The effects of electability on US primary voters

References

• Abramowitz, Alan. 1989. “Viability, Electability, and Candidate Choice in a Presidential Primary Election: A Test of Competing Models.” The Journal of Politics 51: 977–992. doi: 10.2307/2131544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abramowitz, Alan. 2008. “Don’t Blame Primary Voters for Polarization.” The Forum 5: Article 4. doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1210
   Google Scholar
• Abramson, Paul, John Aldrich, Philip Paolino, and David Rhode. 1992. “‘Sophisticated’ Voting in the 1988 Presidential Primaries.” American Political Science Review 86: 55–69. doi: 10.2307/1964015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, James and Samuel Merrill. 1999. “Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why Are Strategies So Extreme?” American Journal of Political Science 43: 765–791. doi: 10.2307/2991834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ai, Chunrong and Edward Norton. 2003. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economics Letters 80: 123–129. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. “Of Horseshoes and Horse Races: Experimental Studies of the Impact of Poll Results on Electoral Behavior.” Political Communication 11: 413–430. doi: 10.1080/10584609.1994.9963048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, James Snyder, and Charles Stewart III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–159. doi: 10.2307/2669364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aragones, Enriqueta, and Thomas R. Palfrey. 2002. “Mixed Equilibrium in a Downsian Model with a Favored Candidate.” Journal of Economic Theory 103: 131–161. doi: 10.1006/jeth.2001.2821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 56: 271–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00573.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartels, Larry. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, Larry. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 32–50. doi: 10.2307/2669291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinsky, Adam J., Gregory A. Huber, and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20: 351–368. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinsky, Adam, and Jeffrey Lewis. 2007. “An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the U.S. Electorate.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2: 139–154. doi: 10.1561/100.00005055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 1987. Politics and Society in the South. Cambridge: Harved University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blais, Andre, and Mathieu Turgeon. 2004. “How Good Are Voters at Sorting Out the Weakest Candidate in Their Constituency?” Electoral Studies 23: 455–461. doi: 10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00031-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Born, Richard. 2007. “Party Polarization and the Rise of Partisan Voting in U.S. House Elections.” American Politics Research 36: 62–84. doi: 10.1177/1532673X07305373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreau, Cheryl. 2009. “Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences Between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens?” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 964–976. doi: 10.1017/S0022381609090823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudreau, Cheryl, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2010. “The Blind Leading the Blind: Who Gets Polling Information and Does It Improve Decisions?” The Journal of Politics 72 (2): 513–527. doi: 10.1017/S0022381609990946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, David, Hahrie Han, and Jeremy Pope. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32: 79–105. doi: 10.3162/036298007X201994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, Henry, and Richard Johnston. 1987. “What’s the Primary Message: Horse Race or Issue Journalism?” In Media and Momentum, edited by G. Orren and N. Polsby, 104–127. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
   Google Scholar
• Burden, Barry. 2004. “Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 34: 211–227. doi: 10.1017/S000712340400002X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canes-Wrone, Brandice, David Brady, and John Cogan. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.” American Political Science Review 96: 127–140. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402004276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler, Jesse, Pam Mueller, and Gabriele Paolacci. 2014. “Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers: Consequences and Solutions for Behavioral Researchers.” Behavior Research Methods 46: 112–130. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claassen, Ryan. 2007. “Ideology and Evaluation in an Experimental Setting: Comparing the Proximity and the Directional Models.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 263–273. doi: 10.1177/1065912907302050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, Catherine. 2007. “Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects National Elections.” European Union Politics 8: 363–385. doi: 10.1177/1465116507079546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Row.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, James, and Cindy Kam. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, edited by J. Druckman, D. Green, J. Kuklinski, and A. Lupia, 41–57. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eckles, David L., and Brian F. Schaffner. 2011. “Risk Tolerance and Support for Potential Military Interventions.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (3): 533–544. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, Sean, and Maestas Cherie. 2010. “Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure, and Policy Opinions: The Case of Free Trade.” Political Psychology 31 (5): 657–684. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00774.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fausey, Caitlin, and Teenie Matlock. 2011. “Can Grammar Win Elections?” Political Psychology 32: 563–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00802.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granberg, Donald, and Edward Brent. 1983. “When Prophecy Bends: The Preference–Expectation Link in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1952–1980.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 477–491. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groseclose, Tim. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 862–886. doi: 10.2307/2669329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Andrew. 2015. “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” American Political Science Review 109: 18–42. doi: 10.1017/S0003055414000641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Andrew, and James Snyder. 2013. “Candidate Ideology and Electoral Success.” Working Paper. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11481940/HallSnyderIdeology.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hare, Christopher, David Armstrong, Ryan Bakker, Royce Carroll, and Keith Poole. 2014. “Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens’ Ideological Preferences and Perceptions.” American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellwig, Timothy. 2008. “Globalization, Policy Constraints, and Vote Choice.” The Journal of Politics 70: 1128–1141. doi: 10.1017/S0022381608081103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington, Marc. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95: 619–631. doi: 10.1017/S0003055401003045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, Gregory, Seth Hill, and Gabriel Lenz. 2012. “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents.” American Political Science Review 106: 720–741. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary. 2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Jessee, Stephen. 2009. “Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review 103: 59–81. doi: 10.1017/S000305540909008X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, Cindy. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27: 163–182. doi: 10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, Cindy, and Elizabeth Simas. 2010. “Risk Orientations and Policy Frames.” The Journal of Politics 72: 381–396. doi: 10.1017/S0022381609990806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, Cindy, and Elizabeth Simas. 2012. “Risk Attitudes, Candidate Characteristics, and Vote Choice.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76: 747–760. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, Cindy, Jennifer Wilking, and Elizabeth Zechmeister. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Narrow Database’: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research.” Political Behavior 29: 415–440. doi: 10.1007/s11109-007-9037-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard. 2013. “Correct Voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Nominating Elections.” Political Behavior 35: 331–355. doi: 10.1007/s11109-012-9198-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard, and David Redlawsk. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, Chappell, Gabriel Lenz, Michael Myers, and Andy Baker. 2010. “Looking Like a Winner: Candidate Appearance and Electoral Success in New Democracies.” World Politics 62: 561–593. doi: 10.1017/S0043887110000195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, Verlan, and James Ceaser. 2012. “The Presidential Election of 2012 by the Numbers and in Historical Perspective.” The Forum 10: 29–35.
   Google Scholar
• Merolla, Jennifer, and Laura Stephenson. 2007. “Strategic Voting in Canada: A Cross Time Analysis.” Electoral Studies 26: 235–246. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2006.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullinix, Kevin J., Thomas J. Leeper, James N. Druckman, and Jeremy Freese. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2: 109–138. doi: 10.1017/XPS.2015.19
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, Diana. 1995. “Effects of Horse-race Coverage on Campaign Coffers: Strategic Contributing in Presidential Primaries.” The Journal of Politics 57: 1015–1042. doi: 10.2307/2960400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, Lindsay, and Neil Visalvanich. 2015. “Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology.” Political Science Research and Methods. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemi, Richard, Guy Whitten, and Mark Franklin. 1992. “Constituency Characteristics, Individual Characteristics and Tactical Voting in the 1987 British General Election.” British Journal of Political Science 22: 229–240. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400006347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrander, Barbara. 1989. “Ideological Representativeness of Presidential Primary Voters.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (3): 570–587. doi: 10.2307/2111063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrander, Barbara. 2006. “The Attrition Game: Initial Resources, Initial Contests and the Exit of Candidates During the US Presidential Primary Season.” British Journal of Political Science 36: 487–508. doi: 10.1017/S0007123406000251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickershauser, Jill, and John Aldrich. 2007. “‘It’s the Electability, Stupid’ − Or Maybe Not? Electability, Substance, and Strategic Voting in Presidential Primaries.” Electoral Studies 26: 371–380. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2006.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, Jason, Shane P. Singh, Patrick Fournier, and Blake Andrew. 2015. “An Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Campaign Polls on Electoral Information Seeking.” Electoral Studies 40: 146–157. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2015.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simas, Elizabeth. 2013. “Proximity Voting in the 2010 U.S. House Elections.” Electoral Studies 32: 708–717. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2013.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steger, Wayne. 2003. “Presidential Renomination Challenges in the 20th Century.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 33: 827–852. doi: 10.1046/j.0360-4918.2003.00086.x
   Google Scholar
• Steger, Wayne. 2007. “Who Wins Nominations and Why? An Updated Forecast of the Presidential Primary Vote.” Political Research Quarterly 60: 91–99. doi: 10.1177/1065912906298597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, Walter J., and Ronald B. Rapoport. 1994. “Candidate Perception among Nomination Activists: A New Look at the Moderation Hypothesis.” The Journal of Politics 56: 1034–1052. doi: 10.2307/2132072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, Walter, Ronald Rapoport, and Alan Abramowitz. 1992. “Candidate Support in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: The Case of Iowa in 1984.” The Journal of Politics 54: 1074–1097. doi: 10.2307/2132109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, Walter, and Eizabeth Simas. 2010. “Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 54: 371–388. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00436.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen, Danielle M. 2014. “Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress.” The Journal of Politics 76: 786–797. doi: 10.1017/S0022381614000243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, Michael, and Robert Van Houweling. 2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review 102: 303–318. doi: 10.1017/S0003055408080301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, Michael, and Robert Van Houweling. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103: 83–98. doi: 10.1017/S0003055409090066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar