Campaign Strategy in Presidential Primaries, 1976-88

Abstract

Candidates in multicandidate presidential nomination campaigns allocate their financial resources to maximize delegates and momentum. Gurian (1986) demonstrated that, in the campaigns of 1976 and 1980, well-known established candidates emphasized delegates while relatively unknown long-shot candidates emphasized momentum. The resource allocation strategy of established candidates is based on the simple fact that the candidate with a majority of the delegates wins the nomination. The resource allocation strategy of long-shot candidates is based on financial constraints: they lack the resources to compete effectively in delegate-rich primaries; thus, they attempt to maximize momentum, which leads to greater public (including financial) support. This study extends the previous research to the 1984 and 1988 campaigns with a more fully specified model and a more consistent measure of momentum. By doing so, we hope to contribute to the growing body of literature concerning nomination politics (Aldrich 1980; Bartels 1988; Campbell 1983; Castle 1991; Hammond 1980; Kessel 1988; Marshall 1981; Nice 1980; Norrander 1989; Parent, Jillson, and Weber 1987; Wattier 1983). In presidential nomination campaigns, candidates make strategic decisions to maximize their chances of nomination. Depending on competitive circumstances, candidates employ differing means to achieve that end. There exist at least two strategic goals that candidates pursue: maximizing delegates and maximizing momentum. By momentum, we refer to the consequences of winning or exceeding expectations in the early contests (Aldrich 1980). Success in the early contests tends to lead to extensive positive media coverage as well as increases in public recognition and financial support. According to their position in the competitive environment, candidates attempt to maximize a weighted combination of these goals. Therefore, resources are allocated to state contests in proportion to each state's potential contribution to strategic goals. At the beginning of the campaign, many candidates are relatively unknown and thus are at a disadvantage in terms of attracting votes and contributions. Long-shot candidates prefer small, early, heavily covered primaries (like New Hampshire) because such contests are less expensive