CHAPTER 6
Presidential Nominating Politics

Fundamental changes have occurred in presidential
nominating politics in the past four decades

A process once heavily dominated by party leaders
is now more candidate centered

A process that once relied upon internal party
procedures to select delegates through caucuses
and conventions now relies primarily upon
presidential primaries

Today, presidential nomination is an open and
participatory process characterized by mass citizen
involvement in primaries and open access to party
caucuses
Methods of Delegate Selection

The national nominating conventions held in the
summer of presidential election years are the
culmination of a long season of campaigning to
select national convention delegates

The delegates, meeting in convention, nominate the
party’s candidates for president and vice president,
and the processes of delegate selection, therefore,
are critical to the outcomes of the convention

There are three principal methods of delegate
selection: 1. the presidential primary
2. the party caucus/convention process
3. automatic selection by virtue of a
person’s party or election position
Figure 6.1. Delegate Selections to National
Conventions
The Caucus/Convention
States
Delegates representing
the state at large
State Party
Convention
Delegates representing
congressional districts
Congressional
District Caucuses
Party/County/Precinct
Caucuses
The Presidential Primary
States
National Presidential
Nominating Committee
Delegates representing
the state at large
Automatic Delegates
(Democrats only)
State Party Chairs
CNC Members
Democratic Governors
80% of Democratic
Senators and
Representatives
Statewide
Presidential Primary
Delegates representing
congressional districts
Congressional District
Presidential Primaries
Methods of Delegate Selection
Presidential Primaries

The largest share of convention delegates is chosen
through procedures involving presidential primaries,
and the use of them has increased significantly in
the past decades (Figure 6.2.)
Figure 6.2. Number of States Holding Presidential
Primaries, 1912-2004
50
45
Number of States
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Democratic Delegates
2004
2000
1996
1992
1988
1984
1980
1976
1972
1968
1964
1960
1956
1952
1948
1944
1940
1936
1932
1928
1924
1920
1916
0
1912
5
Republican Delegates
Source: Euchner, C. C., Maltese, J., & Nelson, M. (2002). Development of the presidential electoral process: The primary
system. In Guide to the presidency (Vol. 1). Washington: CQ Press. Information for 2004 comes from DNC and RNC.
Methods of Delegate Selection
Presidential Primaries

The largest share of convention delegates is chosen
through procedures involving presidential primaries,
and the use of them has increased significantly in
the past decades (Figure 6.2.)

The number of primaries held in any given
presidential election year depends heavily on
political conditions, such as an unopposed
incumbent president, or financial conditions, such as
budget shortfalls in the states, who fund primaries

Primaries are not only important to gain a
convention majority, but also because of the image
of candidate popularity that they can convey
Methods of Delegate Selection
State Party Caucuses and Conventions

Until the 1972 conventions, a majority of the states
used state party caucuses and conventions to select
delegates

The process of delegate selection involves a
progression of party meetings starting at the local
level, running through the congressional district, and
culminating in a state party convention to elect
national convention delegates to represent the state

Because the caucus system is an internal party
process, it requires an effective organization to
mobilize people to turn out and support a candidate
at each stage of the process
Methods of Delegate Selection
Combined Presidential Primary and Convention
Systems

Some states use a presidential primary to elect
national convention delegates, and a state party
convention to choose the delegates that will
represent the state at large
Automatic Unpledged Delegates

In an effort to increase convention participation by
major party leaders and elected officials, the
Democrats grant them automatic delegate status
(“super delegates”)
Phases of the Nomination Process

Achieving a presidential nomination has become a
full-time, often four-year, endeavor

As a result, a substantial share of the major party
nominees in recent years (excluding incumbent
presidents and vice presidents) have been
politicians out of office

The lengthy and often intense schedule of the
presidential nominating process can be broken
down into a series of phases that culminate with the
national convention
Phase 1: Laying the Groundwork and Preliminary
Skirmishing: The “Invisible Primary”

