In this article the authors measure a phenomenon they name “exit talk”: the undertheorized pressures that second-place contenders for presidential nominations face to exit the race. Content analysis of media exit talk from the 2008 Clinton candidacy compared with that of key comparators from other modern presidential campaigns suggests that Clinton experienced greater levels of exit talk than her historical comparators, though less explicit pressure to exit than was exerted on Ronald Reagan in 1976. The authors also find that a higher percentage of Clinton exit talk was unattributed to its source. They investigate the potential causes for these findings and recommend further study of whether this heightened pressure to exit constitutes an unexamined hurdle for female presidential contenders.
CitrinJackKarolDavid. 2009. Nominating the president: Evolution and revolution in 2008 and beyond. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
6.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
CrottyWilliam. 1985. The party game. New York: Freeman.
DolanKathleen A.2004. Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder: Westview Press.
10.
FalkErika. 2010. Women for president: Media bias in nine campaigns. 2nd ed.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
11.
FarnsworthSteven J.LichterS. Robert. 2003. The nightly news nightmare: Network television’s coverage of U.S. presidential elections, 1988–2000. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
FlowersJulianne F.HaynesAudrey A.CrespinMichael H.2003. The media, the campaign, and the message. American Journal of Political Science47:259-73.
13.
FoxRichard L.2006. Congressional elections: Where are we on the road to gender parity? In Gender and elections: Shaping the future of american politics, ed. CarrollSusanFoxRichard. New York: Cambridge University Press, 97-116.
14.
HagenMichael. 1996. Press treatment of frontrunners. In In pursuit of the White House, ed. William G. Mayer, 190-219. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
15.
HagenMichael G.MayerWilliam G.2000. The modern politics of presidential selection: How changing the rules really did change the game. In In pursuit of the White House 2000: How we choose our presidential nominees, ed. MayerWilliam G., 1-43. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
HaynesAudrey A.FlowersJulianne F.GurianPaul-Henri. 2002. Getting the message out: Candidate communication strategy during the invisible primary. Political Research Quarterly55(3): 633-652.
18.
HaynesAudrey A.GurianPaul-HenriCrespinMichael H.ZornChristopher. 2004. The calculus of concession: Media coverage and the dynamics of winnowing in presidential nominations. American Politics Research32:310-37.
19.
HealyPatrick. 2008. Soldiering on, but somber as the horizon darkens. New York Times, February24, A1.
20.
HealyPatrickZelenyJeff. 2008. As support fades, Clinton focuses on next contest. New York Times, May8, A1.
21.
HeldmanCarolineCarrollSusanOlsonStephanie. 2005. “She brought only a skirt”: Print media coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Political Communication22:315-35.
22.
HulseCarlHerszenhornDavid M.2008. Race Over or not, Obama takes a victory lap. New York Times, May9, p. A1.
23.
KahnKim Fridkin. 1996. The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
KendallKathleen. 2005. Constructing the primary story: Embedded with the media in New Hampshire. American Behavioral Scientist49:157-72.
KornblutAnne E.BaconPerryJr.2008. Obama, Clinton in key face-off. Washington Post, March4, A01.
27.
KurtzHoward. 2008. It’s all uphill from here. Washington Post, February18, C1.
28.
LawrenceRegina G.2000. Game-framing the issues: Tracking the strategy frame in public policy news. Political Communication17(2): 93-114.
29.
LawrenceRegina G.RoseMelody. 2009. Hillary Clinton’s race for the White House: Gender politics and the media on the campaign trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
30.
MatthewsDonald R.1978. “Winnowing”: The news media and the 1976 presidential nomination. In Race for the presidency, ed. BarberJames David, 55-78. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
MayerWilliam G.2003. The basic dynamics of the presidential nomination process: Putting the 2000 races in perspective. Presidential Studies Quarterly33:72-100.
MayerWilliam G.BuschAndrew E.2004. The front-loading problem in presidential nominations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
34.
Menefee-LibbyDavid. 2000. The triumph of campaign-centered politics. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
35.
MeyrowitzJoshua. 1994. Visible and invisible candidates: A case study in “competing logics” of campaign coverage. Political Communication11(2): 145-164.
36.
NagourneyAdam. 2008. Endorsement points up obstacles for Clinton. New York Times, March29, A1.
NorranderBarbara. 2000. The end game in post-reform presidential nominations. Journal of Politics62:999-1013.
39.
NorranderBarbara. 2006. The attrition game: Initial resources, initial contests, and the exit of candidates during the US presidential primary season. British Journal of Political Science36:487-507.
40.
OreskesMichael. 1988. 2 key Democrats ask party to back June front-runner. New York Times, March16, A25.
41.
OrnsteinNormanMannThomas, eds. 2000. The permanent campaign and its future. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
42.
PattersonThomas. 1994. Out of order. New York: Vintage.
RainesHowell. 1984. Mondale is victor in Pennsylvania. New York Times, April11, p. A1.
45.
RutenbergJim. 2008. The battle of perception Still wages on television. New York Times, April23, p. A18.
46.
SabatoLarry J.2009. Picking presidential nominees: Time for a new regime. In Reforming the presidential nomination process, ed. SmithSteven S.SpringerMelanie J., 136-59. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
47.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2005. Do parties know that women win? Party leader beliefs about women’s electability. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, Washington, DC.
48.
SchnurDan. 2008. Party rules. New York Times, May7.
SheehyMichael. 2008. Foreign news stories more likely to include unnamed sources. Newspaper Research Journal29(3): 24-37.
51.
ShenFei. 2008. Staying alive: The impact of media momentum on candidacy attrition in the 1980–2004 Primaries. International Journal of Press/Politics13:429-50.
52.
SmithHedrick. 1980. Carter and Kennedy to meet today to cope with Democratic breach. New York Times, June5, A1.
53.
SteeleCatherine A.BarnhurstKevin G.1996. The journalism of opinion: Network coverage in US presidential campaigns, 1968-1988. Critical Studies in Mass Communication13(3): 187-209.
54.
StegerWayne P.2007. Who wins nominations and why? An updated forecast of the presidential primary vote. PS: Political Science & Politics42:33-38.
55.
ToddChuckGawiserSheldon. 2009. How Barack Obama won. New York: Vintage.
56.
WayneStephen J.2008. The road to the White House 2008. 8th ed.Florence, KY: Thomson Wadsworth.
57.
WeissCarol. 1974. What America’s leaders read. Public Opinion Quarterly38:1-22.
58.
WoodallGina SerigneseFridkinKim L.2003. Shaping women’s chances: Stereotypes and the media. In Anticipating madam president, ed. WatsonRobert P.GordonAnn, 69-86. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
59.
ZeldesGeri AlumitFicoFrederickLacyStephen. 2008. Context and sources in broadcast television coverage of the 2004 Democratic primary. Mass Communication and Society11:340-56.
