 |
Gaining traction: How Do Frontrunners Surface Before the Presidential Primaries?
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
1
INTRODUCTION
As the reforms of the 1970s were instituted in the presidential nomination process, Keech
and Matthews concluded that since 1936 frontrunners at the beginning of the nomination process tended to win because of the importance of campaign activities in the three years preceding the election (1976, 227). The reform movement, however, seemed to undermine this pattern by creating process in which candidates who performed well in bellwether caucuses and primaries gained momentum and locked up the nomination during the primaries (see Aldrich, 1980a, 1980b; Bartels, 1985, 1988). Recent research by Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins (2004) examining the effect of the New Hampshire primary on nomination outcomes found that success in the period of the campaign “before the primaries” was still critical to winning the nomination. Frontloading, rising campaign costs, and declining news media coverage mean that candidates must start earlier to raise funds, secure organizational support, and construct a message that will attract media exposure.
Some nomination contests were more dynamic and fluid than others. As we show below,
Republican frontrunners emerge very early in the year prior to election and maintain their frontrunner status until the first caucuses and primaries (see table 2). The story of the Democratic Party, however, suggests a different dynamic in their presidential nomination process. Only in 1984 and 2000 when former vice presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore ran did the Democrats find frontrunners who emerged early in the year prior to the election. In the remaining election cycles (1976, 1988, 1992, and 2004) the eventual Democratic frontrunner failed to emerge in the polls before January of the election year.
Considering the importance of the period “before the primaries” to determining party
nominees, a more thorough analysis of the dynamics of pre-primary presidential nomination politics is warranted. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore how presidential candidates “gain traction” in the polls over the year prior to the presidential election. Using forecasting models of the aggregate primary vote (APV), this paper will assess the effects of poll position on the outcome of the presidential nomination process. After demonstrating the importance of this link, this research will improve on prior work by examining models of poll position in the months before the primaries begin.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The presidential nomination literature is diverse in scope and method, but much of the
recent research can be divided into four categories: (1) Models of votes across the primaries looking at momentum as a factor in candidates’ vote share, (2) Forecasts of a candidate’s vote total in all primaries that use information from before the primaries, (2) Models of campaign duration that explain when nomination aspirants drop out of the race, and (3) Studies of elite support during the nomination process. While there are subtle (and no-so-subtle) nuances between these different streams of research, there are some important common elements.
The first approach initially focused on state-by-state voting. For the 1976 primary season,
Goldstein (1978) measured the effects of spending by primary and caucus candidates in a given
|
| | Authors: Dowdle, Andrew. and Steger, Wayne. |
|
| |
|
|
1
INTRODUCTION
As the reforms of the 1970s were instituted in the presidential nomination process, Keech
and Matthews concluded that since 1936 frontrunners at the beginning of the nomination process
tended to win because of the importance of campaign activities in the three years preceding the
election (1976, 227). The reform movement, however, seemed to undermine this pattern by
creating process in which candidates who performed well in bellwether caucuses and primaries
gained momentum and locked up the nomination during the primaries (see Aldrich, 1980a,
1980b; Bartels, 1985, 1988). Recent research by Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins (2004) examining
the effect of the New Hampshire primary on nomination outcomes found that success in the
period of the campaign “before the primaries” was still critical to winning the nomination.
Frontloading, rising campaign costs, and declining news media coverage mean that candidates
must start earlier to raise funds, secure organizational support, and construct a message that will
attract media exposure.
Some nomination contests were more dynamic and fluid than others. As we show below,
Republican frontrunners emerge very early in the year prior to election and maintain their
frontrunner status until the first caucuses and primaries (see table 2). The story of the
Democratic Party, however, suggests a different dynamic in their presidential nomination
process. Only in 1984 and 2000 when former vice presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore ran
did the Democrats find frontrunners who emerged early in the year prior to the election. In the
remaining election cycles (1976, 1988, 1992, and 2004) the eventual Democratic frontrunner
failed to emerge in the polls before January of the election year.
Considering the importance of the period “before the primaries” to determining party
nominees, a more thorough analysis of the dynamics of pre-primary presidential nomination
politics is warranted. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore how presidential candidates
“gain traction” in the polls over the year prior to the presidential election. Using forecasting
models of the aggregate primary vote (APV), this paper will assess the effects of poll position on
the outcome of the presidential nomination process. After demonstrating the importance of this
link, this research will improve on prior work by examining models of poll position in the
months before the primaries begin.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The presidential nomination literature is diverse in scope and method, but much of the
recent research can be divided into four categories: (1) Models of votes across the primaries
looking at momentum as a factor in candidates’ vote share, (2) Forecasts of a candidate’s vote
total in all primaries that use information from before the primaries, (2) Models of campaign
duration that explain when nomination aspirants drop out of the race, and (3) Studies of elite
support during the nomination process. While there are subtle (and no-so-subtle) nuances
between these different streams of research, there are some important common elements.
The first approach initially focused on state-by-state voting. For the 1976 primary season,
Goldstein (1978) measured the effects of spending by primary and caucus candidates in a given
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
