The rise and fall of howard dean and other notes on the 2004 democratic presidential nomination

Forum (Germany)

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2004, Pages

  Bernstein, Jonathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Frontloading; Political parties; Presidential nominations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923938736     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15408884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2202/1540-8884.1029     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. 2003. “Will Changing the Rules Change the Game?: Front-loading and the 2004 Democratic Presidential Nomination.” The Forum 1: 3, Article 2
2. Bai, Matt. 2004. “Questions for Terry McAulifee: Primary Numbers.” The New York Times Magazine January 25: 15.
3. Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4. Beaumont, Thomas. 2004. “Dean Picks Coordinator For Iowa Campaign.” The Des Moines Register, December 18.
5. Bernstein, Jonathan. 2000. “The New New Presidential Elite.” In William G. Mayer, ed., In Pursuit of the White House 2000. New York: Chatham House, 145-178.
6. Bernstein, Jonathan and Casey B. K. Dominguez. 2003. “Candidates and Candidacies in the Expanded Party.” PS 36:2 (April): 165-169.
7. Busch, Andrew E. and William G. Mayer. 2004. “The Front-Loading Problem.” In William G. Mayer, ed., The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1-44.
8. Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John R. Zaller. 2001. “Beating Reform: The Resurgence of Parties in Presidential Nominations, 1980-2000,” paper presented at the Anual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, California.
9. Corrado, Anthony and Heitor Gouvea. 2004. “Financing Presidential Nominations Under the BCRA.” In William G. Mayer, ed., The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 45-82.
10. Paul Farhi. 2003. “In Kerry Campaign, Overlaps Chafe; Staffs in Washington and Boston Have Different Visions.” The Washington Post, October 9: A1.
11. The Hotline. 1992. “Poll Update – CNN/Gallup: Clinton Enjoys 15% Positive Favorability Gap.” May 12.
12. The Hotline. 2003. “White House 2004 – The Primary – Kerry: Are We in Month-Old Story Time Warp?” October 9.
13. The Hotline. 2004. “White House 2004 – The Primary – Dean: In and Out.” February 16.
14. Kurtz, Howard. 2004. “Divide and Bicker: The Dean Campaign’s Hip, High-Tech Image Hid a Nasty Civil War.” February 29: D1.
15. Mayer, William G. 2004. “The Basic Dynamics of the Contemporary Nomination Process: An Expanded View.” In William G. Mayer, ed., The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 83-132.
16. Opensecrets.org., accessed March 5, 2004.
17. PollingReport.com., accessed March 5, 2004.
18. Polsby, Nelson W. 1983. Consequences of Party Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Polsby, Nelson W. and Aaron Wildavsky. 2000. Presidential Elections, Tenth Edition. New York: Chatham House.