Voting Outcomes in the 1984 Democratic Party Primaries and Caucuses

Abstract

Scholarly inquiry concerning influences on electoral outcomes in the presidential nomination process, though extensive, has been conducted almost exclusively with data collected at the individual level of analysis. The Michigan model of normal vote analysis suggests that long-term influences measured at the aggregate level, such as the sociodemographic, economic, and ideological characteristics of the states, are also important in determining electoral outcomes. We present an aggregate-level analysis of state characteristics that affected the Hart, Jackson, and Mondale vote proportions in the 1984 Democratic caucuses and primaries. Our primary election models explain between 65% and 83% of the variance in candidate vote shares, with sociodemographic and economic factors as the leading indicators. In the caucuses, we find that campaign spending and sociodemographic influences are dominant in models that explain between 38% and 81% of the variance. We conclude with a brief discussion of what our findings mean for future Democratic candidates.

Attack Politics in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: An Examination of the Frequency and Determinants of Intermediated Negative Messages Against Opponents

“…But the strategies they use are varied. Some of these have been studied closely-resource allocation strategy and its impact, for example (Gurian 1996;Welch 1976;Aldrich 1980;Orren 1985;Parent, Jillson, and Weber 1987;Haynes, Gurian, and Nichols 1997). Another area of interest is the strategic use of methods of political communication, particularly political advertising (Just et al 1996;West 1994; Roberts and McCombs 1994;Christ, Thorson, and Caywood 1994).…”

Who Caucuses? An Experimental Approach to Institutional Design and Electoral Participation

“…This null would be consistent with both Marshall and the work of Abramowitz, Rapoport, and Stone, and it could be tested 21 Stone, Abramowitz, and Rapoport 1989. 27 See Norrander (1993 or Parent, Jillson, and Weber (1987) for helpful discussions of how election results were influenced by ideology in caucuses and primaries and how models predicting outcomes differ across primary and caucus contexts, but theirs are aggregate-level analyses of candidate vote shares, not examinations of the attributes of participants in either nomination procedure. 22 Abramowitz, Rapoport, and Stone 1991.…”

“… See Norrander 1993 andParent, Jillson, andWeber 1987 for analyses of state-level results. 55 This measure includes Democratic leaners.…”

Presidential Nomination Politics in the Post-Reform Era

“…Campaign spending or visits to a state significantly influences vote totals (Grush 1980;Norrander 1993), or perhaps only early in the campaign or for unknown candidates (Bartels 1988, ch. 8;Wilcox 1991), or in caucus states (Abramowitz, Rapoport, and Stone 1991;Parent, Jillson, and Weber 1987), or only in some cases (Goldstein 1978). Mixed results should be expected, since the impact of campaign spending will depend on the preexisting information levels about the candidates.…”