What works? Competitive strategies of major parties out of power

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 95-120

  Finegold, Kenneth ^a   Swift, Elaine K ^b  

^a Eastern Washington University ^*  (United States)

^b EASTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035586919     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123401000059     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 2nd English edn (New York: Wiley, 1959); Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975); Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
2. Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 2nd English edn (New York: Wiley, 1959); Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975); Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
3. Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 2nd English edn (New York: Wiley, 1959); Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975); Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
4. Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 2nd English edn (New York: Wiley, 1959); Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975); Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
5. Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 2nd English edn (New York: Wiley, 1959); Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975); Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
6. Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966); Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, 2nd English edn (New York: Wiley, 1959); Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975); Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
7. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
8. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
9. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
10. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
11. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
12. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
13. John Aldrich, Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989); Douglas B. Craig, After Wilson: The Struggle for the Democratic Party, 1920-1934 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Philip A. Klinkner, The Losing Parties: Out-Party National Committees, 1956-1993 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994); Arthur Sanders, Victory: How a Progressive Democratic Party Can Win and Govern (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1992); Clyde P. Weed, The Nemesis of Reform: The Republican Party During the New Deal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
14. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy.
15. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
16. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
17. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
18. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
19. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
20. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
21. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
22. Austin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Benjamin I. Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections: Rational Man and Electoral Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Dismantling the Parties: Reflections on Party Reform and Party Decomposition (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978); Aldrich, Before the Convention; Nelson W. Polsby, Consequences of Party Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Byron Shafer, Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983); Klinkner, Losing Parties; Weed, Nemesis of Reform.
23. Page, Choices and Echoes, chap. 4.
24. Thomas H. Hammond and Brian D. Humes, ' "What This Campaign is All about Is. ": A Rational Choice Alternative to the Downsian Spatial Model of Elections', in Bernard Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 141-60. James M. Enelow, James W. Endersby and Michael C. Munger, 'A Revised Probabilistic Spatial Model of Elections: Theory and Evidence', in Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice, pp. 125-40.
25. Thomas H. Hammond and Brian D. Humes, ' "What This Campaign is All about Is. ": A Rational Choice Alternative to the Downsian Spatial Model of Elections', in Bernard Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 141-60. James M. Enelow, James W. Endersby and Michael C. Munger, 'A Revised Probabilistic Spatial Model of Elections: Theory and Evidence', in Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice, pp. 125-40.
26. Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution.
27. George Rabinowitz and Stuart Elaine Macdonald, 'A Directional Theory of Issue Voting', American Political Science Review, 83 (1989), 93-121.
28. Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 'A Directional Theory of Issue Voting', p. 114.
29. David Robertson, A Theory of Party Competition (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976): Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and Synthesis Applied to Surveys From Ten Democracies (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1977); Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); Ian Budge, David Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Ian Budge, 'A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1994), 443-67.
30. David Robertson, A Theory of Party Competition (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976): Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and Synthesis Applied to Surveys From Ten Democracies (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1977); Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); Ian Budge, David Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Ian Budge, 'A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1994), 443-67.
31. David Robertson, A Theory of Party Competition (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976): Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and Synthesis Applied to Surveys From Ten Democracies (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1977); Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); Ian Budge, David Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Ian Budge, 'A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1994), 443-67.
32. David Robertson, A Theory of Party Competition (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976): Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and Synthesis Applied to Surveys From Ten Democracies (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1977); Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); Ian Budge, David Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Ian Budge, 'A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1994), 443-67.
33. David Robertson, A Theory of Party Competition (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976): Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and Synthesis Applied to Surveys From Ten Democracies (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1977); Ian Budge and Dennis J. Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); Ian Budge, David Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Ian Budge, 'A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1994), 443-67.
34. Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections, pp. 50-3.
35. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy.
36. Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; Kenneth Finegold and Theda Skocpol, State and Party in America's New Deal (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995).
37. Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; Kenneth Finegold and Theda Skocpol, State and Party in America's New Deal (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995).
38. Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution.
39. William H. Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986). chap. 1.
40. Theodore Lowi, 'Toward Functionalism in Political Science: The Case of Innovation in Party Systems', American Political Science Review, 57 (1963), 570-83.
