The Money Primary: What Influences the Outcome of Pre-Primary Presidential Nomination Fundraising?

Abstract

During early days of presidential nomination campaign cycle, Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, candidates aspiring to win one of two major party nominations compete for financial resources. Damore (1997) reported that in 1984, 1988, and 1992 Democratic nomination contests, 42 percent of campaign funds were raised even primaries or caucuses were held. Hinckley and Green (1996), who concurred with these findings in their study of 1988 presidential nomination fundraising cycle, concluded that Republican candidates raised between 67 and 87 percent of their total funding during pre-primary period. While many factors influence outcome of presidential nominations, early fundraising activity is among most important. The principal research question explored herein is what factors affect success of pre-primary fundraising of presidential aspirants in their efforts to become their party's nominee? The answer to this question may, in turn, lead to a more detailed understanding of dynamics of successful candidacies in post-reform presidential nomination politics. Candidates winning money primary also tend to win presidential nominations of Democratic and Republican Parties. Specifically, term money primary refers to competition of candidates for financial resources contributed by partisan elites primaries begin. The strength of relationship between winning money primary and winning nomination is very robust in post-reform period. Since 1980, with one exception, candidate raising greatest total receipts by end of money primary went on to become nominee of party. (1) As campaign expenditure reports from Federal Election Commission (FEC) indicate, it is no accident that Reagan, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole (1996), Bush (2000), and Gore (2000) all led money primary and all won nomination. A quarter century ago, Keech and Matthews (1976) recognized importance of pre-primary campaign activity during exhibition season. (2) They found that in presidential nomination contests from 1936 to 1972 (with 1972 being primary exception), front-runners at beginning of presidential nomination process tended to win because of importance of campaign activities in three years preceding election (p. 227). Following those reforms, Aldrich (1980a) established that new rules put into place shifted power in presidential nomination selection away from party elites to primary and caucus voters before convention. Subsequently, dynamics of presidential campaign strategy also changed, fueled primarily by triumph of relatively unknown candidates garnering Democratic nomination like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter and ability of other second-tier candidates like George Bush and Gary Hart to perform well (even though they came up short in end). Building on these arguments, next wave of scholarship led by Aldrich (1980a, 1980b) and Bartels (1985, 1988) linked candidate performance in early primaries and caucuses to winning nomination in what became a very dynamic, sequential primary process. Given dramatic changes in methods of nominating presidential candidates during 1970s and 1980s, Cook (1989) adeptly characterized process with phrase, the only constant is change. More recent scholarship views presidential nomination process as stabilizing into a relatively predictable pattern. Barilleaux and Adkins (1993) contended that there is now a recognizable rhythm to race. In support of this principle, Mayer (1996c) wrote, Recent presidential nomination contests have, in fact, been less chaotic than they might appear at first glance; that nomination races are actually conducted under a system of rules and norms that give considerable structure and regularity to process. …