In this article, the authors develop a model that details how individuals come to prefer one candidate over others during the presidential nomination campaign. The model places the forces that influence nomination preferences into a simultaneous and dynamic framework. Empirical tests using the 1980 NES panel data indicate that the model performs well.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, Alan I.1987. Candidate choice before the convention: The Democrats in 1984. Political Behavior9:49-61.
2.
—. 1989. Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. Journal of Politics51:977-92.
3.
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rhode.1986. Change and continuity in the 1984 elections . Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
4.
Bartels, Larry M.1985. Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. American Political Science Review79:804-15.
5.
—. 1987. Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nominating process. American Journal of Political Science31:1-32.
6.
—. 1988. Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Brady, Henry E., and Richard Johnston .1987. What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In Media and momentum, edited by Gary R. Orren and Nelson W. Polsby.Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
8.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson.1980. The two faces of issue voting . American Political Science Review74:78-91.
9.
Conover, Pamela J., and Stanley Feldman .1981. The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science25:617-45.
10.
Fiorina, Morris P.1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
Geer, John G.1989. Nominating presidents: An evaluation of voters and primaries . New York: Greenwood.
12.
Gopoian, David.1982. Issue preferences and candidate choice in presidential primaries. American Journal of Political Science26:523-46.
13.
Holm, Hohn D., and John P. Robinson.1978. Ideological identification and the American voter. Public Opinion Quarterly42:235-46.
14.
Kenney, Patrick J., and Tom W. Rice.1988. Presidential prenomination preferences and candidate evaluations . American Political Science Review82:1309-20.
15.
Levitin, Teresa E., and Warren E. Miller.1979. Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review73:751-71.
16.
Markus, Gregory B.1982. Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study. American Political Science Review76:538-60.
17.
Markus, Gregory B., and Philip E. Converse.1979. A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review73:1055-70.
18.
Marshall, Thomas R.1984. Issues, personalities, and presidential primary voters . Social Science Quarterly65:750-60.
19.
Miller, Warren E., and J. Merrill Shanks .1982. Policy directions and presidential leadership: Alternative interpretations of the 1980 presidential election . British Journal of Political Science12:299-356.
20.
Norrander, Barbara.1986. Correlates of vote choice in the 1980 presidential primaries . Journal of Politics48:156-66.
21.
Page, Benjamin I., and Richard A. Brody.1972. Policy voting and the electoral process: The Vietnam War issue. American Political Science Review66:979-95.
22.
Page, Benjamin I., and Calvin Jones.1979. Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. American Political Science Review73:1071-89.
23.
Stone, Walter J.1984. The carryover effect in presidential elections. American Political Science Review80:271-79.
24.
Wattier, Mark W.1983a. Ideological voting in 1980 Republican primaries. Journal of Politics34:1016-26.
25.
—. 1983b. The simple act of voting in 1980. Democratic presidential primaries. American Politics Quarterly11:267-92.
26.
Williams, Daniel C., Stephen J. Weber, Gordon A. Haaland, Ronald H. Mueller, and Robert E. Craig .1976. Voter decisionmaking in a primary election: An evaluation of three models of choice. American Journal of Political Science22:37-49.
