographic influences are dominant in models that explain between 38% and 81% of the variance. We conclude with a brief discussion of what our findings mean for future Democratic candidates.

Voting Outcomes in the 1984 Democratic Party Primaries and Caucuses

IN their article "Primary Rules, Political Power and Social Change" Lengle and Shafer1 have raised the problem of how primary rules affect the outcomes of the presidential nomination process of the Democratic party. That different rules enhance the fortunes of different candidates is probably something that practicing politicians have always known, but political scientists have not paid much attention to the problem. For their insights into the problem the authors are to be applauded. Nonetheless, there are problems with their analysis that should lead us to treat their conclusions with skepticism. Their observations and arguments may be summarized as follows: 1. The Democratic party has three basic types of primary rules: WinnerTake-All; Districted; and Proportional. Under a Winner-Take-All rule, whichever candidate wins the most votes in a given state gets all the delegates allotted to that state. Under a Districted rule, whichever candidate wins the most votes in a congressional district within a state gets all the delegates allotted to that district. Under a Proportional rule, whatever proportion of the statewide vote a given candidate receives, he receives that same proportion of the state's delegates. Under this latter plan, a 15 percent cutoff point is used: those candidates receiving less than 15 percent of the statewide vote get no delegates at all, and the delegates are apportioned among only those candidates surpassing the 15 percent point. 2. There are three major ideological wings to the Democratic party: the "social welfare" centrists whose strength lies primarily in the North; the "social engineering" liberals whose strength lies primarily in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains and West Coast; and the "social conservatives" whose strength lies primarily in the South. 3. The campaigns of centrist presidential candidates in 1972 would have been helped most by the nationwide adoption of Winner-Take-All rules and hurt by the adoption of either the Districted or Proportional rules. The liberal candidates in 1972 would have been helped substantially by the use of Proportional rules and even more by the use of Districted rules. Conservative candidates would have been treated about the same under all three rules.

Another Look At the Role of "the Rules" in the 1972 Democratic Presidential Primaries

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.

Thomas H. Hammond

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Another Look At the Role of "the Rules" in the 1972 Democratic Presidential Primaries