Presidential Nomination Contests Research Articles

Public Opinion and the Candidate Spouses in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Abstract The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination contest featured an unusually diverse array of candidates. It also featured a historically diverse set of presidential candidate spouses including multiple men and the first openly LGBTQ+ candidate spouse. Spouses have long been among the most important surrogate for presidential candidates because the public views them as an authentic window into the candidate’s suitability for the presidency. Prior surveys of public opinion towards presidential candidate spouses have been conducted only during the general election phase, capturing the public’s views only of the spouses of Democratic and Republican candidates securing the nomination. In this study we draw on a unique nationally representative survey of 400 likely Democratic voters, asking them what they thought of the spouses of the top four presidential candidates in national polling as of the start of the calendar year 2020: Jill Biden, Chasten Buttigieg, Bruce Mann, and Jane Sanders. We use this data to explore the public’s assessment of this diverse group of candidate spouses and the implications for the traditionally gendered role of First Lady.

Lessons from the Use of Ranked Choice Voting in American Presidential Primaries

Grounded in experience in 2020, both major political parties have reasons to expand use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in their 2024 presidential primaries. RCV may offer a ‘win-win’ solution benefiting both the parties and their voters. RCV would build on both the pre-1968 American tradition of parties determining a coalitional presidential nominee through multiple ballots at party conventions and the modern practice of allowing voters to effectively choose their nominees in primaries. Increasingly used by parties around the world in picking their leaders, RCV may allow voters to crowd-source a coalitional nominee. Most published research about RCV focuses on state and local elections. In contrast, this article analyzes the impact on voters, candidates, and parties from five state Democratic parties using RCV in party-run presidential nomination contests in 2020. First, it uses polls and results to examine how more widespread use of RCV might have affected the trajectory of contests for the 2016 Republican nomination. Second, it contrasts how more than three million voters in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries backed withdrawn candidates with the low rate of such wasted votes for withdrawn candidates in the states with RCV ballots. Finally, it concludes with an examination of how RCV might best interact with the parties’ current rules and potential changes to those rules.

Ranked-Choice Voting Delivers Representation and Consensus in Presidential Primaries

This article empirically examines the results of the 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential nomination contests in the five states that adopted ranked choice voting rules. The findings shed light on how voters ranked candidates based on not only the need to nominate the strongest candidate to represent the party in the general election, but also to ensure representation of the diverse electorate at the national convention. The paper also considers how the 15 percent threshold of vote shares required to earn national delegates affected the results of RCV elections in 2020. Finally, it assesses the possibility of changes to the delegate allocation if this threshold is altered in the context of RCV rule adoptions in the future.

Primary Day: Why Presidential Nominees Should Be Chosen on a Single Day

Why do we have an Election Day but not a Primary Day? No aspect of the presidential nomination process causes as much controversy as the primary calendar. The calendar starts off in January or February of each election year and ends in June. Fifty-seven jurisdictions hold their primaries and caucuses over the course of these months. The Iowa caucuses always start off the calendar, and they are followed by the New Hampshire primaries. The results of these contests work to eliminate some candidates while they bestow momentum on others. More candidates participate in the first few nomination contests than in the last ones, meaning that disproportionate power is given to voters in states holding early nomination contests, while those in states with later contests are provided with less or no voice in choosing their party’s presidential nominee. In some years, a party’s presidential nomination contest ends before citizens in late-voting states have even had a chance to cast their ballots. To gain more influence and greater voice, states have consistently attempted to move their primaries forward in a process known as “front-loading.” This dynamic has led to calls for reform, as politicians, journalists, scholars, and citizens all try to rethink the primary calendar ahead of each election cycle. This essay examines the primary calendar and what can be done to change it. It begins by explaining why Iowa and New Hampshire always hold their nomination contests first, and it looks at how other states have tried to match Iowa and New Hampshire's power through front-loading. It also briefly looks at the 2020 primary calendar and explains how both major parties tried to play with the rules in 2020 to bring some stability to the presidential nomination process. This essay then turns to examine the one reform that a majority of voters consistently support: holding all primaries and caucuses on a single day. Scheduling a national Primary Day is important not only because the current staggered nature of the primary calendar privileges some candidates over others, but also because it favors voters and party members in some states over those in other states. The way to remedy this problem and to ensure that all voters are treated equally is to hold all 57 nomination contests on the single day. While scheduling a national Primary Day would appear to be a simple, direct, and fair way of selecting a party’s presidential nominee, a national primary also comes with its own challenges. A national primary would change the nature of presidential campaigns by shifting the resources and spending of candidates from low-population states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to high-population states like California, Texas, and Florida. It would also diminish the aspirations of candidates with less money and name recognition by denying them the opportunity to build momentum in the early states. A related concern has to do with how votes would be tallied and added up in a national primary when the list of candidates running in 57 different jurisdictions could potentially be very large and no candidate wins a majority of these votes. Finally, there is the thorny issue of how a single primary date could ever be imposed on the states. Whether Congress has the power to set the date on which the states hold their primaries is a constitutional question that remains unresolved. Whether the national parties could muster the willpower to impose a national primary on the states also remains in doubt. As a result, while the benefits of holding a national Primary Day may be substantial, the path to getting there comes with its own challenges.

