Suchergebnisse

In presidential primaries, Super Tuesday elections play a significant role in winnowing candidate fields and establishing nomination frontrunners. Despite their importance, scholars know little about why and how candidates win or lose the states comprising these events. This study explores which factors help explain candidate performance in Super Tuesday primaries between 2008 and 2016. Using pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis, the results indicate three key drivers of Super Tuesday success: candidate viability, public attention, and media attention. These findings imply that presidential campaigns continue to be complex electoral events beyond the early primary states and suggest that underdog candidates can still win states under the right conditions. Future research should explore the interrelatedness of these three critical factors.

Does a community's proximity to a presidential field office impact presidential election results? Applying community-level data from the American Community Survey, we examine the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections in the battleground state of Ohio. Using spatial regression, we find that the number of Obama field offices within 10 miles significantly increased his share of the vote in 2012. While proximity to a McCain Victory Center statistically decreased a community's Obama vote share, this result was not substantive. In 2012, a community's proximity to a Romney field office did not influence the results. Proximity to an Obama field office also helped to increase voter turnout in both 2008 and 2012. These findings suggest that the Obama voter mobilization strategy was successful, particularly at the margins, and that future candidates should consider adopting a similar strategy. Further research is needed to delineate the differences between quality and quantity of field offices.

ObjectiveThis study advances the presidential primary literature in two ways. First, since many studies in this literature advocate for more detailed theoretical development, we incorporate an interdisciplinary approach by utilizing social contagion theory from the field of sociology. Second, presidential primaries do not adequately explore what role the public plays during the invisible primary. We thus incorporate Google Trends data into presidential primary models to account for the relative amount of public attention for each presidential primary candidate.MethodsWe use fixed effects regression to determine the impact of public attention on a candidate's share of the contested primary vote (CPV).ResultsWe find that increased public attention leads to higher levels of support for a candidate in the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary, and CPV.ConclusionThese findings illustrate the extra‐voting role the public plays in presidential primary elections and helps us further distinguish how party elites, voters, and candidates uniquely determine the selection of our executive.

Objective. This study advances the presidential primary literature in two ways. First, since many studies in this literature advocate for more detailed theoretical development, we incorporate an interdisciplinary approach by utilizing social contagion theory from the field of sociology. Second, presidential primaries do not adequately explore what role the public plays during the invisible primary. We thus incorporate Google Trends data into presidential primary models to account for the relative amount of public attention for each presidential primary candidate. Methods. We use fixed effects regression to determine the impact of public attention on a candidate's share of the contested primary vote (CPV). Results. We find that increased public attention leads to higher levels of support for a candidate in the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary, and CPV. Conclusion. These findings illustrate the extra-voting role the public plays in presidential primary elections and helps us further distinguish how party elites, voters, and candidates uniquely determine the selection of our executive.

Does public attention to political candidates impact fundraising margins in U.S. Senate elections? Applying a novel conceptualization of public attention, we examine U.S. Senate elections from 2004 through 2014 and find that increases in relative public attention relate to increases in head-to-head fundraising margins in open seat races. We conclude by asking whether or not all attention to candidates is "good" attention. Evidence from the 2006 Allen/Webb election suggests that all attention is not "good" attention. This race demonstrates that candidates can supply attention-grabbing action that increases relative public attention while stimulating exceptional losses in relative fundraising margins. Further research must clearly theorize conditions under which supplying public attention-grabbing behavior may damage political campaigns.

The invisible primary is an important time in United States Presidential primary politics as candidates gain momentum for their campaigns before they compete formally in the first state caucus (Iowa) and primaries (e.g. New Hampshire). This critical period has not been possible to observe, hence the name. However, by simulating networks of primary followers, we can explicate hypotheses for how messages travel through networks to affect voter preferences. To do so, we use a threshold model to drive our simulated network analysis testing spread of public support for candidates in invisible primaries. We assign voter thresholds for candidates and vary number of voters, attachment to candidates and decay. We also vary social graph structure and model. Results of the algorithm show effects of size of lead, an unwavering base of support, and information loss.