While conventional wisdom holds that the first delegate selection events in Iowa and New Hampshire are important influences on the outcome of the presidential selection process, scholars increasingly question whether victories in these ‘bellwether’ contests are sufficient to propel darkhorse candidates to the nomination. This study utilizes four OLS regression models to predict nomination outcomes from 1980 to 1996 where the incumbent president did not sit for reelection. Earlier research demonstrated the possibility of forecasting presidential nominations by examining the results of (1) public opinion polls; FEC records regarding (2) money raised; and (3) cash reserves; and (4) whether candidates were southern Democrats (Mayer 1996a; Adkins and Dowdle 2000). Utilizing measures representing the outcome of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, this study contrasts the effect of momentum from these early contests on final primary vote totals. Evidence suggests that New Hampshire plays a role in determining the ordinal ranking of candidate finishes, but not necessarily the winner of the party nomination.

Since 1980, the positive influence of candidate performance and campaign organization explains much of the variation in fundraising during the pre-primary season. Candidate performance is measured by national poll results, change in candidate viability, and length of candidacy. Campaign organization includes the amount of money the candidate's campaign spent on fundraising, size of the candidate's electoral constituency, and whether the candidate self-financed his campaign. Using three ordinary least square regression models (for Democrats, Republicans, and combined), the authors examine the effects of these variables on pre-primary fundraising from 1980 to 2000 where the incumbent president did not sit for reelection. In the combined model national poll results, change in candidate viability, fundraising expenditures, and self-financing significantly affect fundraising during the money primary. Partisan models suggest that while Republicans benefit more from earlier national poll results, Democrats profit from changes in viability during the course of the pre-primary season.During the early days of the presidential nomination campaign cycle, before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, candidates aspiring to win one of the two major party nominations compete for financial resources. Damore (1997) reported that in the 1984, 1988, and 1992 Democratic nomination contests, 42 percent of campaign funds were raised even before the primaries or caucuses were held. Hinckley and Green (1996), who concurred with these findings in their study of the 1988 presidential nomination fundraising cycle, 256 Presidential Studies Quarterly 32, no. 2 ( June)

In order to demonstrate challenges to conventional wisdom (Aldrich 1980a, b; Bartels 1985 1988; Orren and Polsby 1987), this article develops several forecasting models of the presidential primary vote to compare to a baseline model of the aggregate primary vote (APV) that uses pre-primary and New Hampshire primary data. The models indicate that candidates’ Gallup poll position and cash reserves are significant positive predictors of a candidates’ primary vote share, though there are differences between forecasting models of the primary vote in Democratic and Republican nomination campaigns. Parallel models incorporating results of the New Hampshire primary improve the predictive power of the baseline model, indicating that the bellwether primary has a “correcting” effect on the relative standings of some candidates seeking a presidential nomination. This effect is substantially greater for Democrats than for Republicans.

No abstract

Using data available at the culmination of the "exhibition season," which ends prior to the Iowa caucuses, Adkins and Dowdle (2000) attempted to forecast the outcome of presidential nominations in the postreform era using two models to predict the percentage of the primary vote total that presidential aspirants received in races in which the incumbent president did not sit for reelection. 2 Both models employ