Presidential Primary Turnout 1972–2016

ABSTRACTWe explore the implications of sequential presidential primary elections for turnout in selecting the presidential party nominees. Drawing from a micro-level theory of participation in sequential elections, we develop a set of aggregate-level hypotheses that tease out different ways that candidate mobilization efforts as well as the legal and institutional structures within a sequential contest influence turnout in presidential nomination contests. Using data from all state primary elections from 1972–2016, we find that electorates facing winnowed candidate pools, and those with contests after the effective endings to presidential contests have substantially reduced turnout that effectively disenfranchises voters in many states. Sequenced primary elections lead to lower overall turnout and less meaningful participation for many voters during presidential nominations contests.

Polls & Elections: Superdelegates or Supertrustees? The Timing and Consistency of Superdelegate Decisions

Do superdelegates heed public opinion in deciding whom to support in nomination contests or do they follow their own conscience? We examine both individual and environmental factors peculiar to superdelegate decision making to ascertain whether and how they integrate populist considerations into their nomination choices. Via a survey of superdelegates in the 2008 presidential nomination contest, we analyze both the timing of a superdelegate's decision as well as any change in their candidate preference. Superdelegates who prioritize constituent concerns endorse earlier but are no more or less likely to switch their candidate preference during the campaign.

Early Voting and Presidential Nominations: A New Advantage for Front‐Runners?

Early voting has become an important feature of presidential elections. While research has generally focused on whether programs increase turnout, few have considered whether early voting alters the information environment in campaigns. Those who vote early may do so before important information becomes available in the final weeks of a campaign. I speculate that early voting should benefit early front‐runners in presidential nomination contests, as voters may cast early votes for these candidates before fully considering their less‐known opponents. Examining exit‐poll data from the 2008 Democratic primaries between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I find that Clinton indeed benefited from early voting in several early primary states.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way: Elite Party Actor Endorsements in Presidential Nominating Contests, 2004-2012

Party elites influence the outcomes of presidential nomination contests through endorsements, financial support, encouragements to run, and other means. In this paper, we compare the patterns of elite endorsements of presidential candidates in four recent nomination contests – the Democratic races in 2004 and 2008 and the Republican contests in 2008 and 2012. We examine these contests with an eye not toward their eventual outcomes but to the manner in which a set of elite party actors – governors and members of Congress – made their public endorsements of candidates for the nominations including both the timing and (for Romney in 2012) their stated rationales as a communication to party members and the broader public. Our findings suggest that Republican officeholders are more reluctant than their Democratic counterparts to endorse candidates in contested presidential nomination contests, even – or perhaps particularly – when the field of candidates is less than stellar. Furthermore, in the case of Romney, they were strategic in offering rationales, emphasizing personal qualities earlier and the process later while downplaying ideology.

The 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus and Its Effects on the Presidential Nomination Contest

We surveyed Iowa caucus goers and other Republicans to assess how representative the 2012 caucuses were of Republicans in Iowa. We find that demographically and ideologically, people reporting they would attend the caucus were quite similar to self‐identified Iowa Republicans who said they would not caucus. We then model outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire as a function of mass media expectations and find the model predicts Mitt Romney's Iowa vote share well but underpredicts Rick Santorum's Iowa result substantially. As in previous elections, we find national media attention shifted to a candidate (Santorum) who the media overlooked prior to Iowa and that this likely made Santorum's eventual second‐place finish possible. Romney strengthened his front‐runner share of media attention by meeting expectations in Iowa and then winning New Hampshire. This study confirms research documenting the important influence that early states have in the nomination process.

