DOCSLIB.ORG

Discuss the Merits of Presidential Primaries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discuss the Merits of Presidential Primaries Discuss the merits of presidential primaries. June 2008 Q set for H/W – 1 week To what extent did the nominations of McCain and Obama strengthen the case for reforming the method of choosing presidential candidates?June 2010 Resources Bennett book – p46-58 Primaries and Caucuses evaluated, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2008 Update: Why Hilary Clinton lost the primary race, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review September 2008 The 2004 Presidential Primaries, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2004 Key reform article – In Search of Reform by William G Mayer http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MLB/is_1_53/ai_108694004/ For further reform plans, see also: - Frontloading HQ at http://frontloading.blogspot.com/ - Fix the Primaries - http://fixtheprimaries.com/ - Washington Post Op-Ed - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-closed-primaries- further-polarize-our-politics/2011/09/02/gIQARBPb2J_story.html Articles (below)– - Economist I – p3-4 - Economist II – p5-7 - New York Times letters – p8-9 - New York Times Editorial – p10-11 - Primary reform blog post – p12 - CNN article – p13-14 - National Presidential Caucus – p15 - Primary Election Season too long? No – p16 - Primary Problems p17-21 Invisible primary and early state votes Fundraising Gallup poll leader New Hampshire Presidential Party leader in pre- at start of election Iowa Winner winner candidate election year year George H W 1980 Republicans John Connally Ronald Reagan Bush Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan 1980 Democrats Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter 1984 Republicans Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan 1984 Democrats Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Gart Hart Walter Mondale George H W George H W 1988 Republicans George H W Bush George H W Bush Bob Dole Bush Bush Richard 1988 Democrats Michael Dukakis Gary Hart Gephardt Michael Dukakis Michael Dukakis George H W George H W George H W 1992 Republicans George H W Bush George H W Bush Bush Bush Bush 1992 Democrats Bill Clinton Jerry Brown Tom Harkin Paul Tsongas Bill Clinton Patrick 1996 Republicans Bob Dole Bob Dole Bob Dole Buchanan Bob Dole 1996 Democrats Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton 2000 Republicans George W Bush George W Bush George W Bush John McCain George W Bush 2000 Democrats Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore 2004 Republicans George W Bush George W Bush George W Bush 2004 Democrats Howard Dean Howard Dean John Kerry John Kerry John Kerry 2008 Republicans Rudy Giuliani Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee John McCain John McCain 2008 Democrats Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Barrack Obama America's presidential primaries Moving the Californian primary looks like a mistake; but so is not changing the current system Feb 15th 2007 From The Economist print edition IS CALIFORNIA'S governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, about to terminate America's venerable system of primary elections, that months-long political charivari that brings fleeting fame to the otherwise obscure citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire? He certainly seems to be trying. Last weekend the governor said he favoured moving California's presidential primaries up to February 5th. This week the bill passed in California's Senate, and will soon do so in the Assembly (see article). The new date is 22 days after Iowa opens the nominating season with its caucuses, and 14 days after New Hampshire stages the first primaries. If, as they are threatening, other big states such as Illinois, Michigan and Florida follow suit, the presidential nominations for both parties could be sewn up three weeks after the process begins, and almost ten months before the election is actually held in November 2008. Undoubtedly this will change the nature of the American electoral process. The early primaries and caucuses have, by design, tended to be in the smaller states, where they have encouraged an informal style of campaigning based on stump speeches, town-hall meetings and pressing of the flesh. Already, a year before the first primary, candidates for the nominations have been staking out the territory. Hillary Clinton was in New Hampshire last weekend; Barack Obama was there a couple of days later. The audience for their efforts is national: viewers across America can tune in to see a smaller-scale, more human side to their leading politicians than will be on show later in the process. As a result, the existing system offers a chance for the underdog to make his or her mark—as John Kerry did with an upset victory in Iowa in 2004, or as John McCain did in New Hampshire in 2000, going on to give George Bush an unexpected run for his money. Once the big states come into play, television is the only practical way to reach the voters, and the advantage goes to whoever has the biggest pot of money to spend on advertising. But a victory in Iowa or New Hampshire can help an underdog develop the momentum needed to raise enough cash to crack some of those big states. If the process is telescoped down to barely three weeks, there will be no chance for momentum to build up, and probably a good deal less of the ―retail politics‖ that is a refreshing contrast to slick television advertising. That does not mean the existing system is perfect: it gives undue weight to the opinions of voters in a few atypically rural, white and wealthy states. Iowa's 3m inhabitants have been dutiful presidential vetters, but why should they (and their odd views on ethanol subsidies) matter so much more than 36m Californians? The creation in 1988 of ―Super Tuesday‖, an arrangement whereby the southern states