Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:54:12.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Presidential Prenomination Preferences and Candidate Evaluations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Patrick J. Kenney
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Tom W. Rice
Affiliation:
University of Vermont

Abstract

Recent research has altered our understanding of how voters select a candidate in U.S. presidential elections. Scholars have demonstrated empirically that issues, candidate personalities, candidate evaluations, and party identification interact in a dynamic simultaneous fashion to determine vote choice. Other researchers have shown that prenomination candidate preferences play an integral role in structuring the general election vote. We join together these two important trends to introduce and test a revised model of vote choice, using 1980 NES panel data. The results reconfirm that candidate selection is part of a dynamic simultaneous process and reveal for the first time that prenomination preferences are woven tightly into this causal web.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1983. Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 1986. Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections. Washington; Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1987. “Candidate Choice and the Dynamics of the Presidential Nominating Process.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 130.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Arthur S. 1966. “Discerning a Causal Pattern among Data on Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 60: 913–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1975. “Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 19: 161–85.Google Scholar
Keith, Bruce E., Magleby, David B., Nelson, Candire J., Orr, Elizabeth, Westlye, Mark C., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1986. “The Partisan Affinities of Independent Leaners.” British Journal of Political Science 16: 155–85.Google Scholar
Kenney, Patrick J., and Rice, Tom W.. 1987. “The Relationship between Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 3144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lengle, James I. 1980. “Divisive Presidential Primaries and Party Electoral Prospects, 1932–1976,” American Politics Quarterly 8: 261–77.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1982. “Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study.” American Political Science Review 76: 538–60.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73: 1055–70.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C.. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73: 1071–90.Google Scholar
Petersen, Trond. 1985. “Comment on Presenting Results from Probit and Logit Models.” American Sociological Review 50: 130–31.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J. 1986. “The Carryover Effect in Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 80: 271–79.Google Scholar
Southwell, P. L. 1986. “The Politics of Disgruntlement: Nonvoting and Defection among Supporters of Nomination Losers, 1968–84.” Political Behavior 8: 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.