Early campaign preparations include recruiting a
professional staff, creating a political action
committee (PAC) to fund candidate activities, and
developing a campaign plan

Candidates criss-cross the nation, making
appearances to raise funds, gain media attention,
and make contacts with party leaders

During the year preceding the presidential election,
called the “invisible primary” season, the pace of
campaigning accelerates, with frequent visits to
key primary states and state party conventions

During this time, fundraising is also a key activity
Phase 2: Delegate Selection: The Early Contests
and the Consequences of Front-Loading

The early contests for delegates are important not
only because of the number of delegates at stake
but also because the results of these events
establish front-runners for the nomination

The early stage of the primary and caucus season
has been described as the “media fishbowl” phase
of the campaign, due to the great impact of media
coverage and assessments

Events of critical importance are the Iowa
caucuses, the first major delegate selection event of
the season, and the New Hampshire primary, which
is by state statute the first in the nation (Figure
6.3.)
Percent Supporting Candidate
Figure 6.3. Effects of Iowa Caucus Results on Public
Support for Kerry and Dean in New Hampshire, 2004
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1/11 1/12 1/13 1/14 1/15 1/16 1/17 1/18 1/19 1/20 1/21 1/22 1/23 1/24 1/25 1/26
Date of Tracking Poll
Dean
Source: American Research Group.
Kerry
Phase 2: Delegate Selection: The Early Contests
and the Consequences of Front-Loading
Front-Loading the Presidential Primaries
 The concentrating of primaries and caucuses that
select the
bulk of delegates during February and March of the election
year is called “front-loading,” and has decreased the
importance of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire
primary

Front-loading is mainly an effort by the states to give their
electorates greater influence over the selection of
presidential nominees, but it also increases the influence of
party leaders over nominations

Front-loading has the effect of favoring candidates who have
name recognition, are well organized nationwide, and have
ample financial resources
Table 6.1. Front-Loading of the Democratic Presidential
Primaries, 2004
Number of Delegates
at Stake
Date
State Primary
January 27
New Hampshire
22
February 3
Arizona
55
Delaware
15
Missouri
74
Oklahoma
40
South Carolina
February 7
February 10
State Primary
Number of Delegates at
Stake
— Majority of Convention Were Chosen by March 2 —
— Edwards Withdraws, Assuring Kerry of the Nomination —
Florida
177
45
Louisiana
60
Michigan
128
Mississippi
33
Tennessee
69
Texas
195
Virginia
82
Illinois
156
— Wesley Clark Withdraws —
February 17
Date
Wisconsin
March 9
March 16
— Kerry Wins a Majority of Convention Delegates —
72
— Howard Dean Withdraws —
April 27
Pennsylvania
151
May 4
Indiana
67
May 11
Nebraska
24
West Virginia
28
Arkansas
36
February 24
Utah
23
March 2
California
370
(“Super Tuesday”)
Connecticut
49
Kentucky
49
Georgia
86
Oregon
46
Maryland
69
Alabama
54
Massachusetts
93
South Dakota
14
New York
236
Montana
15
Ohio
140
New Jersey
107
Rhode Island
21
Vermont
15
May 18
June 1
June 8
Note: Only primaries are listed. The withdrawal of John Edwards after the March 2 primaries meant that the Republican nomination was essentially
decided before twenty-three states had selected their delegates
Percentage of Delegates Decided
Figure 6.4. Comparison of Front-Loading in the 1976,
2000, and 2004 Democratic Nomination Campaigns
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Weeks After New Hampshire Primary
2004
Source: Democratic National Committee.
2000
1976
Table 6.2. Trend toward Early Capture of Presidential
Nominations, 1972-2004
Dates on Which Presidential Nominees Gained a Majority of the National Convention Delegates
Year
Candidate and Party
Date
2004
George W. Bush (Rep.)
March 9
2004
John Kerry (Dem.)
March 17
2000
George W. Bush (Rep.)
March 14
2000
Al Gore (Dem.)
March 14
1996
Bill Clinton (Dem.)
March 12
1996
Bob Dole (Rep.)
March 26
1992
George Bush (Rep.)
April 28
1992
Bill Clinton (Dem.)
June 2
1988
George Bush (Rep.)
April 26
1988
Michael Dukakis (Dem.)
June 7
1984
Ronald Reagan (Rep.)
May 8
1984
Walter Mondale (Dem.)
June 5
1980
Ronald Reagan (Rep.)
May 26
1980
Jimmy Carter (Dem.)
June 3
1976
Jimmy Carter (Dem.)
July 14 (at the convention)
1976
Gerald Ford (Rep.)
August 19 (at the convention)
1972
George McGovern (Dem.)
July 12 (at the convention
1972
Richard Nixon (Rep.)
August 22 (at the convention)
Sources: Associated Press, “Dates on Which Candidates Clinched the Nomination for the Presidency in Their Parties,” March 15, 2000 (Lexis-Nexis);
Ceci Connolly, “Bush, Gore Clinch Nominations,” Washington Post, March 15, 2000, p. A6.
Phase 3: Delegate Selection: The Later Primaries
and Caucuses

