Explaining the decision to withdraw from a U.S. presidential nomination campaign

Political Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 157-180

  Damore, David F ^a   Hansford, Thomas G ^b   Barghothi, A J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

Author keywords

Candidate duration; Presidential nomination campaigns; Winnowing effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952009668     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-009-9098-9     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Adkins, R. E., & Dowdle, A. J. (2000). Break out the mint juleps? Is New Hampshire the 'primary' culprit limiting presidential nomination forecasts? American Politics Quarterly, 28(2), 251-269.
2. Adkins, R. R., & Dowdle, A. J. (2001a). How important are Iowa and New Hampshire to winning post-reform presidential nominations? Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 431-444.
3. Adkins, R. R., & Dowdle, A. J. (2001b). Is the exhibition season becoming more important to forecasting presidential nominations? American Politics Research, 29(3), 283-288.
4. Aldrich, J. A. (1980). Before the convention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Ansolabehere, S., & King, G. (1990). Measuring the consequences of delegate selection rules in presidential nominations. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 609-621.
6. Atkeson, L. R. (1998). Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: Another look at presidential campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 256-271.
7. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Cohen, M., Karol, D., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2008). The party decides. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Damore, D. F. (1997). A dynamic model of candidate fundraising: The case of presidential nomination campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 343-364.
11. David, P. T., & Ceaser, J. W. (1980). Proportional representation in presidential nominating politics. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
12. Gurian, P.-H. (1986). Resource allocation strategies in presidential nomination campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 802-821.
13. Haynes, A. A., Gurian, P.-H., Crespin, M. H., & Zorn, C. (2004). The calculus of concession: Media coverage and the dynamics of winnowing in presidential nominations. American Politics Research, 32(3), 310-337.
14. Haynes, A. A., Gurian, P.-H., & Nichols, S. (1997). The role of candidate spending in presidential nomination campaigns. Journal of Politics, 59(1), 213-225.
15. Kamarck, E. C., & Goldstein, K. M. (1994). The rules do matter: Post-reform presidential nominating politics. In L. Sandy Maisel (Ed.), The parties respond (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
16. Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1987). The relationship between divisive primaries and general election outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 31-44.
17. Lengle, J. I., Owen, D., & Sonner, M. W. (1995). Divisive nominating mechanisms and Democratic Party electoral prospects. Journal of Politics, 57(2), 370-383.
18. Matthews, D. R. (1978). 'Winnowing': The news media and the 1976 presidential nomination. In J. D. Barber (Ed.), Race for the presidency: The media and the nomination process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. Mayer, W. G., & Busch, A. E. (2004). The front-loading problem in presidential nominations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20. Norrander, B. (2000). The end game in post-reform presidential nominations. Journal of Politics, 62(4), 999-1013.
21. Norrander, B. (2006). The attrition game: Initial resources, initial contests and the exit of candidates during the U. S. presidential primary season. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 487-507.
22. Polsby, N. W. (1983). Consequences of party reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Poole, K. T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 954-993.
24. Steger, W. P. (2008). Forecasting the presidential primary vote: Viability, ideology, and momentum. International Journal of Forecasting, 24(April-June), 193-208.
25. Steger, W. P., Dowdle, A. J., & Adkins, R. R. (2004). The New Hampshire effect in presidential nominations. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 375-390.
26. Steger, W. P., Hickman, J., & Yohn, K. (2002). Candidate competitiveness and attrition in presidential primaries, 1912-2000. American Politics Research, 30(5), 528-554.
27. Stone, W. J., Atkeson, L. R., Rapoport., R. B., & Ronald, B. (1992). Turning on or turning off? Mobilization and demobilization effects of participation in presidential nomination campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 665-691.