Packed primaries and empty caucuses: voter turnout in presidential nominations

In presidential nomination contests, the number of voters participating in selecting the presidential candidates varies considerably across states. In the same election year, turnout in presidential nomination contests ranges from less than 1 % of party supporters participating in some caucuses to record breaking turnout levels upwards of 50 % in primaries in other states. This variation is attributable, in part, to the electoral rules, which vary across states, years, and parties. In this paper, I provide a comprehensive examination of the extent to which party and state rules affect voter turnout in nomination contests from 1980 to 2012. Using the normal partisan support score as the voter turnout denominator, I find that primaries, open contests, and proportional representation rules result in higher levels of turnout. I also show that within the window of competitiveness, turnout is higher in states that hold contests later in the nomination season. Overall, my analysis provides insight into the institutional structures that influence the number of people who participate in the presidential nomination process and enhances understanding about the factors that affect voter turnout.

Deus ex Machina

Using data from the 2008 presidential nomination contest, we offer systematic tests of the relationships between traditional campaign factors, the Internet and campaign performance. We find that claims of the Internet’s relevance to modern campaigns are warranted, as it is a unique facet of campaigns and significantly improves candidates’ financial and electoral support. The Internet is especially helpful to candidates in generating small-donor contributions and in maximizing contributions after early primary victories. Overall, these findings suggest that the Internet offers a viable mechanism for long-shot candidates to overcome the resource demands of the current presidential nomination system.

Domestic Antecedents of Afghan Policy

Realism tells us that states are unitary actors and foreign policy ends at the water’s edge. This essay questions this view in the context of recent US policy on Afghanistan. In early 2008, Senator Barack Obama won several early primary victories and gained a substantial lead in the Democratic presidential nomination contest. Both Democratic senator Hillary Clinton and to a lesser extent the apparent Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, questioned Obama’s leadership ability. The future president responded in part by announcing his intent to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan. The policy of increased militarization crystallized publically in response to domestic campaign pressure rather than because of events on the ground in South Asia.

‘Change we can believe in?’ Barack Obama, race and the 2008 US presidential election

This article addresses two questions. It begins by comparing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest with the 1980s campaigns of Jesse Jackson. It examines the different background and personalities of Obama and Jackson, together with an analysis of what has changed in US political life in the intervening decades, in an attempt to understand why Obama succeeded where the earlier Jackson campaigns failed. The second part of the article analyses the subsequent general election with a view to determining whether Obama's defeat of John McCain should be seen as a result of a unique set of political circumstances, or evidence of the increasing irrelevance of race in US electoral politics. In particular, this discussion assesses the validity of the claims made by some commentators that Obama's victory marks the beginning of a new ‘post-racial’ era in American political life.

The Age Gap in the 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 presidential election suggests a significant realignment among voters entering the electorate, with younger voters deviating considerably from older voters in their partisan preferences. Barack Obama won the vote of those under 30 years old by a 66% to 32% margin and first time voters favored him by an overwhelming margin of 69–30%. The fact that the age gap between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest was also among the largest age gaps in American electoral history suggests that part of the age gap was undoubtedly due to the appeal of Obama with younger Americans. Part of the age gap, however, was also due to the unpopularity of the George W. Bush administration. The strong youth vote for Obama in 2008 was thus both pro-Obama and anti-Bush in nature. The huge age gap in 2008 suggests a split of the electorate along generational lines and the long-term consequences of the age gap appear to overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party. George W. Bush’s unpopular and divisive presidency helped to make the youngest generation of American voters increasingly Democratic in their vote preference. This suggests that if younger Americans follow other generations in keeping the same partisan voting patterns throughout their life, the Democrats are potentially poised to make considerable gains in future elections.

Party Change and the Shifting Dynamics in Presidential Nominations: The Lessons of 2008

Presidential nominations in recent years have been settled with increasing speed, most of the time in the early stages of the primaries and caucuses, and certainly before the national convention, which has become more of a rally. Even when the battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination continued to the end of the primary season in 2008, it was settled before the convention. Analysts have emphasized the importance of the “invisible primary” and the front-loaded delegate selection schedule in explaining the early resolution of Presidential nomination contests. However, not enough attention has been paid to a much more fundamental change in our political parties and party system: The old umbrella parties have been replaced by ideological polarization between the parties and ideological homogenization within the parties. Our new party system dates back about forty years, and features increased ideological unity and decreased factionalism, making it easier to settle nominations. Even today's front-loaded nominating calendar would not have prevented some of the hotly contested conventions of the old umbrella parties.

