The New Hampshire Effect in Presidential Nominations

Steger, Wayne P.; Dowdle, Andrew; Adkins, Randall

doi:10.1177/106591290405700303

Cited by 40 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The positive eff ects of winning Iowa bolsters Hull's ( 2008 ) claim that Iowa does play an important role in nomination outcomes, but the actual vote percentage from Iowa is not significantly correlated with the overall primary results, which is consistent with prior research (Adkins and Dowdle 2001a ). On the other hand, both ordinal and interval-level fi nishes in New Hampshire are positively correlated with nomination outcomes as previous studies have indicated (Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins 2004 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Since Carter's victory in 1976, many candidates spend resources disproportionate to the numbers of convention delegates awarded trying to win support of voters candidates in these two states or at least to try to beat popular expectations (Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins 2004 ). The fi rst variable to measure candidate strength in Iowa represents whether candidates won the caucuses.…”

Section: Iowamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

Dowdle

Adkins

Sebold

et al. 2016

APSC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of scholars successfully modeled and predicted presidential nomination outcomes from 1996-2008. However, dramatic changes occurred in subsequent years that would seem to make replicating these results challenging at best. Building on those earlier studies, we utilize a series of OLS models that included measures of preprimary resources and early campaign successes or failures to forecast that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations in 2016. This outcome suggests that some fundamental factors governing nomination outcomes have not changed despite the conventional wisdom. N umerous models forecast general election outcomes by employing a variety of economic and political measures to make accurate predictions about whether the party in control of the White House will retain or lose the presidency (for an overview see Campbell 2012 ). In many ways forecasting presidential nominations presents a more challenging task. Important individual-level cues such as partisanship or systemic-level factors such as economic growth or the popularity of the incumbent are helpful in understanding why a voter might choose Bill Clinton over George W. Bush in 1992. Unfortunately, they are not useful in explaining why the same individual picked Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton or Tom Harkin nine months earlier in the New Hampshire primary (Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins 2012 ).While the McGovern-Fraser reform movement of the early 1970s created a new system of presidential nominations designed to increase the role of voters in picking party nominees, a period of stability in the nomination process of both parties' emerged by the end of the 1980s (Barilleaux and Adkins 1993 ). As these contests became more routinized, a number of scholars attempted to forecast the results of the presidential primary season by utilizing factors such as polling, fi nancial resources, and elite support (Adkins and Dowdle 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2005Mayer 1996 ; Steger 2000 ; see Steger 2008 for a comparison of the forecasts generated by the diff erent models). Momentum from performing well in early primaries was also found to play an important role in determining nomination outcomes (Bartels 1988 ), though there is some controversy about the precise eff ect of particular contests (Adkins and Dowdle 2001a ;Christenson and Smidt 2012 ;Hull 2008 ).At first glance, current events appear to have altered this equilibrium in at least two important ways. First, super PACs, a relatively new type of political committee that arose from the Speechnow v FEC and Citizens United v FEC court decisions in 2010, should alter the impact of traditional sources of campaign fi nance (Dwyre and Braz 2015 ). Second, the Republican elite has arguably fragmented in recent years, which should aff ect elite support on the process (Steger 2015 ). Since traditional forecasting models encountered diffi culty predicting the 2004 Democratic nomination correctly (Steger 2008 ), these new factors should make predicting recent...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Iowamentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

Dowdle

Adkins

Sebold

et al. 2016

APSC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, our model recognizes that candidates' decisions to compete are shaped not only by the goal of winning, but also by the potential profile-raising benefits that may result from contesting their party's presidential nomination (Steger et al 2004). At the same time, the pursuit of these benefits is likely to be tempered by party-related costs that may result from lengthy losing nomination candidacies (Norrander 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We build on these and other studies (e.g., Steger et al 2004;Steger 2008) to develop a model of candidate withdrawal that emphasizes the cost-benefit calculus associated with entering and remaining in a presidential nomination contest. Specifically, our model recognizes that candidates' decisions to compete are shaped not only by the goal of winning, but also by the potential profile-raising benefits that may result from contesting their party's presidential nomination (Steger et al 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the Decision to Withdraw from a U.S. Presidential Nomination Campaign

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We contend that a candidate's decision to exit from a U.S. presidential nomination campaign is a function of three sets of considerations: the potential for profile elevation, party-related costs, and updated perceptions of competitiveness. We analyze data from eleven post-reform presidential nomination campaigns and find support for all three considerations. Specifically, our results suggest that in addition to candidates' competitiveness, the decision to withdraw is a function of candidates' closeness to their party and ability to raise their profile. At the same time, some of our results contradict the conventional wisdom regarding presidential nomination campaigns, as we find no evidence that media coverage or cash on hand directly affect the duration of a nomination candidacy.

show abstract

“…Typically the year prior to primary and caucus voting would be "invisible" to the general public, with candidates striving for financial support and party elite endorsements largely out of sight (Dowdle et al 2013 ;Steger, Dowdle, and Adkins 2004 ); however, the year leading up to the 2016 general election was decidedly visible. Not only were party identifiers and the media attentive to both parties' politicians and their positions, so too was the general public.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Please Clap”: Applause, Laughter, and Booing during the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Debates

Stewart¹,

Eubanks²,

Miller³

2016

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2016 Republican Party presidential primary debates were unprecedented in the amount of media and public interest they generated. Substantially driven by curiosity about reality television celebrity Donald Trump, the initial debates hosted by FOX News and CNN both refl ected and validated interest in his candidacy while proff ering attention to a full slate of more traditional presidential contenders in front of boisterous audiences. This study considers these audiences' response. Whether applause, laughter, booing, or combinations thereof, these group utterances provide a reliable metric by which insights may be derived concerning partisan attitudes towards Trump and the other candidates, as well as the unity of the Republican Party. Findings suggest that the debate setting in concert with the demographics of the in-person audience may well have infl uenced initial response to the candidates and as a result have subtle yet lingering consequences for the 2016 presidential election.

show abstract

The New Hampshire Effect in Presidential Nominations

Cited by 40 publications

References 37 publications

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

Explaining the Decision to Withdraw from a U.S. Presidential Nomination Campaign

“Please Clap”: Applause, Laughter, and Booing during the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Debates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About