The early primaries and caucuses traditionally
establish who is the front-runner, which candidates
are still serious contenders, and even indicate who
is going to be the nominee

Front-loading renders the later primaries little more
than formalities, since the front-runners are already
more or less assured nomination

Even if the early primaries are inconclusive,
experience has shown that front-runners do not
need to capture all the later primaries to win,
especially for Democrats, who use a proportional
system to allocate delegates
Phase 4: The Convention: Ratifying the Decision of the
Primaries and Kicking Off the General Election Campaign

National conventions are no longer deliberative
bodies whose delegates weigh the competing claims
of rival candidates for the nomination, but rather a
body that ratifies the decisions of presidential
primaries and caucuses

The principal function of national conventions is to
kick off the general election campaign by projecting
the party’s candidate image during a time of a
virtual monopoly on television news coverage

A convention where the candidates are relatively
close in delegate strength is apt to be contentious
and potentially divisive
The Ongoing Process of Party Reform

The rules governing presidential nomination politics
have been and continue to be points of contention

The immediate cause of the latest surge of
nomination reforms were the divisive 1968 and 1972
Democratic conventions and the Watergate scandal
of the early 1970s

These events, plus attempts to remedy problems in
the nomination process that were perceived to have
contributed to the Democrats losing five of six
presidential elections between 1968 and 1988,
created a powerful impetus for reform within the
Democratic Party
The Ongoing Process of Party Reform
The Reformed Democrats

Before the 1972 Democratic convention, the
McGovern-Fraser Commission proposed a series of
changes in the Democrats’ nomination process:
- increased openness of state party rules of delegate
selection
- proportional representation in the allocation of delegates
- ban of open presidential primaries
- automatic delegate status was granted to some officials
- Affirmative action in participation
- state delegates must be composed of an equal division of
men and women
- ¾ of a state’s delegates must be selected through
primaries or caucuses at the congressional district level
The Ongoing Process of Party Reform
The Reformed Democrats (continued)
 These changes have transformed the nomination process
most significantly by reducing the ability of party leaders to
influence or control the delegate selection process

The Democratic reforms also encourages the proliferation of
presidential primaries and thereby made the nomination
process highly participatory, candidate centered, and media
oriented

The reform process also had disadvantages for the
Democratic party, such as a tendency to break into factions
caused by the introduction of proportional representation,
thus making party unity more difficult
The Ongoing Process of Party Reform
The Unreformed Republicans

Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have sought
to maintain the basic party structure and rules that
evolved prior to the era of the Democratic reforms

Republican rules differ from those used by the
Democrats in several ways:
- Republican rules are harder to change, as it is centralized
- Delegate apportionment among states is weighted, and
thus less representative
- The Republicans maintain the confederate character of the
party, giving the state parties more latitude
- The Republicans do not have automatic delegates
The Ongoing Process of Party Reform
Campaign Finance: The Federal Election Campaign Act