41. For a comparative treatment of parties that cease, see Kay Lawson and Peter H. Merkl, eds, When Parties Fail: Emerging Alternative Organizations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988).
42. Although a vestige of the Whig Party met in an 1856 convention, most Whig elites and mass supporters had already left the party. The convention was poorly attended and failed to attract delegates from ten of the thirty-one states. Instead of nominating a separate party ticket, these Whigs endorsed the Know-Nothing (American) presidential ticket of Millard Fillmore and Andrew Jackson Donelson. We therefore date 1852 as the last time the Whigs mounted a genuine contest for the presidency. William E. Gienapp, Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), and Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978), also consider 1852 to be the last Whig presidential contest.
43. Although a vestige of the Whig Party met in an 1856 convention, most Whig elites and mass supporters had already left the party. The convention was poorly attended and failed to attract delegates from ten of the thirty-one states. Instead of nominating a separate party ticket, these Whigs endorsed the Know-Nothing (American) presidential ticket of Millard Fillmore and Andrew Jackson Donelson. We therefore date 1852 as the last time the Whigs mounted a genuine contest for the presidency. William E. Gienapp, Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), and Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978), also consider 1852 to be the last Whig presidential contest.
44. Jeff Fishel, Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1985), p. 27. See also Gerald M. Pomper and Susan S. Lederman, Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics, 2nd edn (New York: Longman's, 1980); Paul T. David, 'Party Platforms as National Plans', Public Administration Review, 31 (1971), 303-15; and John P. Bradley, 'Party Platforms and Party Performance Concerning Social Security', Polity, 1 (1969), 337-58.
45. Jeff Fishel, Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1985), p. 27. See also Gerald M. Pomper and Susan S. Lederman, Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics, 2nd edn (New York: Longman's, 1980); Paul T. David, 'Party Platforms as National Plans', Public Administration Review, 31 (1971), 303-15; and John P. Bradley, 'Party Platforms and Party Performance Concerning Social Security', Polity, 1 (1969), 337-58.
46. Jeff Fishel, Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1985), p. 27. See also Gerald M. Pomper and Susan S. Lederman, Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics, 2nd edn (New York: Longman's, 1980); Paul T. David, 'Party Platforms as National Plans', Public Administration Review, 31 (1971), 303-15; and John P. Bradley, 'Party Platforms and Party Performance Concerning Social Security', Polity, 1 (1969), 337-58.
47. Jeff Fishel, Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1985), p. 27. See also Gerald M. Pomper and Susan S. Lederman, Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics, 2nd edn (New York: Longman's, 1980); Paul T. David, 'Party Platforms as National Plans', Public Administration Review, 31 (1971), 303-15; and John P. Bradley, 'Party Platforms and Party Performance Concerning Social Security', Polity, 1 (1969), 337-58.
48. Fishel, Presidents and Promises; John Gerring, 'A Chapter in the History of American Party Ideology: The Nineteenth-Century Democratic Party (1828-1892)', Polity, 26 (1994), 729-68;
49. Fishel, Presidents and Promises; John Gerring, 'A Chapter in the History of American Party Ideology: The Nineteenth-Century Democratic Party (1828-1892)', Polity, 26 (1994), 729-68;
50. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
51. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
52. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
53. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
54. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
55. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
56. Gerring, 'Party Ideology in America: The National Republican Chapter', Studies in American Political Development, 11 (Spring 1997), 44-108; Benjamin Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy' (doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1974); Page, Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections; Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Voting and Party Competition; Budge and Fairlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections; Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change.
57. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
58. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
59. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
60. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
61. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
62. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
63. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
64. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
65. The seven categories are given in Appendix A, where our procedures are summarized. See Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844-1968', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (1972), 603-25; and Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy', American Political Science Review, 70 (1976), 41-9. Scholars have employed a number of other issue codes, including those developed by Sam Peltzman, by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, by Aage Clausen, and by the Manifesto Research Group. While each has merit, Peltzman's codes deal mainly with economic issues. Poole and Rosenthal's ninety-nine categories allow for great specificity, but make it difficult to generalize. Clausen's scheme is very similar to Ginsberg's. However, we chose the Ginsberg scheme because Clausen offers only five codes that apply to government in general, combines Ginsberg's categories of 'Capitalism' and 'Internal Sovereignty' into one broad code for 'government management', and includes no separate code for labour issues, which have often divided twentieth-century parties. The Manifesto Research Group developed fifty-four categories for cross-national analysis, but these categories derived from a more limited period of time than the entire sweep of American political history. Moreover, the Manifesto Research Group categories often fit the United States less well than they do European countries, leading to findings such as the classification of the 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms as Socialist. See Aage Clausen, How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St Martin's Press, 1973); Sam Peltzman, 'An Economic Interpretation of the History of Congressional Voting in the Twentieth Century', American Economic Review, 75 (1985), 656-75; Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Robertson, Theory of Party Competition; Ian Budge, 'The Internal Analysis of Election Programmes', in Budge, Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change. The 1968 and 1972 Republican platforms are classified as Socialist in Budge and Robertson, 'Do Parties Differ, and How? Comparative Discriminant and Factor Analyses', in Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change, p. 408.
66. In this analysis, the 1844-52 platforms of the Whig party are treated as continuous with the Republican platforms that begin in 1856.
67. Donald T. Campbell and Donald W. Fiske, 'Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix', Psychological Bulletin, 56 (1959), 81-104.
68. John L. Sullivan and Stanley Feldman, Multiple Indicators: An Introduction (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979), p. 25.
69. Sullivan and Feldman suggest in Multiple Indicators that researchers assess validity by examining the matrix of bivariate correlations among the variables according to four criteria. First, the validity coefficients (different measures of the same variable) should be significantly greater than zero. In this matrix, seven of the fourteen coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level; thirteen of the fourteen validity coefficients have the correct sign. Secondly, each validity coefficient should be larger than all different-trait, different-method coefficients in the same row or column; among such comparisons, 314 of 364 (86.3 per cent) meet this test. Thirdly, each validity coefficient should be larger than the different-trait, same method coefficients involving the same variable; 272 of 364 comparisons (74.7 per cent) meet this test. Fourthly, the order of the correlations among the variables should be the same within each of four triangles: two showing same-trait, different-method correlations, and two showing different-trait, same-method correlations. In other words, the underlying relationships among the variables should show through no matter which measures of them are used in combination. With ninety-one correlations in each triangle, it is unlikely that the correlations would be perfectly consistent, but we can use the Spearman rank-order correlations among the four sets of correlations as an indication of their correspondence. The six bivariate rank-order correlations are all positive, although only one is significant at the 0.05 level.
70. All the models were differenced by one order to achieve stationarity in the platform data. The autoregressive order of the models selected ranged from zero to four; the moving average order was either zero or one.
71. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy.
72. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy; Hammond and Humes, ' "What This Campaign is All about Is. "'; Enelow, Endersby and Munger, 'Revised Probabilistic Spatial Model of Elections'.
73. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy; Hammond and Humes, ' "What This Campaign is All about Is. "'; Enelow, Endersby and Munger, 'Revised Probabilistic Spatial Model of Elections'.
74. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy; Hammond and Humes, ' "What This Campaign is All about Is. "'; Enelow, Endersby and Munger, 'Revised Probabilistic Spatial Model of Elections'.
75. Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 'Directional Theory of Issue Voting'. See also George Rabinowitz, Stuart Elaine Macdonald and Ola Listhaug, 'New Players in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparty Systems', Comparative Political Studies, 24 (1991), 147-85; Stuart Elaine Macdonald and George Rabinowitz, 'Ideology and Candidate Evaluation', Public Choice, 76 (1993), 79-102; Stuart Elaine Macdonald, George Rabinowitz and Ola Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped', Journal of Politics, 60 (1998), 653-90.
76. Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 'Directional Theory of Issue Voting'. See also George Rabinowitz, Stuart Elaine Macdonald and Ola Listhaug, 'New Players in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparty Systems', Comparative Political Studies, 24 (1991), 147-85; Stuart Elaine Macdonald and George Rabinowitz, 'Ideology and Candidate Evaluation', Public Choice, 76 (1993), 79-102; Stuart Elaine Macdonald, George Rabinowitz and Ola Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped', Journal of Politics, 60 (1998), 653-90.
77. Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 'Directional Theory of Issue Voting'. See also George Rabinowitz, Stuart Elaine Macdonald and Ola Listhaug, 'New Players in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparty Systems', Comparative Political Studies, 24 (1991), 147-85; Stuart Elaine Macdonald and George Rabinowitz, 'Ideology and Candidate Evaluation', Public Choice, 76 (1993), 79-102; Stuart Elaine Macdonald, George Rabinowitz and Ola Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can't Be Helped', Journal of Politics, 60 (1998), 653-90.
78. Rabinowitz and Macdonald, 'Directional Theory of Issue Voting', p. 100.
79. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
80. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
81. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
82. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
83. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
84. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
85. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
86. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
87. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
88. For examples, see Glenn Platt, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, 'Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17 (1992), 561-72; Torben Iversen, 'The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects', Comparative Political Studies, 27 (1994), 155-89; Iversen, 'Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting', American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1994), 45-74; Mikael Gilljam, 'The Directional Theory Under the Magnifying Glass: A Reappraisal', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 5-12; Samuel Merrill III, 'Voting Behavior Under the Directional Spatial Model of Electoral Competition', Public Choice, 77 (1993), 739-56; Samuel Merrill III and Bernard Grofman, 'Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 25-48; Roy Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 61-74; Irwin L. Morris and George Rabinowitz, 'On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9 (1997), 75-88; Anders Westholm, 'Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Model of Electoral Choice', American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 865-83; Macdonald, Rabinowitz and Listhaug, 'On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model'.
89. Pierce, 'Directional Versus Proximity Models', p. 72.
90. Joel H. Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1991).
91. More surprising results include the out-party campaigns of 1972 and 1996. The proximity model yields a classification of the 1972 Democrats as accommodating, which might seem odd given the radical reputation of McGovern's campaign. As Page argues, however, this image was itself the product of the successful Nixon effort to frame the challenger as an extremist. Nixon and his supporters, for example, depicted McGovern's plan to give every American $1,000 as a dangerous giveaway, when this proposal was actually quite similar to Nixon's proposed negative income tax. Page's analysis of campaign documents and our coding of the platform both place McGovern in the mainstream of the Democratic party. In some issue dimensions - including redistribution - the Democrats had taken stronger positions in 1968 than they did in 1972 (see Page, Choices and Echoes). The proximity model suggests that the 1996 Republican campaign was innovative. This classification is due primarily to the party's shift in the International Co-operation dimension: as a comparison of the 1996 Republican platform with those of 1992 and 1988 shows, the party switched from its prior internationalism under the leadership of former UN Ambassador George Bush to express hostility towards the United Nations and criticize American involvement in Bosnia and Haiti. The directional model, in which this shift is weighed less heavily, yields a classification of persistence. Both models classify the Reagan 1980 campaign as persistent. We might speculate that George Bush, Reagan's main rival for the Republican nomination, would have led the party towards a strategy of accommodation, as both models suggest he did when nominated in 1988.
92. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
93. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
94. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
95. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
96. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
97. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
98. These are the presidential election models presented in a special issue of American Politics Quarterly, 'Forecasting the 1996 Elections', 24 (1996): James E. Campbell, 'Polls and Voters: The Trial-Heat Presidential Election Forecasting Model, Certainty, and Political Campaigns', 408-33; Alan I. Abramowitz, 'Bill and Al's Excellent Adventure: Forecasting the 1996 Presidential Election', 434-42; Helmut Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates: A Forecast for 1996', 443-67; Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien, 'The Future in Forecasting: Prospective Presidential Models', 468-91; Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, 'Temporal Horizons and Presidential Election Forecasts', 492-505; Thomas M. Holbrook, 'Reading the Political Tea Leaves: A Forecasting Model of Contemporary Presidential Elections', 506-19.
99. Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution.
