2 of 30

Presidential Selection Process

Two parts

Nominations—where two major parties select their candidates for president

Formally starts with first state’s delegate selection process (IA caucus) and ends with acceptance of nomination at national convention
Really begins well before—with “pre-primary” or “money primary”, contest for money, endorsement, support of crucial people, organization building, media cultivation
Ends well before the convention, with the securing of a majority of delegates

General Election—which is the next topic

3 of 30

History of Nominations

Our open and broadly participatory process evolved over time

Early years, candidates emerged from “congressional caucuses”—party’s congressional delegation selected candidates
Breakdown of 1^st party system ended this

1820—James Monroe only one nominated (won all but 4 electoral votes)
1824—Republicans in factions—nominated William Crawford, but he comes 4^th—Jackson, Adams, Clay

4 of 30

History of Nominations

Moved to convention approach as 2^nd party system emerged
For 1832, Democrats, Anti-Masons, and Whigs (National Republicans)
Early conventions

Party leaders convene—national party committees, state leaders, legislators, mayors, union and business leaders
Selected the nominee—tremendous horse-trading, opaque process, often several ballots—1924 took Democrats 103 to nominate John Davis
Candidates had surrogates who sought nomination for them, they stayed away

5 of 30

History of Nominations

After 1900 some states did begin to hold primaries, but they were only advisory or “beauty contests”, they did not select delegates. Harry Truman called them “eyewash”.
1952 the two candidates who won the most primaries (Estes Kefauver (D) and Robert Taft (R)) did not win the nominations (Adlai Stevenson (D) and Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
Although sometimes deemed important—Kennedy’s victory in the 1960 WV primary helped him make the case to party leaders that his Catholicism would not hurt him too much in protestant and southern states

6 of 30

History of Nominations

Major change came with the 1968 nominations
LBJ president but faced challengers for the Democratic nomination

Robert Kennedy—personal rivalry, Kennedy supported by African-Americans and some unions
Eugene McCarthy—Sen. From MN, strongly anti-war, supported by younger, liberal Democrats

LBJ drops out after the NH primary at the end of March
His VP, Hubert Humphrey decides to jump in, inherits the incumbent mantel

7 of 30

History of Nominations

Humphrey decides to ignore primaries—can only be trouble for him
Kennedy is assassinated during his victory speech after winning the CA primary in June
Opposition to LBJ coalesces somewhat behind McCarthy—but he clearly is going to lose, leads to riots in convention city of Chicago
Chaotic convention, Humphrey goes on to lose general to Nixon

8 of 30

History of Nominations

Democrats assess their nomination system, McGovern-Fraser Commission offers series of recommendations. They include:

Greater representation for young and minorities among delegates

Biggest change, however, having most delegates selected and bound to vote for candidates on the basis of results of primaries and caucuses in the states

9 of 30

Today’s Nomination Process

The new nomination process:

Broadly participatory and central role for the public, transparent, no longer controlled by party elites
Copied by the Republicans

states controlled many of the rules and wanted uniformity across parties
GOP did not want to seem exclusive
GOP realized primaries/ caucuses attracted tremendous media attention

Took place over several months as states held their delegate selection events—sequential

rules written by states and parties

10 of 30

Today’s Nomination Process

Changes have been made since 1972, although the system essentially created in time for that election

After 1980, when belief much of Carter’s failure due to his poor relationship with the Democratic Congress, the Democrats increased the number of super-delegates —these are party leaders who come to the convention unpledged
In 2008, massive effort by Obama and Clinton campaigns to win support of super-delegates because nomination was so close
2020 – no super-delegates at Democratic National Convention
Republicans continue to use several hundred—members of RNC

11 of 30

Primaries and Caucuses

States today use two types of process in the selection of their delegates

Primaries—voters go to precinct at a specific time, cast ballot in secret

Closed—only voters registered with that party can participate
Modified open—independent voters can choose which primary, but can only vote in one; e.g. NC
Open—anyone can vote in any primary but only one—NH technically modified-open but could change registration just prior to voting

12 of 30

Primaries and Caucuses

Most states have primaries

2016 contests 38 states primaries, 12 caucuses
2020 affected by COVID
2024 unusual

