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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramowitz, Alan, and Walter J. Stone. 1984. Nomination Politics: Party Activists and Presidential Choice. New York: Praeger.
2.
Abramowitz, Alan, Ronald B. Rapoport, and Walter J. Stone. 1991. ‘Up Close and Personal: The 1988 Iowa Caucuses and Presidential Politics.’ In Emmett H. Buell, Jr. and Lee Sigelman, eds., Nominating the President (pp. 42-71). Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
3.
Adams, William C.1987. ‘As New Hampshire Goes....’ In Gary R. Orren and Nelson W Polsby, eds., Media and Momentum (pp. 42-59). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
4.
Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. 1999. ‘The Money Primary: Forecasting Fundraising in Post-Reform Presidential Nomination Contests.’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 15-17
5.
Adkins, Randall E., and Andrew J. Dowdle. 2000. ‘Break Out the Mint Juleps in New Hampshire? Is New Hampshire the 'Primary' Culprit in Predicting Presidential Nomination Outcomes?’American Politics Quarterly28 (2): 251-69.
6.
Aldrich, John. 1980. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nominations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Bartels, Larry1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Barilleaux, Ryan J., and Randall E. Adkins. 1993. ‘The Nominations: Process and Patterns.’ In Michael Nelson, ed., The Elections of 1992 (pp. 21-56). Washington, DC. Congressional Quarterly
9.
Beachler, Donald. 1996. ‘The South and the Democratic Presidential Nomination, 1972-1992.’Presidential Studies Quarterly26 (2): 402-414.
10.
Brereton, Charles. 1987. First in the Nation: New Hampshire and the Premier Presidential Primary. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall.
11.
Buell, Emmett H., Jr.1996. ‘The Invisible Primary.’ In William Mayer, ed., In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees (pp. 143-143). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
12.
Buell, Emmett H., Jr.2000. ‘ The Changing Face of the New Hampshire Primary’ In William Mayer, ed., In Pursuit of the White House (pp. 85-144). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
13.
Cook, Rhodes. 1989. (‘The Nominating Process.’ In Michael Nelson, ed., The Elections of 1988. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
14.
Cronin. Thomas E., and Robert E. Loevy. 1994. ‘Yes It is Time for a New Presidential Nominating Process.’ In Gary L. Rose, ed., Controversial Issues in Presidential Selection (pp. 28-36). Albany: State University of New York.
15.
Hadley, Arthur. 1976. The Invisible Primary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
16.
Kiser, George. 1992. ‘Presidential Primaries: Stepping Stones to the Vice Presidential Nomination?’Presidential Studies Quarterly22 (3): 493-517.
17.
Lichter, S. Robert. 1988. The Video Campaign: Network Coverage of the 1988 Primaries. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
18.
Mathews, Donald. 1978. ‘Winnowing: The News Media and the 1976 Presidential Nominations.’ In James D. Barber, ed., Racefor the Presidency: The Media and the Nominating Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
Mayer, William. 1987. ‘The New Hampshire Primary: A Historical Overview’ In Gary R. Orren and Nelson W Polsby, eds., Media and Momentum (pp. 9-41). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
20.
Mayer, William. 1996a. ‘Forecasting Presidential Nominations.’ In William Mayer, ed., In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees (pp. 44-71). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
21.
Mayer, William. 1996b. ‘Caucuses: How They Work, What Differences They Make.’ In William Mayer, ed., In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees (pp. 105-157). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
22.
Norrander, Barbara. 1993. ‘Nomination Choices: Caucus and Primary Outcomes, 1976-88.’AmericanJournal of Political Science, 37 (2): 343-364.
23.
Pindyck, Robert S., and Dainel L. Rubinfeld. 1981. Econometric models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Polsby, Nelson. 1989. ‘The Iowa Caucuses in a Front-Loaded System.’ In Peverill Squire, ed., The Iowa Caucuses and the Presidential Nomination Process (pp. 149-62). Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Price, David. 1984. Bringing Back the Parties. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly
26.
Squire, Peverill. 1989. ‘Iowa and the Nomination Process.’ In Peverill Squire, ed., The Iowa Caucuses and the Presidential Nominating Process (pp. 1-17). Boulder, CO: Westview.
27.
Stone, Walter, Alan Abramowitz, and Ronald Rapoport. 1989. ‘How Representative are the Iowa Caucuses?’ In Peverill Squire, ed., The Iowa Caucuses and the Presidential Nomination Process (pp. 19-50). Boulder, CO: Westview.
28.
Wayne, Stephen. 1996. Road to the White House: The Politics of Presidential Elections. New York: St. Martins.
29.
Winebrenner, Hugh. 1998. The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event. Ames: Iowa State University