Beyond Expectations: Effects of Early Elections in U.S. Presidential Nomination Contests

This article explores how results from Iowa may affect outcomes in subsequent nomination contests. We suggest that how Iowa matters may be determined, at least in part, by how voters and the news media assess whether or not candidates meet or exceed expectations there.

The Dynamics of Poll Performance During the 2008 Presidential Nomination Contest

This analysis focuses on estimation difficulties pollsters had in the primaries in 2008 in light of recent trends in improved polling accuracy in general elections. We consider the series of polls that were conducted in New Hampshire and other states holding primaries, looking at how the dynamics of the primary contest affected polling accuracy in those contests. The data come from published state-level results of public pollsters from the week preceding each primary or caucus for which polls were conducted; all told, we used 258 polls in thirty-six different Demo- cratic events and 219 polls in twenty-six Republican events. The results show that the winner's vote share almost always exceeded the poll share while the race remained competitive, particularly early on in the nomi- nation process. In an unusual perspective made possible by the length of the contest on the Democratic side in particular, this could be observed through most of the primaries; it was not the case in the Republican events after John McCain became the presumptive nominee. The analy- sis shows there are contextual factors at work that can affect the quality of the estimates that public pollsters make. Measures of momentum and viability affect the estimates differently early in the process compared to later, and there are special factors associated with the insurgent candidacy of Barack Obama that may also have affected the accuracy of the polls. We model these factors, investigate their explanatory power, and discuss the implications for pollsters in future primary sequences.

The Election after reform: money, politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Chapter 1 Assessing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Part 2 Part I: The Political Parties Post-BCRA Chapter 3 Party Finance in the Wake of BCRA: An Overview Chapter 4 The Parties' Congressional Campaign Committees in 2004 Chapter 5 State and Local Political Parties Part 6 Part II: Interest Groups and Advocacy Organizations Chapter 7 BCRA and the 527 Groups Chapter 8 Interest Groups and Advocacy Organizations After BCRA Part 9 Part III: Air Wars and Ground Wars Chapter 10 Much More of the Same: Television Advertising Pre- and Post- BCRA Chapter 11 Stepping Out of the Shadows? Ground-War Activity in 2004 Part 12 Part IV: Candidates and Elections Chapter 13 The First Congressional Elections After BCRA Chapter 14 Self-Financed Candidates and the Millionaires' Amendment Chapter 15 A Public Funding System in Jeopardy: Lessons from the Presidential Nomination Contest of 2004

A Public Funding System in Jeopardy: Lessons from the Presidential Nomination Contest of 2004

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and PolicyVol. 5, No. 1 Original ArticlesA Public Funding System in Jeopardy: Lessons from the Presidential Nomination Contest of 2004Professor Michael J. MalbinProfessor Michael J. MalbinSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:10 Feb 2006https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2006.5.2AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byCan “Letting in Sunlight” Lead to Accidental Sunburn? The Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform on the Financing of U.S. Presidential Candidates Karen Sebold and Andrew J. Dowdle18 September 2018 | Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, Vol. 17, No. 3Campaign Targets and Messages in Direct Mail Fundraising28 April 2013 | Political Behavior, Vol. 36, No. 2The Incompatible Treatment of Majorities in Election Law and Deliberative Democracy James A. Gardner12 December 2013 | Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, Vol. 12, No. 4Don’t Blame Donors for Ideological Polarization of Political Parties13 December 2011 | American Politics Research, Vol. 40, No. 3Does Publicizing a Tax Credit for Political Contributions Increase Its Use?26 July 2016 | American Politics Research, Vol. 34, No. 5 Volume 5Issue 1Mar 2006 InformationCopyright 2006, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Professor Michael J. Malbin.A Public Funding System in Jeopardy: Lessons from the Presidential Nomination Contest of 2004.Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy.Mar 2006.2-22.http://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2006.5.2Published in Volume: 5 Issue 1: February 10, 2006PDF download

Change and continuity in the 2000 and 2002 elections

The authors analyse the results of the 2006 US midterm elections and evaluate strategies that may dominate the presidential nomination contests for Democratic and Republican candidates in 2008.