Partisanship and the dynamics of "candidate centered politics" in American presidential nominations

Electoral Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 599-610

  Barker, David C ^a   Lawrence, Adam B ^b   Tavits, Margit ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Candidate traits; Partisanship; Presidential nominations; Values

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; ELECTORAL SYSTEM; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33748291751     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2005.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abramson P., Aldrich J., Paolino P., and Rohde D. 'Sophisticated voting' in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review 86 (1992) 55-69
2. Barker D.C. Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior (2002), Columbia University Press, New York
3. Barker, D.C., Lawrence, A. Media favoritism and presidential nominations: reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication, in press.
4. Bartels L. Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nominating process. American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987) 1-30
5. Bartels L. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice (1988), Princeton University Press, Princeton
6. Campbell J. Candidate image evaluations: influence and rationalization in presidential primaries. American Politics Quarterly 11 (1983) 293-313
7. Erikson R. The 'uncorrelated errors' approach to the problem of causal feedback. Journal of Politics 44 (1980) 863-881
8. Funk C. Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics 61 (1999) 700-720
9. Geer J. Nominating Presidents (1989), Greenwood, New York
10. Gopoian D. Issue preferences and candidate choice in presidential primaries. American Journal of Political Science 26 (1982) 523-546
11. Hayes D. Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: a theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2005) 908-923
12. Howell S. Candidates and attitudes: revisiting the question of causality. Journal of Politics 48 (1986) 450-464
13. Keech W., and Matthews D. The Party's Choice (1976), Brookings, Washington, D.C
14. Kenney P., and Rice T. A model of nomination preferences. American Politics Quarterly 20 (1992) 267-286
15. Kerlinger F.N. Liberalism and Conservatism: The Nature and Structure of Social Attitudes (1984), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
16. Kinder, D., 1983. Presidential traits. Report to the NES Board of Overseers, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan.
17. Lakoff G. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't (1996), University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London
18. Long J.S. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables (1997), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
19. Markus G. Political attitudes during an election year: a report on the 1980 NES panel study. The American Political Science Review 76 (1982) 538-560
20. Miller W., Wattenberg M., and Malanchuk O. Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 80 (1986) 520-540
21. Mondak J. Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics 57 (1995) 1043-1069
22. Mutz D. Mechanisms of momentum: does thinking make it so?. The Journal of Politics 59 (1997) 104-125
23. Norrander B. Correlates of vote choice in the 1980 presidential primaries. The Journal of Politics 48 (1986) 156-167
24. Norrander B. Field essay: presidential nomination politics in the post-reform era. Political Research Quarterly 49 (1996) 875-915
25. Page B., and Jones C. Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. The American Political Science Review 73 (1979) 1071-1089
26. Petrocik J.R. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996) 825-850
27. Popkin S. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (1991), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
28. Stone W., and Rappoport R. Candidate perception among nomination activists: a new look at the moderation hypothesis. The Journal of Politics 56 (1994) 1034-1052
29. Stone W., Rappoport R., and Atkeson L. A simulation model of presidential nomination choice. American Journal of Political Science 39 (1995) 135-161
30. Sundquist J. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. second ed. (1983), Brookings, Washington, D.C
31. Wattenberg M. The Rise in Candidate Centered Politics: Presidential Elections in the 1980s (1993), Harvard University Press, Cambridge
32. Zaller J. The myth of massive media impact revived: new support for a discredited idea. In: Mutz D., Sniderman P., and Brody R. (Eds). Political Persuasion and Attitude Change (1996), University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
33. Zaller, J., 2001. Parties are back. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 24.