Caucuses—deliberative meetings of voters, where people go and discuss their choices before making a selection
IA most important, as first caucus in the nation

Democrats—very complicated rules, participants get together in groups and hope to persuade others to join them, a group is only “viable” (meaning candidate will register support) if at least 15% of participants in it
Republicans in IA have a quick discussion of candidates in the precinct and then vote

13 of 30

Primaries and Caucuses

Caucus turnout tends to be lower because of the greater commitment asked of the participant

2016 for both parties—Caucuses, IA 17.1%, NV 10.8%; Primaries, NH 53.3%, WI 62.2%, NC 35.1%
2012 for Republicans—Caucuses, IA 6.5%, NV 2.0%; Primaries, NH 31%, MI 17%
2020 for Democrats—IA caucuses 172,300 (up slightly from 2016, but down about 35,000 from 2008); NH 300,000 (up 12,000 from 2008)

Many argue this benefits more ideologically extreme and better organized candidates

2020 Sanders (narrowly) wins IA caucuses
2016 Cruz wins IA caucuses, Sanders tended to do better in caucuses in white states – e.g. CO, KS, NE, MN; although also important wins in NH and WI primaries

14 of 30

Primaries and Caucuses

Democrats traditionally distribute delegates on a proportional basis. This helped the make the 2008 contest extremely long since both Obama and Clinton pick up delegates as they ran close to one another in each state

In 2012 many more states used the proportional approach for Republicans, the national party felt the elongated race helped Democrats in 2008

It took Romney longer to secure the nomination

In 2016, GOP mixed approach, early contests proportional, later winner-take-all

15 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

3 factors to pay special attention to in nomination contests

Presence of an incumbent?

Incumbents generally have no challenger, although are recent examples when they have—e.g. Bush v. Pat Buchanan 1992; Carter v. Ted Kennedy 1980; Ford v. Ronald Reagan 1976

Challengers not win, but hurt incumbent for general—consume resources, divide party, publicize criticisms

VPs tend to have more considerable challenge—e.g. George H.W. Bush from Bob Dole 1988; Al Gore from Bill Bradley 2000

Joe Biden 2020, technically not sitting VP—possibly as many as a dozen serious challengers, in the end came down to Biden and Bernie Sanders

16 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

The uniqueness of 2024 (both sort of incumbents)

Republicans—Trump

Former president but not currently in office, significant advantages
First person to win party’s presidential nomination three times in a row since FDR
Some challengers, but quickly melt away—bit like contests with sitting VP

Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Vivek Ramaswamy

Trump overall about 77% of vote

Only blip NH, Haley won, gave her a little momentum until losing her own state of SC

17 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Democrats—Harris

As customary Biden nominated by acclimation
Poor performance in historic June debate, pressure to drop
Under pressure from leadership, then with support of Biden, Democratic delegates fall in line and support Harris prior to conventions

2008 & 2016 both parties had open nominations, i.e. no sitting president or vice president running for nomination

18 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Reducing and “tiering” the field

“Bandwagon effect”—doing well in the early contests; include the “money” or “pre” primary and other early “competitions” that occur even before the first formal contest in IA

Provides for momentum—helps in fundraising, favorable media attention, public support

“Winnowing effect”—for candidates who don’t do well, they are forced to drop out

2020 Democratic early “casualties”—i.e. lost money or pre primary

Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kristen Gillibrand, Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro

After IA, NH, SC, NV—Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer
After Super Tuesday—Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren

2024 Republican—Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy following IA

19 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Momentum

1976, little-known GA governor Jimmy Carter wins IA
Obama set on his way by IA

But not over-emphasize

John McCain won 2000 Republican NH primary, Pat Buchanan 1996 Republican NH primary
2012 Rick Santorum wins IA caucus
2016 Ted Cruz win IA caucus, Bernie Sanders NH primary, Trump raised no money
2020 Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg essentially tie IA caucuses

20 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Candidates certainly spend much time and resources in early contests

2020, days spent by Democrats in NH

Tulsi Gabbard 81, Andrew Yang 50

2016, days spent by Republicans in IA

Rick Santorum 84; Mike Huckabee 65; Carly Fiorina 54; Ted Cruz 48
Bush spent about $2,800 a vote in IA, Cruz $116

