Following the Rules? Candidate Strategy in Presidential Primaries^*

Abstract

The competitiveness of the 2008 presidential primaries in both the Republican and Democratic parties has prompted a reconsideration of the role of delegate-selection rules in influencing the strategic behavior of presidential candidates. Using advertising and candidate state-visit data from the 2004 and 2008 presidential nominating campaigns, we reexamine the strategies presidential candidates use when competing for the nomination of their party. Copyright (c) 2009 by the Southwestern Social Science Association.

From Home Base to Swing States: The Evolution of Digital Advertising Strategies during the 2020 US Presidential Primary

“…Our hypotheses consider three explicit state-level strategies—home states, swing states, and states with early primaries—which we expect to vary over time. We also consider whether campaigns have alternative motivations to target a particular state, such as contest type (caucus or primary), access to rich donors, potential for high fundraising yield, and overall number of delegates (Bartels, 1985; Brown Jr et al, 1995; Ridout et al, 2009). We include an indicator for states that hold caucuses rather than primaries in Table 2.…”

“…However, individual states present different opportunities to different candidates. Campaigns allocate expenditures on the basis of whether a state holds caucuses or a primary, whether delegates are distributed proportionally or winner-take-all, as well as a host of demographic and geographic factors (Gimpel, Lee, and Kaminski, 2006; Lin, Kennedy, and Lazer, 2017; Ridout, Rottinghaus, and Hosey, 2009). We utilize campaigns’ growing use of digital advertising to investigate these strategies during the invisible primary.…”

Party Rules and Equitable Representation in U.S. Presidential Nominating Contests

“…The choice between using a presidential primary or caucuses to determine allocation of convention delegates among candidates has consequences for nomination politics in any given state. Campaign spending in general is higher in primary states than in caucus states (Gurian, 1990(Gurian, , 1993 while long-shot candidates, who often lack substantial financial resources, give greater attention to caucuses (Ridout, Rottinghaus, & Hosey, 2009). Caucuses typically engage fewer participants (Karpowitz & Pope, 2015), which in turn results in caucus participants tending to be less representative of a state's electorate as a whole in terms of policy preferences and ideology than are primary election participants (Karpowitz & Pope, 2015;Meinke, Staton, & Wuhs, 2006;Norrander, 1993;Panagopoulos, 2010).…”

Following the Money: Super PACs and the 2012 Presidential Nomination

“…PAC campaign strategy and spending is largely understood in the context of congressional elections or general presidential elections (Biersack, Herrnson, and Wilcox ; Panagopoulos ; Rozell ), where the most pivotal states or marginal contests receive greater spending. Nomination campaigns differ from these, however, in that there is an order to state contests, which compounds the need for immediate victories to sustain momentum, as well as various delegate allocation rules (Gurian and Haynes ; Ridout, Rottinghaus, and Hosey ).…”