Those who study vote choice in presidential nominating contests often ask, “Are voters sincere (voting with their ‘true’ preferences), are they sophisticated (giving more weight to a candidate’s chances of winning the nomination), or are they strategic (placing greater value on a candidate’s chances of winning a general election)?” By analyzing survey data from the 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004 presidential nominating contests, this study argues that voters are more strategic than previously understood, and that prior studies, confined by methodology and data, are often mistaken when they maintain that primary voters are sophisticated. In actuality, primary voters are more likely to cast strategic votes, and not sophisticated ones.
AbramowitzAI (1987) Candidate choice before the convention: the democrats in 1984. Political Behavior9: 49–61.
2.
AbramowitzAI (1989) Viability, electability, and candidate choice in a presidential primary election: A test of competing models. The Journal of Politics51: 977–992.
3.
AbramsonPRAldrichJHPaolinoP. (1992) “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review86: 55–69.
4.
AldrichJH (1993) Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science37: 246–278.
5.
AlvarezRMNaglerJ (1998) When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Political Science Review42: 55–96.
6.
BartelsLM (1985) Expectations and preferences in presidential nominating campaigns. American Political Science Review79: 804–815.
7.
BartelsLM (1987) Candidate choice and the dynamics of the presidential nominating process. American Journal of Political Science31: 1–30.
8.
BartelsLM (1988) Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BartelsLM (2002) The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In: KingA (ed.) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 44–69.
10.
BradyHEJohnstonR (1987) What’s the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism. In: OrrenGRPolsbyNW (eds) Media and Momentum. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 127–186.
11.
CeaserJW (1982) Reforming the Reforms: A Critical Analysis of the Presidential Selection Process. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
12.
ChengSLongSJ (2007) Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociological Methods & Research35: 583–600.
13.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
14.
FerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1974) The paradox of not voting: a decision theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review68: 525–536.
15.
FerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1975) Closeness counts only in horseshoes and dancing. American Political Science Review69: 920–925.
16.
GeerJG (1989) Nominating Presidents: An Evaluation of Voters and Primaries. New York: Greenwood Press.
17.
HartWOttatiVCKrumdickND (2011) Physical attractiveness and candidate evaluation: A model of correction. Political Psychology32: 181–203.
18.
KeeterSZukinC (1983) Uninformed Choice: The Failure of the New Presidential Primary Process. New York: Praeger.
19.
KenneyPJRiceTW (1992) A model of nomination preferences. American Politics Quarterly20: 267–286.
20.
LongJSFreeseJ (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
21.
MarkusGB (1982) Political attitudes during an election year: a report on the 1980 NES panel study. American Political Science Review76: 538–560.
22.
MarkusGBConversePE (1979) A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review73: 1055–1070.
23.
MarshallT (1983) Evaluating presidential nominees: opinion polls, issues, and personalities. Western Political Quarterly36: 650–659.
24.
MarshallT (1984) Issues, personalities, and presidential primary voters. Social Science Quarterly65: 750–760.
25.
MonardiFM (1994) Primary voters as retrospective voters. American Politics Quarterly22: 88–103.
26.
NorranderB (1986) Correlates of vote choice in the 1980 presidential primaries. The Journal of Politics48: 156–167.
27.
NorranderB (1996) Field essay: presidential nomination politics in the post-reform era. Political Research Quarterly49: 875–915.
28.
RikerWHOdershookPC (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review62: 25–43.
29.
StoneWJRappoportRBAtkesonLR (1995) A simulation model of presidential nomination choice. American Journal of Political Science39: 135–161.
30.
WattierMJ (1983) Ideological voting in the 1980 Republican presidential primaries. The Journal of Politics45: 1016–1026.
31.
WilliamsDCWeberSJHaalandGA. (1976) Voter decision-making in a primary election: An evaluation of three models of choice. American Journal of Political Science22: 37–49.