2020 Democrats in IA

Klobuchar visit all 99 counties

21 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

With these effects, states believe it is in their interests to move their contests further forward

A process called “frontloading”

1976 calendar

IA 1/19, NH 2/24, 21 states with contests in May, 6/8, CA, NJ, OH primaries

2008 calendar

IA 1/3, NH 1/8, 22 states with contests 2/5, only 13 states with Democratic primaries after 3/1

2028 calendar will be different, with parties diverging a little

Democrats “punish” IA, red state, 2020 debacle with votes; 1 x week from end of Jan—SC, NV, NH, NM, MI, VA, Super Tuesday 3/7
Republicans—as before—IA, NH followed by SC

22 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Frontloading
Recent calendars

To stretch out processes – 2008 clash v. Clinton seen as beneficial to Obama

Dems in 2012 penalized FL & MI for going too early, took away delegates, threatened not to seat delegations
Republicans in 2016 states to distribute delegates on a proportional basis if early, winner-take-all basis option if after March 1

Post 2016 more stretched out

2020, 13 states March 1, “Super Tuesday”

23 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

The first efforts to frontload were by southern states who joined together to hold their primaries on the same day, “Super Tuesday” in March 1988 with the goal of influencing the Democratic nomination, helping more conservative candidates

3/8/88—AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, TN, TX, VA
Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, and Al Gore split the states that day

Other regions copied at other times

2020, 3/3 “Super Tuesday” – AL, AR, CA, CO, ME, MA, MN, NC, OK, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA

Frontloading does not seem to have any policy effects—I have looked at presidential procurement in this regard

24 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Fundraising and organization

Campaign finance rules

Candidates can receive money from individuals & PACs (interest groups)
They qualify for public matching funds for every contribution <$250 so long as you raise at least $5k in 20 states
To remain eligible, must get at least 10% of the vote in primaries
However, to get matching funds must agree to limit on spending—in 2020 $51.85 million

25 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Fundraising and organization

Because of limits, candidates increasingly opting out

1996 Steve Forbes opted out
2004; Dean & Kerry for Dems, Bush for Reps—even though he had no primary opponent, spending was really aimed at Kerry and Democrats
2008; Obama & Clinton for the Dems, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Paul for Republicans
Now no one uses matching funds

26 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

2008—Obama $250 million, Clinton $223 million, Edwards $48 million; McCain $219 million, Romney $105 million, Giuliani $59 million

2016—Clinton spent about $196 million to secure the nomination; Trump $55 million – “free media” strategy of Trump
In 2012 there were super PACs, groups that spent money trying to influence voters but were not formally associated with a candidate

27 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

2020

Biden $135 mil
Bloomberg $1,062 mil
Steyer $347 mil
Sanders $215 mil
Warren $128 mil

28 of 30

The Determinants of Nomination Races

Organization

Some candidates are “insiders”, have deep connections with party elites, attempt to raise money from established donors etc—e.g. Bush 2000, Clinton 2008 & 2016, Romney 2012, Bush 2016, Biden 2020
Some candidates are “outsiders”, run more grassroots campaigns, smaller donors, run “against” the party somewhat—e.g. McCain 2000, Dean 2004, Obama 2008, Trump and Sanders in 2016

These examples demonstrate that despite the participatory nomination process, “insiders” still do very well

29 of 30

Reform of the Nomination Process

Talk about reforming the process, many see states like IA & NH as having unfair advantage—they are also very small, rural, and white

New process in both parties brings in NV, SC as early contests protected by party rules at the beginning of the process—regional and racial/ethnic diversity

Democrats significant reforms for 2028—as noted earlier

30 of 30

Reform of the Nomination Process

Other proposals include:

National primary—everyone vote on the same day, candidate with plurality is the nominee—possibly runoff

Delaware plan—states vote in 4 rounds on 4 different days (separated by a few weeks); small states first, then medium, through to largest in last contests

Helps lesser candidates gain momentum if they can, allows for the “retail politics” seen so important in NH & IA