100. Lewis-Beck and Tien, 'Future in Forecasting', p. 487.
101. Larry M. Bartels, 'The Impact of Electioneering in the United States', in David Butler and Austin Ranney, eds, Electioneering: A Comparative Study of Continuity and Change (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 244-77 at pp. 265-6, and Thomas M. Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter? (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996), pp. 30-1, each of whom uses residuals from forecasting models to estimate the impact of campaigns, find effects of a similar magnitude. Marvin P. Wattenberg and Bernard Grofman, 'A Rational Choice Model of the President and Vice-President as a Package Deal', in Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice, pp. 173-8, estimate that the impact of one key strategic decision, the choice of a vice-presidential candidate, is also in this range.
102. Larry M. Bartels, 'The Impact of Electioneering in the United States', in David Butler and Austin Ranney, eds, Electioneering: A Comparative Study of Continuity and Change (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 244-77 at pp. 265-6, and Thomas M. Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter? (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996), pp. 30-1, each of whom uses residuals from forecasting models to estimate the impact of campaigns, find effects of a similar magnitude. Marvin P. Wattenberg and Bernard Grofman, 'A Rational Choice Model of the President and Vice-President as a Package Deal', in Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice, pp. 173-8, estimate that the impact of one key strategic decision, the choice of a vice-presidential candidate, is also in this range.
103. Larry M. Bartels, 'The Impact of Electioneering in the United States', in David Butler and Austin Ranney, eds, Electioneering: A Comparative Study of Continuity and Change (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 244-77 at pp. 265-6, and Thomas M. Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter? (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996), pp. 30-1, each of whom uses residuals from forecasting models to estimate the impact of campaigns, find effects of a similar magnitude. Marvin P. Wattenberg and Bernard Grofman, 'A Rational Choice Model of the President and Vice-President as a Package Deal', in Grofman, ed., Information, Participation, and Choice, pp. 173-8, estimate that the impact of one key strategic decision, the choice of a vice-presidential candidate, is also in this range.
104. See Norpoth, 'Of Time and Candidates', p. 453. Note that this is not the same model summarized in Table 3. The model summarized in Table 3 does not require survey data, but includes a variable for candidate strength in the primaries, which were not widely used until 1912.
105. 2 for each was lower than for the null model. Two of the equations did have root mean square errors lower than that for the null model, by less than 0.002.
106. This conclusion parallels that of the literature of competitive business strategy, which suggests that in business contexts, there is often no one optimal strategy. Instead, according to this research, firms can and do respond successfully to similar market conditions in substantially different ways. For examples, see Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (New York: McGraw-Hill: 1978); Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York: Free Press, 1985).
107. This conclusion parallels that of the literature of competitive business strategy, which suggests that in business contexts, there is often no one optimal strategy. Instead, according to this research, firms can and do respond successfully to similar market conditions in substantially different ways. For examples, see Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (New York: McGraw-Hill: 1978); Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York: Free Press, 1985).
108. Duverger, Political Parties, p. 308.
109. Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Silbey, American Political Nation.
110. Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Silbey, American Political Nation.
111. Schattschneider, Semisovereign People; Walter Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: Norton, 1970).
112. Schattschneider, Semisovereign People; Walter Dean Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: Norton, 1970).
113. Lubell, Future of American Politics, p. 200.
114. For examples, see Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; Weed, Nemesis of Reform; Klinkner, Losing Parties.
115. For examples, see Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; Weed, Nemesis of Reform; Klinkner, Losing Parties.
116. For examples, see Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; Weed, Nemesis of Reform; Klinkner, Losing Parties.
117. Lowi, 'Toward Functionalism in Political Science'; Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; David Sarasohn, The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1989); Craig, After Wilson.
118. Lowi, 'Toward Functionalism in Political Science'; Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; David Sarasohn, The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1989); Craig, After Wilson.
119. Lowi, 'Toward Functionalism in Political Science'; Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; David Sarasohn, The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1989); Craig, After Wilson.
120. Lowi, 'Toward Functionalism in Political Science'; Carmines and Stimson, Issue Evolution; David Sarasohn, The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1989); Craig, After Wilson.
121. Ole R. Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1966); Robert Phillip Weber, Basic Content Analysis, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990).
122. Ole R. Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1966); Robert Phillip Weber, Basic Content Analysis, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990).
123. Weber, Basic Content Analysis, chap. 1.
124. Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy'.
125. Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy'.
126. Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict'; Ginsberg, 'Critical Elections and American Public Policy'; Ginsberg, 'Elections and Public Policy'.