The 2008 Presidential Nominating Contest: Structure, Substance, and Effect By Sarah E. Niebler A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2012 Date of final oral examination: 07/24/12 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Byron Shafer, Professor, Political Science Charles H. Franklin, Professor, Political Science Kenneth M. Goldstein, Professor, Political Science Katherine Cramer Walsh, Associate Professor, Political Science Dhavan Shah, Professor, Journalism & Mass Communication i Acknowledgements Despite the fact that research and writing can seem solitary, graduate school and writing a dissertation are the works of a community. I never could have taken on this project without the support of many, many people. I am especially grateful to my committee members, each of whom enriched my life as a scholar and as an individual while I was at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Byron Shafer has been the most supportive advisor I could have asked for, providing me with space to do the type of research I wanted, but always being willing to meet and discuss the project with me any time I asked. His patience and generosity are unmatched. In addition, not only did he educate me about the presidential selection process and many other aspects of post-war American politics, he has also unwittingly shaped how I think about teaching and learning more broadly. Without Ken Goldstein taking a chance on me early in my graduate school career and employing me to work on the 2008 Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is no way I would have written this dissertation. He likes to tell people that my interest in presidential nominating contests started with me asking him a simple question about how we knew when the presidential primary was over and the general election campaign began. I like to tell people I started doing this research because his answer was, "because I said so". Kathy Cramer Walsh has been a constant source of support to me over the past five years. In addition to being a remarkable and generous mentor, she allowed me work with her for a couple of summers mapping the geographic landscape of the state of Wisconsin. In doing so, I learned a tremendous amount about how individuals think about where they are from and of what social classes they consider themselves members. ii Charles Franklin provided much of my graduate school methodological training while simultaneously fostering my interest in campaigns and elections. I began graduate school in his "Introduction to Statistical Inference" class and am ending at his research assistant. I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to work with and learn from one of the country's top academic pollsters. Dhavan Shah taught the first class I took on political communication and from there I was hooked on studying how candidates interact with the public and what effect those interactions might have. Dhavan encouraged me to think about combining various sources of data together in order to be able to answer more interesting questions, especially about how long campaign effects might last. In addition to my committee, I had the opportunity to work with and learn from some outstanding professors. David Canon allowed me a huge amount of freedom in developing my teaching style as I served as the teaching assistant for the Communication B sections of his Introduction to American Politics class. John Zumbrunnen let me stretch the comforts of my substantive knowledge when I was his teaching assistant for Introduction to Political Theory. I owe both David and John extra thanks for always being willing to talk about pedagogy. I want to thank several individuals at the University of Wisconsin-Madison outside the Department of Political Science. Brad Hughes, who directs the Writing Center, became a true resource and helped me think about not only how to teach writing, but how to be a better writer myself. Nancy Linh Karls facilitated Dissertation Boot Camp during the summer of 2011, without which I am not sure this project ever would have gotten off the ground. I am grateful to Eileen Callahan in the Graduate School for supporting Dissertation Boot Camp. iii Throughout my time in graduate school, I was fortunate enough to meet amazing people who quickly turned into friends, colleagues, and co-authors. Matt Holleque, Jake Neiheisel and I spent more hours than I care to count working on the 2008 Wisconsin Advertising Project. Doing so quickly cemented our friendship and I am grateful to both of them for all the time spent brainstorming ideas, talking about research, and working together. Carly Urban and I have very similar interests, but approach questions from different angles. This makes the research we do together extremely rewarding and I am grateful to her for being such an understanding and reliable collaborator. I am grateful to Amber Wichowsky for helping me to navigate the article- writing and submission process for the first time. Writing a dissertation is a lot more enjoyable when you have friends who are eager to eat, drink, and play. I am particularly grateful to Deven Carlson, Jason Engle, and Leticia Bode for our mid-week "meetings" at Doty's. Together, we addressed (and solved!) many issues facing the department, the University, the state, and the nation. Dave Ohls was always up for a bike ride and makes amazing desserts that he is eager to share. Even though Lesley Lavery was in Madison only a short time, I benefited greatly from her friendship and organizational skills. Regina Wagner taught me about veganism through delicious dinners and baked goods. Peter and Kathryn Nelson introduced me to the world of Badger Women's Hockey, and in the few years I was in Madison, I was lucky enough to see two National Championship teams. I would be remiss not to thank the professors I had at Muhlenberg College who encouraged me to go to graduate school. It was when I started working for Chris Borick at the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion that I first realized that being interested in political science did not mean wanting to be a politician or a lawyer. Michele Deegan and Lanethea Mathews further encouraged my academic pursuits. I especially want to thank them iv all, plus Jack Gambino, for inviting me back to Muhlenberg in the spring of 2012 to talk with current students about my research and about academia as a career. The trip revitalized me and made the home stretch of writing much more pleasant. My family has been more supportive than I ever could have asked for. My parents, Faye and Steve Niebler taught me about politics over the dinner table. It wasn't until I got to college that I realized that not everyone knew (or cared about) school board elections and municipal utility boards. My grandmother, Janet Upton, is the most ardent supporter of higher education I have ever met. Her time working at Gettysburg College made her love academia and that love has been passed down through the generations. It is to her that I dedicate this entire project. Finally, my most sincere appreciation and gratitude goes to Sarah Kersh, who has been, and will continue to be, my partner in all things. I am so grateful for her encouragement and love. So far, our journey has taken us to the South, then to the Midwest, and now back to the South again. I can’t wait to see where our next adventure will be! v Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………...............i Chapter 1 – Introduction……………………………………………………………………..........1 Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………….............27 Chapter 2 -- Fundraising Dynamics of the Presidential Nominating Contest: The Invisible Primary Stage………………………………………………………………………….........35 Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………….........61 Chapter 3 -- Substance in Presidential Nominating Contests: Negativity and Issue Content......86 Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………...........126 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………......139 Chapter 4 -- Campaign Effects and the 2008 Presidential Nominating Contests…………........142 Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………………...175 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………......200 Chapter 5 – Conclusion……………………………………………………………………........203 References…………………………………………………………………………………........212 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The 2008 presidential nominating contest was historic. Because President George W. Bush was term-limited out of office and Vice President Richard Cheney chose not to run for the Republican nomination, it was the first time in 56 years, neither a sitting president nor a sitting vice president competed for his party’s nomination. Candidates vying for the Democratic nomination engaged in the longest, most drawn-out campaign governed by rules of the modern presidential nominating system. The candidate who emerged victorious was the first African American candidate to win the nomination of one of the two major political parties in the United States. On the Republican side, the eventual nominee experienced a near-collapse of his entire campaign only six months before the first votes were cast. Despite the noteworthy nature of both the Democratic and Republican contests, pundits and scholars alike often commented on the nominees afterward as though they were inevitable. And indeed, as soon as the primaries and caucuses were concluded, it became easy to identify flaws among the major challengers who came up short. Following the conclusion of the 2008 presidential nominating contest – after Obama had secured the Democratic nomination – it seemed obvious to note that Hillary Clinton possessed high negative ratings and that John Edwards’s personal problems were significant. On the Republican side, it was easy to forget that McCain’s campaign had collapsed in the middle of 2007 and instead focus on the shortcomings of the various other Republican candidates: Romney’s “Mormon problem”; Huckabee’s small fundraising totals; and Giuliani’s decision not to compete in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.