This article builds on previous forecasts of the presidential primary vote by incorporating elite party endorsements and estimates of candidate electability. Elite endorsements are significant predictors of both parties' primary vote, but cash reserves are significant only for Democrats while Gallup poll results are significant only for Republicans. The model updated by the New Hampshire primary results indicates that the primary affects both parties' remaining primary vote, especially for Democrats. Republican nominations are largely predictable and determined mainly by effects occurring prior to the primaries, while Democratic nominations are relatively unpredictable before the primaries and are susceptible to momentum during the primaries.
Abramowitz, Alan I.1989. Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. Journal of Politics51:977-992.
2.
Abramson, Paul, John Aldrich, Phil Paolino, and David Rhode. 1992. “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review86:55-69.
3.
Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. 2000. Break out the mint juleps in New Hampshire? Is New Hampshire the “primary” culprit limiting presidential nomination forecasts?American Politics Quarterly28:251-269.
4.
Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. 2001. Is the exhibition season becoming more important to forecasting presidential nominations?American Politics Research29:283-288.
5.
Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. 2004. Bumps in the road to the White House: How influential were campaign resources to nominating George W. Bush?Journal of Political Marketing3 (4): 1-27.
6.
Aldrich, John. 1980. Before the convention: Strategies and choices in presidential nominations. Chicago: University of Chicago.
7.
Bartels, Larry M.1987. Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nominating process. American Journal of Political Science31:1-30.
8.
Bartels, Larry M.1988. Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Brady, Henry E., and Richard Johnston. 1987. What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism. In Media and momentum, ed. Gary R. Orren and Nelson W. Polsby, 104-126. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
10.
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2002. Beating reform: The resurgence of parties in presidential nominations, 1980-2000. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston. Cohen, Marty, Hans Noel,
11.
David Karol, and John Zaller. 2003. Polls or pols: The real driving force behind presidential nominations. Brooking Review3 (Summer): 36-39.
12.
Cohen, Marty, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2004. Constant rules, changing game: A general model of presidential primaries, 1972 to 2000. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
13.
Congressional Quarterly. 2001. Guide to U.S. elections. 4th ed.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
14.
Dowdle, Andrew J., Randall E. Adkins, and Wayne P. Steger. 2005. Candidate support during the invisible primary. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC.
15.
Goldstein, Joel H.1978. The influence of money in the prenomination stage of the presidential selection process: The case of the 1976 election. Presidential Studies Quarterly8:164-179.
16.
Haynes, Audrey A., Paul-Henri Gurian, and Stephen M. Nichols. 1997. The role of candidate spending in presidential nomination campaigns. Journal of Politics59:213-225.
17.
Herrera, Richard. 1995. The crosswinds of change: Sources of change in the Democratic and Republican Parties. Political Research Quarterly48:291-312.
18.
Hinckley, Katherine A., and John C. Green. 1996. Fund-raising in presidential nomination campaigns: The primary lessons of 1988. Political Research Quarterly49:693-718.
19.
Keeter, Scott, and Cliff Zukin. 1983. Citizen learning in presidential nominations. New York: Praeger.
20.
Marshall, Thomas R.1983. Evaluating presidential nominees: Opinion polls, issues and personalities. Western Political Quarterly36: 650-659.
21.
Mayer, William G.1996a. The divided democrats: Ideological unity, party reform, and presidential elections. Boulder, CO: Westview.
22.
Mayer, William G.1996b. Forecasting nominations. In In pursuit of the White House: How we choose our presidential nominees,ed. William G. Mayer, 44-71. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
23.
Mayer, William G.2003. Forecasting presidential nominations or, my model worked just fine, thank you. PS: Political Science and Politics36 (2): 153-157.
24.
Miller, Arthur H., and Bruce E. Gronbeck. 1994. Presidential campaigns and American self images. Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Mutz, Diana C.1997. Mechanisms of momentum: Does thinking make it so?Journal of Politics59:104-125.
26.
Norrander, Barbara. 1986. Party, ideology, and the lure of victory: Iowa activists in the 1980 prenomination campaign. Western Political Quarterly35:527-538.
27.
Norrander, Barbara. 1993. Nomination choices: Caucus and primary outcomes, 1976-1988. American Journal of Political Science37:343-364.
28.
Popkin, Samuel. 1991. The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Riker, William H.1986. The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
Steger, Wayne P.2000. Do primary voters draw from a stacked deck? Presidential nominations in an era of candidate-centered campaigns. Presidential Studies Quarterly30:727-753.
31.
Steger, Wayne P. 2002. King-makers in presidential nomination campaigns. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Long Beach, CA.
32.
Steger, Wayne P.2003. Presidential renomination challenges in the 20th century. Presidential Studies Quarterly33:827-852.
33.
Steger, Wayne P., and Anne Davis. 2000. Candidate endorsements in the 2000 presidential nominating campaign. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
34.
Steger, Wayne P., Andrew J. Dowdle, and Randall E. Adkins. 2004. The New Hampshire effect in presidential nominations. Political Research Quarterly57 (3): 375-390.
35.
Tedesco, John C.2001. Issues and strategy agenda-setting in the 2000 presidential primaries. American Behavioral Scientist44 (12): 2048-2067.
