Surge and stability in presidential nominations

1981 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-362
Author(s):  
E. Gene DeFelice
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Nominations

Forecasting Presidential Nominations in 2016: #WePredictedClintonANDTrump

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 691-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Dowdle ◽  
Randall E. Adkins ◽  
Karen Sebold ◽  
Jarred Cuellar
Keyword(s):  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Presidential Nominations

ABSTRACTA 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.

A Rigged Game? How Candidate, Partisan, and Electoral Factors Shape Elite Support for the Party Nomination Process

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 681-694
Author(s):  
Caitlin E. Jewitt ◽  
Gregory Shufeldt
Keyword(s):  
General Election ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Electoral Rules ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
Major Party ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Party Elites ◽  
Presidential Nominations

The 2016 presidential nominations revealed deep, yet distinct, divisions within each major party. These divisions persisted and permeated the general election campaign and were reflected in voters’ dissatisfaction with the candidates. Movements such as the “Bernie or Bust” supporters and the “Never-Trumpers” indicated that vocal portions of the parties were dissatisfied with the party nominees or the processes that selected those candidates. There were also indications that many party elites were not pleased with the nomination processes or the outcome; yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which party elites support the nomination process and their party’s nominee and what explains this support. By combining the 2016 Convention Delegate Study and an original dataset of the nomination electoral rules utilized by the states, we assess how candidate, partisan, and electoral factors shape delegate support for the nomination process and nominee. Our analysis reveals that candidate and party-centric explanations better explain delegate views toward the nomination process and nominee than factors related to the electoral context.

Presidential Nominations: The New Model

2000 ◽  
pp. 195-219
Author(s):  
Samuel J. Eldersveld ◽  
Hanes Walton
Keyword(s):  
New Model ◽  
Presidential Nominations

Obstruction and the Politics of Civilian Nominations

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-421
Author(s):  
Nicholas O. Howard ◽  
Jason M. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Significant Delay ◽  
Presidential Nominations

Conflict over presidential nominations has grown more acrimonious in recent decades. Senators have increasingly exploited their procedural prerogatives to block or delay nominations that they oppose. In this article, we utilize a newly collected dataset on holds placed by Republican senators to explore the usage and effect of obstructive tactics on nominations in the 100th to 104th Congresses (1987-1996). We find that nominees subject to a hold see a significant delay in disposition of their nomination, but we do not find evidence that holds regularly prevent nominees from being confirmed by the Senate.

Conditional Arbiters: The Limits of Political Party Influence in Presidential Nominations

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 709-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne P. Steger
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
Party Elites ◽  
The Invisible ◽  
Presidential Nominations

ABSTRACTThe 2016 Republican presidential nomination challenges arguments about political party insiders’ influence on the outcome. This article argues, first, that party insider influence is conditional on the participation, coalescence, and timing of party stakeholders behind a front-runner during the invisible primary, and second, that party insider influence has probably declined since the 2000 presidential election. Data on endorsements by elite elected officials in open presidential nominations from 1984 to 2016 show that party insiders’ participation and convergence of support behind the front-runner is less extensive than what was found by Cohen, Karol, Noel, and Zaller (2008), though the data sets differ. Party insiders participate and unify more readily when the party coalition is stable and there is a candidate in the race who has demonstrable national support. Party elites remain on the sidelines when the party coalition is divided or when there is uncertainty about the appeal of candidates (Ryan 2011; Whitby 2014). The potency of insider endorsements likely has declined with the rise of social media, the changing campaign finance landscape, and the reemergence of populism in each party.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document