From 1980 until 2000, two indicators successfully predicted presidential nominees in advance of the contest: the front-runner in the latest poll of party identifiers and the leader in fundraising in the previous year. In 2004, both indicators predicted Howard Dean to win the Democratic nomination and both were incorrect. In accounting for the failure of these predictions, this article shows that Dean was an untypically weak front-runner compared to his predecessors. His relative weaknesses included a lower level of support, a narrower lead and less name recognition. In competing against his opponents, Dean was vulnerable to the importance primary voters attached to ability to win the election and their lateness in deciding for whom to vote. These features of the contest disadvantaged Dean and enabled John Kerry to ride a bandwagon to a quick victory.
Abramowitz, Alan I. (1989) ‘Viability, Electability, and Candidate Choice in a Presidential Primary; A Test of Competing Models’ , Journal of Politics51: 977-992 .
2.
Abramson, Paul R. , John H. Aldrich and David W. Rohde (1991) Change and Continuity in the 1988 Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly .
3.
Baker, Ross K. (1993) ‘Sorting Out and Suiting Up: The Presidential Nominations’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 1992: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 39-73. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House .
4.
Banfield, Edward C. (1980) ‘Party Reform in Retrospect’, in William A. Goldwin (ed.) Political Parties in the Eighties, pp. 20-33. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute .
5.
Barabak, Mark Z. (2004) ‘Kerry Takes New Hampshire, Dean Distant Second; The Massachusetts Senator is the Clear Frontrunner Going into Tuesday’s Seven Crucial Contests. Edwards and Clark Struggle for Third’ , Los Angeles Times, 28 January.
6.
Bartels, Larry M. (1988) Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
7.
Broder, David and Jim VandeHei (2004) ‘Dean Ousts Campaign Manager; Endorsements Add to Kerry’s Momentum’ , Washington Post, 29 January.
8.
Brownstein, Ronald (2004a) ‘Victors Show Wide Party Appeal; Positive Message by Kerry, Edwards Pushed Them Ahead in Most Groups, Poll Finds’ , Los Angeles Times, 20 January.
9.
Brownstein, Ronald (2004b) ‘Dean Now Candidate in Most Need; He Must Retool His Image as Kerry and Edwards Did to Change Voters’ Perceptions’ , Los Angeles Times, 21 January.
10.
Ceasar, James W. (1979) Presidential Selection. New York: Praeger .
11.
Centre for Media and Public Affairs (2004) ‘Network News Focus: Fluff, Flubs -Not Functional’, press release, 9 February. Available at: www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworkNewsFocus.htm
12.
Connally, Ceci (2004) ‘A Surge Fueled by Stamina, Wealth and Veterans’ Support’ , Washington Post, 20 January.
13.
Edsall, Thomas (2004) ‘Dean’s Fundraising Matched by Spending; Aides Say Campaign Nearly Broke’ , Washington Post, 1 February.
14.
Gold, Matea (2004) ‘Dean’s New Focus: Damage Control; New Hampshire Events Muted Compared to Speech in Iowa Which Drew Ridicule’ , Los Angeles Times, 21 January.
15.
Gopoian, James David (1980) ‘Issue-Voting in Presidential Primary Elections: A Comparative State Analysis of the 1976 Presidential Primaries’, PhD dissertation, University of Indiana.
16.
Justice, Glen and Jodi Wilgoren (2004) ‘The 2004 Campaign: Fund Raising; Figures Detail Dean’s Slide from Solvent to Struggling’ , New York Times, 2 February.
17.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane (1976) The New Presidential Elite: Men and Women in National Politics. New York: Russell Sage and Twentieth Century Fund .
18.
Lengle, James I. (1981) Representation and Presidential Primaries in the Post-Reform Era. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press .
19.
Mayer, William G. (1996) ‘Forecasting Presidential Nominations’, in William G. Mayer (ed.) In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, pp. 44-71. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House .
20.
Mayer, William G. (1997) ‘The Presidential Nominations’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 1996: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 21-76. New York: Chatham House .
21.
Mayer, William G. (2001) ‘The Presidential Nominations’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 12-45. New York: Chatham House .
22.
Mayer, William G. (2003) ‘The Basic Dynamics of the Contemporary Nominating Process: An Expanded View’, in William G. Mayer (ed.) The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004, pp. 83-132. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield .
23.
Mayer, William G. and Andrew E. Busch (2003) The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
24.
Moore, David W. (2004a) ‘Nationally: Two-Candidate Race for Democratic Nomination?’ , Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 13 January.
25.
Moore, David W. (2004b) ‘Same Ending... but Four Stories’ , Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 3 February.
26.
Moore, David W. (2004c) ‘Kerry, Edwards Lead Bush by Double Digits Among Likely Voters’ , Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 19 February.
27.
Moore, David W. and Frank Newport (2003) ‘Dean Takes Front Runner Status Nationally for First Time’ , Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 9 December.
28.
Newport, Frank (2004) ‘Democratic Primary, George W. Bush’ , Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 3 February.
29.
Norrander, Barbara (1986) ‘Correlates of Vote Choice in the 1980 Presidential Primaries’ , Journal of Politics48: 156-166 .
30.
Norrander, Barbara (1992) Super Tuesday: Regional Politics and Presidential Primaries. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky .
31.
Patterson, Thomas (1980) The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their Presidents. New York: Praeger .
32.
Polsby, Nelson (1983) Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press .
33.
Pomper, Gerald M. (1981) ‘The Nominating Contests’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 1-37. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House .
34.
Pomper, Gerald M. (1985) ‘The Nominations’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 1984: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 1-34. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House .
35.
Pomper, Gerald M. (1989) ‘The Nominations’, in Gerald M. Pomper et al., The Election of 1988: Reports and Interpretations, pp. 33-72. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House .
36.
Popkin, Samuel L. (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
37.
Rosenbaum, David and Janet Elder (2004) ‘Kerry Support Found Among Wide Range of Democrats’ , New York Times, 29 January.
38.
Rutenberg, Jim (2004a) ‘Strategists Use Iowa Lessons in New Ads in New Hampshire’ , New York Times, 23 January.
39.
Rutenberg, Jim (2004b) ‘The 2004 Campaign: Advertising; Dean Calls a Pause in His Nationwide Ads’ , New York Times, 24 January.
40.
Saad, Lydia (2002) ‘Gore Departure Opens Door for a Democratic Scramble’ , Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 17 December.
41.
Seelye, Katherine Q. (2004) ‘New Dean Campaign Strategy Leap-Frogs over 13 States’ , New York Times, 31 January.
42.
USA Today/CNN/Gallup (2004) New Hampshire tracking poll . Available at: www.usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com
43.
Vanderbilt University Television News Archive (2004) Available at: www.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu./TV-NewsService/TVN-processquery.
44.
VandeHei, Jim (2004) ‘Slowed by 3rd Place Finish. Questions About Electability’ , Washington Post, 20 January.