hold their primaries on the same day to maximise the region's impact, only enhanced this bias against the big states. So reform would be welcome. But California's move looks self-defeating. As many as 17 states are likely to emulate the Golden State, which would largely neutralise what it is doing. It is reasonably clear where the process will end, as the states scramble over each other to be early: in something closely resembling a national primary on or around a single day as early as possible in the year of the election, and maybe even late in the year before it. Of course, many other countries have party primaries confined to a single day, and the 24-hour news cycle, not to mention the continual guerrilla war in the blogosphere, means that three weeks can be an exceptionally long time in politics. But America is so big, and its tradition of seeking presidential candidates from outside the ranks of party leadership so well entrenched, that a compressed primary system would be a pity. Don't meddle, mend Any solution needs to strike a balance between two laudable but incompatible aims: keeping the intimacy of small-state retail politics and letting the huge numbers of people who live in the big states have a say. The answer is probably a modified version of the ―America Plan‖: it proposes a series of ten randomly selected multi-state primaries, spaced over 20 weeks, in which some big states could vote early. But it takes too long. A system that started with, say, a sequence of five randomly chosen states first, followed by two or three ―Super Tuesdays‖, would be better. And the process should start later: at present, it paralyses the world's mightiest government for more than a year. If the first primary came in April, it would still leave plenty of time for the summer conventions. The chances of such a system emerging soon are slim: it would require the co-operation of the states and the parties, and the states guard their independence jealously. But California's bold move should now prompt thought of reform. In praise of New Hampshire and Iowa The two states that kick off America’s presidential voting look less and less like the rest of the country. What a shame Jan 20th 2000 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition IT IS 8am on a typical day in New Hampshire. The school assembly hall in Plymouth is packed with children and parents who have come to hear John McCain. He talks about Vietnam, a war that is ancient history to most of the pupils, and about his meeting with two (male) rap singers whom they all know. (―Busta Rhymes was wearing a very nice dress,‖ he jokes. ―Perhaps I could borrow it.‖) Two hours later, the children go off to class to discuss what they have learned (―that politicians are more interesting than we thought‖, is the consensus) and Mr McCain leaves to attend a lunch with the Rotary Club of Concord. As he leaves, his bus passes that of Steve Forbes, on his way to a meeting with a veterans’ organisation in Manchester, the state’s biggest city. Simultaneously, around the corner from the veterans’ club, Bill Bradley is answering questions at a health-care forum organised at the University of New Hampshire in Manchester. By the end of the day he will also have pressed the flesh at Lindy’s Diner, an obligatory stop for candidates in the state (―We’ve had them all in here over the years,‖ says its owner). Al Gore, who held his own school meeting the week before, pops in later. As America’s long process of picking its president formally gets under way next week, the country’s tradition of grass-roots democracy seems as vibrant as ever. ―No sooner do you set foot on the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult,‖ Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835. ―Here the people of one quarter of a town are met to decide upon the building of a church; there, the election of a representative is going on...The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the preoccupation of a citizen of the United States.‖ Yet the impression is, in large part, misleading.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHAPTER 9 SUPER-DUPER TUESDAY There Is a Nomenclature
    CHAPTER 9 SUPER-DUPER TUESDAY There is a nomenclature progression with the first day on which Democratic Party rules permit any state to hold presidential caucuses or a presidential primary. The original name, first used in the 1980s, was Super Tuesday. In 2000, however, when the heavily populated states of New York and California joined the party, the name Titanic Tuesday came into fashion. In 2008, when over 20 states decided to hold presiden- tial caucuses and primaries on that one day, much of the news media began referring to Super-Duper Tuesday. Having a large number of states vote on the same presidential pri- mary election day was the mid-1980s brainchild of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate southern white Democrats who wanted to see the Democratic Party nominate more southern-oriented and more moderate candidates for president. If a large number of southern states voted on the same day as early in the primary schedule as possible, the logic went, this would give a boost to candidates from southern states. Even if a southerner failed to win in the South on what came to be called Super Tuesday, so many southern states voting on the same day would boost the more moderate Democratic candidates who would be expected to run well in the South. The Democrats found it easy to implement Super Tuesday in the 1980s because most of the state legislatures in the South still had Demo- cratic majorities in both houses. As the Super Tuesday bandwagon started rolling in the mid-1980s, more and more southern state legisla- tures, dominated by the Democratic Party, adopted the second Tuesday in March as their primary day.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Return of the Brokered Convention? Democratic Party Rules and Presidential Nominations.”
    “The Return of the Brokered Convention? Democratic Party Rules and Presidential Nominations.” By Rick Farmer State of the Parties 2009 October 15-16 Akron OH Front loading, proportional representation and super delegates are changing the dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination. Since 1976 capturing the early momentum was the key ingredient to winning. Barack Obama’s nomination in 2008 demonstrates how these three forces are converging to re-write the campaign playbook. Front loading created a 2008 Super Tuesday that approached national primary day status. Proportional delegate allocations kept the race close when another system might have put the delegate count out of reach; and with a different result. Super delegates made the final decision. The 2008 Democratic presidential contests produced, in effect, a brokered convention. Without reform, many more brokered conventions appear to be in their future. Below is a discussion of how the reforms of the 1970s and 80s combine to produce this perfect storm. Then, the 2008 campaign illustrates the effects. The major reform proposals are examined. Finally some conclusions are drawn. Reforms of the 1970s and 80s American political parties grant their nomination to a single candidate at a national convention. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party nominations can be won with a simple majority of the delegates. Delegates are pledged through a series of caucuses and primaries. Both parties are following similar calendars but Republican Party rules result in a different type of contest than Democratic Party rules. Parties have met in quadrennial national conventions for the purpose of selecting a presidential nominee since 1832.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues
    Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues -name redacted- Analyst in Elections February 27, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL34222 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Summary After a period of uncertainty over the presidential nominating calendar for 2012, the early states again settled on January dates for primaries and caucuses. Iowa held its caucuses on January 3 and New Hampshire held its primary on January 10. These two states, along with South Carolina and Nevada, are exempt from Republican national party rules that do not permit delegate selection contests prior to the first Tuesday in March, but specify that these contests may not be held before February 1. Officials in Florida announced that the state would hold a January 31, 2012, primary, in violation of party rules, which prompted South Carolina and Nevada to schedule unsanctioned events as well. South Carolina scheduled its primary on January 21; Nevada Republicans originally scheduled party caucuses for January 14, but changed the date to February 4. States that violate the rules risk losing half their delegates, as a number of states already have. Every four years, the presidential nominating process generates complaints and proposed modifications, often directed at the seemingly haphazard and fast-paced calendar of primaries and caucuses. The rapid pace of primaries and caucuses that characterized the 2000 and 2004 cycles continued in 2008, despite national party efforts to reverse front-loading. The Democratic Party approved changes to its calendar rules in July 2006, when the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee extended an exemption to Nevada and South Carolina (Iowa and New Hampshire were previously exempted) from the designated period for holding delegate selection events; and the committee proposed sanctions for any violations.
    [Show full text]
  • RESOLVED, Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary Distribute
    8 RESOLVED, political parties should nominate candidates for president in a national primary distribute PRO: Caroline J. Tolbert or CON: David P. Redlawsk From the beginning, the Constitution offered a clear answer to the question of who should elect the president: the electoral college. Or did it? Virginia delegate George Mason was not alone in thinking that after George Washington had passed from the scene,post, the electoral college would seldom produce a winner. In such a far-flung and diverse country, Mason reasoned, the electoral vote would almost invariably be fractured, leaving no candidate with the required 50 percent plus one of electoral votes. Mason estimated that “nineteen times in twenty” the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives, which the Constitution charged with making the selection from among the top five (the Twelfth Amendment, enacted in 1804, changed it tocopy, the top three) electoral vote getters in the event that no candidate had the requisite electoral vote majority. In essence, Mason thought, the electoral college would narrow the field of candidates and the House would select the president. notMason was wrong: in the fifty-seven presidential elections since 1788, the electoral college has chosen the president fifty-five times. Not since 1824, in the contest between John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford, has the House chosen the president. And contrary to Do Mason’s prediction, the nomination of candidates has been performed not by the electoral college but by political parties. Copyright © 2014 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary 137 The framers of the Constitution dreaded the prospect of parties.