The Watergate revelations of campaign finance in
1972 lead to the enactment of campaign finance
reforms, the FECA Amendments of 1974

In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA), which left in place the FECA’s
provisions for public funding but amended
contribution limits

Candidates for major-party nominations are eligible,
but can also decline, to receive federal matching funds
for their campaigns if they comply with certain
conditions, including an overall expenditure limit
The Ongoing Process of Party Reform
Campaign Finance: The FECA (continued)
 Refusing public funding has become more common in the last
two nomination campaigns, because of:
- Successful early fundraising
- The expectation that others would also forego the limits
- The fact that front-loading required early expenditure, risking
that the campaign could hit the overall limit at an early stage, leaving no
money for the general election campaign
Nevertheless, the contribution limits still apply to candidates,
affecting their campaigns in several ways:

- Campaigns have become longer
- Fund-raising has become highly public
- Well-known candidates have an advantage
Participation in Presidential Nominating Politics
Although the extent of public participation in candidate
selection has been a continuing concern of reformers,
in practice, participation rates in presidential
nominating politics remain quite low
Voter Turnout in Presidential Primaries

Voter turnout in primaries has consistently been
lower than that in general elections

With the proliferation of primaries, however, the
total number of people participating has increased

With Republican primary voters tending to be more
conservative and Democratic primary voters more
liberal than their voters in general elections,
primaries may lead to biases in the decisions on
nominations
Participation in Presidential Nominating Politics
Participation in Caucuses/Conventions

Since caucus meetings are often lengthy and
contentious, citizen participation is often very low

The Iowa caucus is an exception, and it normally
attracts 14-20 percent of the registered voters

Caucus voters, like primary voters, tend to be
better educated and older than the average voter,
but they also tend to be more partisan, and have
stronger ideologies than primary voters

More ideologically extreme voters, therefore,
usually do better in caucuses than in primaries

Candidates with strong organizations capable of
mobilizing their supporters also tend to do well
Participation in Presidential Nominating Politics
National Convention Delegates

National convention delegates are not a
representative cross section of their parties’ voters,
but also tend to be drawn from well-educated,
middle- and upper-class strata of society (Table 6.4)

The most striking differences between Republican
and Democratic delegates are not in their
socioeconomic characteristics but in their political
philosophies and positions on public-policy issues

It is clear that the delegates from both parties are
ideologically unrepresentative of their voters,
creating an ideological bias

Such a bias can be damaging, as the parties risk to
lose important centrist voters
Table 6.4. Democratic and Republican National
Convention Delegates and Voters Compared (%)
Democratic
Delegates
Democratic
Voters
All Voters
G.O.P. Voters
G.O.P.
Delegates
Men
50
43
49
52
57
Women
50
57
51
47
43
White
68
61
78
94
85
Black
18
28
14
2
6
Asian American
3
2
2
1
2
Hispanic
12
15
11
12
7
Very liberal
22
12
7
2
1
Somewhat liberal
19
21
13
4
1
Moderate
52
52
34
30
33
Somewhat conservative
3
15
22
31
27
Very conservative
*
4
13
25
33
Member of a labor union
25
15
13
12
3
College graduate
24
15
19
23
29
Postgraduate
53
13
11
9
44
Under $50,000
15
57
45
37
8
$50,000–$75,000
21
19
21
20
26
Over $75,000
61
22
29
35
58
Political ideology
Family income
Source: New York Times/CBS Poll.
* Less than 1 percent.
Media Politics in Presidential Nominations

The media has always played a significant role in
presidential nominating politics because reporters
and commentators make decisions about:
- how much coverage candidates get
- which candidates did well or poorly in primaries/caucuses
- which candidates are the front-runners

These decisions can have a significant influence on
how the field of candidates is narrowed down

In recent campaigns, the Internet has become an
increasingly important part of the campaign for the
nomination, both to easily provide information, and
to raise funds

The role of the internet also increases with the
increased importance of blogs and online news
sites as a news source