Historical accounts of American presidential nominating contests suggest that candidates jockey over ideology and policy in ways that shape the outcomes of these races. Yet this aspect of competition has been difficult to analyze with the formal and statistical methods that dominate this research agenda. To address this gap, this article presents a computational agent-based model (ABM) of candidates’ ideological maneuvering during the invisible primary. We extend the framework developed by Michael Laver to study dynamic party competition in Europe, but recast it for the different context and to enable model fit to be more rigorously determined. Our analysis of data from the 2012 Republican invisible primary suggests the importance of ideological jockeying in this contest. Moreover, its dynamics can be well-explained by a basic version of the ABM in which candidates select between three strategies (aggregator, hunter or sticker) and then maintain that strategy over time. The fit of this model, particularly in the short run, can be improved by introducing a “momentum effect” that allows the candidates’ standing in the race to rise or fall without any accompanying ideological change.
AldrichJohn H.1980. “A Dynamic Model of Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” American Political Science Review74: 651-69.
2.
AldrichJohn H.2009. “The Invisible Primary and Its Effects on Democratic Choice.” PS: Political Science and Politics42: 33-38.
3.
BartelsLarry. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BattagliniMarcoMortonRebeccaPalfreyThomas. 2007. “Efficiency, Equity, and Timing of Voting Mechanisms.” American Political Science Review101: 409-24.
5.
BlissCatherine A.FrankMorgan R.DanforthChristopher M.DoddsPeter Sheridan. 2014. “An evolutionary Algorithm Approach to Prediction in Dynamic Social Networks.” Journal of Computational Science5: 750-64.
6.
BlumRachel M.2020. How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
7.
BonicaAdam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science58: 367-86.
8.
BudgeIanLawrenceEzrowMichael DMcDonald. Ideology, Party Factionalism and Policy Change: An Integrated Dynamic Theory. British Journal of Political Science2010; 40: 781–804.
9.
BuellEmmet H.1996. “The Invisible Primary.” In In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, edited by MayerWilliam G., 1-43. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
10.
CBS News. 2012. “The Ten Nastiest Things Newt Gingrich Has Said About Mitt Romney.” April 25.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2016. “Party Versus Faction in the Reformed Presidential Nominating System.” PS: Political Science & Politics49: 701-8.
14.
De MarchiScottPageScott E. Agent-based models. Annual Review of Political Science2014; 17: 1–20.
15.
De RoosNicolasSarafidisYianis. 2018. “Momentum in Dynamic Contests.” Economic Modelling70: 401-16.
16.
DowdleAndrew J.AdkinsRandall E.StegerWayne P. The Viability Primary: Modelling Candidate Support before the Primaries. Political Research Quarterly2009; 62: 77–91.
17.
DowdleAndrew J.AdkinsRandall E.SeboldKarenCuellarJarred. 2016. “Forecasting the Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump.” PS: Political Science & Politics49: 691-95.
18.
FowlerJames H.LaverMichael. 2008. “A Tournament of Party Decision Rules.” Journal of Conflict Resolution52: 68-92.
19.
GrosecloseTim. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location when One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science45: 862-86.
20.
GurianPaul-Henri. 1993. “Candidate Behavior in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: A Dynamic Model.” Journal of Politics55: 115-39.
21.
HadleyArthur T.1976. The Invisible Primary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
HeilemannJohnHalperinMark. 2010. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: Harper.
23.
JamiesonKathleen Hall. 2012. Electing the President, 2012: The Insiders’ View. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
24.
KatzRichard S.2019. “European and American Political Parties: Becoming More Similar.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties29: 427-47.
25.
KamarckElaine. 2018. Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates in Presidential Candidates. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
KnightBrianSchiffNathan. 2010. “Momentum and Social Learning in Presidential Primaries.” Journal of Political Economy118: 1110-50.
KollmanKenMillerJohnPageScott. 1992. “Adaptive Parties in Spatial Elections.” American Political Science Review86: 929-37.
29.
LaaksoMarkkuTaageperaRein. 1979. “Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12: 3-27.
30.
LaverMichael. 2005. “Policy and the Dynamics of Political Competition.” American Political Science Review99: 263-81.
31.
LaverMichaelSchilperoordMichel. 2007. “Spatial Models of Political Competition with Endogenous Political Parties.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biology362: 1711-21.
32.
LaverMichaelSergentiErnest. 2012. Party Competition: An Agent-Based Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
LaymanGeoffreyCarseyThomas M.Menasce HorowitzJuliana. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science9: 83-110.
34.
MárKristinn. 2020. “Partisan Affective Polarization: Sorting, Entrenchment, and Fortification.” Public Opinion Quarterly84: 915-35.
35.
MasketSeth. 2020. Learning from Loss: The Democrats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MayerWilliam G.1996. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations.” In In Pursuit of the White House: How We Select Our Presidential Nominees, edited by MayerWilliam G., 44-71. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
37.
MayerWilliam G.2003. “Forecasting Presidential Nominations, Or, My Model Worked Just Fine, Thank You.” PS: Political Science and Politics36: 153-57.
38.
NoelHans. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
NorranderBarbara. 2000. “The End Game in Post-Reform Presidential Nominations.” Journal of Politics62: 999-1013.
40.
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.
41.
NorranderBarbara. 2010. The Imperfect Primary: Oddities, Biases, and Strengths of US Presidential Nomination Politics. New York: Routledge.
42.
RandallAdkinsE.JAndrewDowdle. (2000). “Break out the Mint Juleps? Is New Hampshire the ‘Primary’ Culprit Limiting Presidential Nomination Forecasts?” American Politics Quarterly28(2), 251-69.
43.
ReinhardBeth. 2011. Can Romney win in 2012?The Atlantic. (March 7).
44.
SidesJohnVavreckLynn. 2014. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
StimsonJames A.2012. “On the Meaning and Measurement of Mood.” Daedalus141: 23-34.
46.
RosenfeldSam. 2017. The Polarizers: Postwar Architects of Our Partisan Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
ShaferByron E.1988. Bifurcated Politics: Evolution and Reform in the National Party Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
StegerWayne P.2000. “Do Primary Voters Draw from a Stacked Deck? Presidential Nominations in an Era of Candidate-Centered Campaigns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly30: 727-53.
49.
StegerWayne P.2007. “Who Wins Nominations and Why?” Political Research Quarterly60: 91-99.
50.
StegerWayne P.HickmanJohnYohnKen. 2002. “Candidate Competition and Attrition in Presidential Primaries, 1912-2000.” American Politics Research30: 528-54.
51.
StegerWayne P.DowdleAndrew J.AdkinsRandall E.. 2012. “Why are Presidential Nomination Races so Difficult to Forecast?” In The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2012, edited by MayerWilliam G.BernsteinJonathan, 1-22. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
52.
StokesDonald. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review57: 368-77.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