    [Show full text]
  • A Canadian Primer to the 2012 Us Primaries and Caucuses
    A CANADIAN PRIMER TO THE 2012 US PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES A Policy Update Paper By Colin Robertson CDFAI Senior Research Fellow January, 2012 Prepared for the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute 1600, 530 – 8th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T2P 3S8 www.cdfai.org © Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute A CANADIAN PRIMER TO THE 2012 U.S. PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 Who’s running for the Republicans and what are their platforms? .................................. 3 Where do they stand? ........................................................................................................... 3 What’s the difference between a primary and a caucus? .................................................. 3 Is the process starting earlier than usual? ......................................................................... 3 Are the Iowa caucuses (January 3) important? .................................................................. 4 What about the Iowa Straw Poll held last August? ............................................................ 4 And the New Hampshire primary (January 10)? ................................................................. 4 Do the parties do their primary process differently? ......................................................... 5 Haven’t there been a lot more candidate debates? ............................................................ 5 Do the debates matter? ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues
    Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Kevin J. Coleman Analyst in Elections January 27, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34222 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Operations Briefing– Capitol Hill Workshop Congressional Operations Briefing and Seminar The definitive overview of how Congress works. This intensive course is offered as a 3-day public Briefing and as a tailored on-site 3, 4 or 5-day program. Public Briefings are offered throughout the year in Washington, DC. Space is limited. Dates, Agenda, Previous Faculty, and Secure Online Registration: TCNCHW.com On-site Congressional Briefings and Capitol Hill Workshops for agencies: CLCHW.com 202-678-1600 TheCapitol.Net All of our courses and workshops include extensive interaction with our faculty, making our courses and workshops both educational as well as mini- consulting sessions with substantive experts. Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™ Our Upcoming Schedule of Courses can be seen online on our web site or at TCNCourses.com. PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706 202-678-1600 • www.thecapitol.net All of our courses and any combination of their topics can be customized for on-site training for TheCapitol.Net is on the your organization—we are on GSA Advantage, GSA Schedule, 874-4, Contract GS02F0192X. for custom on-site training. GSA Contract GS02F0192X thecapitol.net Courses approved for CEUs from George Mason University 202-678-1600 Presidential Nominating Process: Current Issues Summary After a period of uncertainty over the presidential nominating calendar for 2012, the early states again settled on January dates for primaries and caucuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting Representative and Qualified Candidates for President
    Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 Selecting Representative and Qualifed Candidates for President: Proposals to Reform Presidential Primaries Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic Fordham University School of Law Daisy de Wolf, Ben Kremnitzer, Samara Perlman, & Gabriella Weick January 2021 This report was researched and writen during the 2019-2020 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Consttuton Clinic, where students developed non-partsan recommendatons to strengthen the naton’s insttutons and its democracy. The clinic was supervised by Professor and Dean Emeritus John D. Feerick and Visitng Clinical Professor John Rogan. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the individuals who generously took tme to share their general views and knowledge with us: Robert Bauer, Esq., Professor Monika McDermot, Thomas J. Schwarz, Esq., Representatve Thomas Suozzi, and Jesse Wegman, Esq. This report greatly benefted from Gail McDonald’s research guidance and Flora Donovan’s editng assistance. Judith Rew and Robert Yasharian designed the report. Table of Contents Executve Summary .....................................................................................................................................1 Introducton .....................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 the Best Presidential Primaries Ever
    CHAPTER 14 THE BEST PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES EVER The 2008 presidential caucuses and primaries were the most demo- cratic and participatory ever conducted. That was as true for the Republi- can contest, although to nowhere near as great an extent, as for the Democratic match up. At no time in United States political history had so many states held relevant caucuses and primaries in which citizens’ votes were actually helping to determine the eventual party nominees. Voter participation levels and voter interest had never been so high. The Democratic contest was staggering in its length, in the number of voters participating, and the amount of money spent. A total of 153 days, exactly five months, went by between the Iowa caucuses on Janu- ary 3, 2008, and the final South Dakota and Montana primaries on June 3, 2008. Hillary Clinton had campaigned 500 days since first announcing her candidacy. Barack Obama had spent 479 days on the campaign trail since first getting in the race. Over 35 million persons voted in those Democratic caucuses and primaries in which there was an official vote count. On radio and television advertising alone, Hillary Clinton spent more than $47 million. Incredibly, Barack Obama almost doubled that amount when he spent upward of $84 million on radio and TV. THE REPUBLICANS In all the excitement over the lengthy and hard-fought Democratic struggle, little attention was paid to the Republican contest. Although John McCain had the nomination wrapped up by Super-Duper Tuesday, many more states than usual participated in his selection. There were six Republican caucuses and primaries prior to Super-Duper Tuesday, and then 22 states voted on the one big day that was Super-Duper Tuesday.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Turnout in Presidential Nominating Contests
    The Forum 2015; 13(4): 597–622 Michael P. McDonald* and Thessalia Merivaki* Voter Turnout in Presidential Nominating Contests DOI 10.1515/for-2015-0041 Abstract: Presidential elections are conducted in two stages. The November general election is proceeded by a series of contests where delegates are selected to national party conventions, which is where the parties select their candidates for the fall election. These nominating contests’ political environments vary: the rules regarding who can participate; the levels of electoral competition, which are related to when they are held; and that other offices present on the ballot, if any. We explore the effects of these conditions on voter participation in recent presidential contests and generally find turnout highest in competi- tive and inclusive contests where other offices are on the ballot. Examining the 2008 American National Election Panel Study, we find primary voters are more ideologically extreme than general election voters, but there is little difference between voters in closed and open primary states. We suggest primary type has little effect on the ideological composition of the electorate because modern nomination contests are low turnout elections that draw only the most politi- cally interested. Introduction The most important elected office in the US is the president. As an indicator of the value the American electorate places upon the presidency, more Americans vote in the November of a presidential election year than at any other time. Yet, the general election is just the end of a long arduous road in the selection of the president. The modern presidential election begins with a series of party nomina- tion contests sometimes starting in January and continuing through the summer, where the political parties’ candidates for the general election are chosen.
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Review Report for the Iowa Democratic Party 2020 Iowa Caucuses
    INTERNAL REVIEW REPORT FOR THE IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2020 IOWA CAUCUSES November 10, 2020 Nick Klinefeldt David Yoshimura & Bonnie Campbell Campbell Law Firm TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 A. Engagement ........................................................................................................................................ 1 B. Process ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. History of the Iowa Caucuses .............................................................................................................. 1 B. How the Iowa Democratic Caucuses Work.......................................................................................... 2 Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. The IDP Delegate Selection Plan ........................................................................................................ 3 1. Unity Reform Commission Report ................................................................................................. 3 2. DNC Delegate Selection
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN PRIMARY ELECTIONS 1945–2012 Thesis by J. Andrew
    OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE: AMERICAN PRIMARY ELECTIONS 1945–2012 Thesis by J. Andrew Sinclair In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2013 (Defended May 10, 2013) ii © 2013 J. Andrew Sinclair All Rights Reserved iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee for their aid and advice: Dr. D. Roderick Kiewiet, Dr. Christian Grose, Dr. Philip Hoffman, Dr. Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Dr. R. Michael Alvarez. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Alvarez for not growing weary of Sinclairs (of one kind or another) pestering him in his office over the last dozen years. Pieces of the analysis here could not have been accomplished without the aid of my classmates Thomas Ruchti and Peter Foley; fellow students Allyson Pellissier, Jackie Kimble, Federico Tadei, and Andi Bui Kanady made helpful suggestions and comments as well. Jeffery Wagner, Olivia Schlueter-Corey, and Madeleine Gysi helped collect and organize the data required for the multi-state analysis. Ryan Hutchison helped put me in contact with former State Senator and Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado. Dr. Morgan Kousser helpfully directed me to the Los Angeles Law Library. Dr. Jonathan Nagler and Dr. Alvarez provided helpful advice on the 2012 survey; the James Irvine Foundation provided generous funding for that research. Elissa Gysi provided very helpful advice for conducting the legal research; she also agreed to marry and tolerate the author as books piled up around the apartment. I would also like to thank my parents, Dr. J. Stephen Sinclair and Joan Sinclair, for… a list too long to enumerate.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Candidates
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2013 Run for your life: Spectacle primaries and the success of 'failed' primary candidates Sean Patrick McKinley University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation McKinley, Sean Patrick, "Run for your life: Spectacle primaries and the success of 'failed' primary candidates" (2013). Master's Theses and Capstones. 175. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/175 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE: SPECTACLE PRIMARIES AND THE SUCCESS OF 'FAILED' PRIMARY CANDIDATES BY SEAN PATRICK MCKINLEY THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Political Science September, 2013 UMI Number: 1524454 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Di!ss0?t&iori Publishing UMI 1524454 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
    [Show full text]