Public Choice

, Volume 123, Issue 1–2, pp 19–37 | Cite as

In Play: A Commentary on Strategies in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election

Article

Abstract

A lot of military battle plans going back to the Civil War say ‘whoever controls the Mississippi controls America.’ And Bush is marching straight up the Mississippi,” the Democratic strategist said. “We’ve just retreated from Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri. They already control Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky. Bush is now moving in on Iowa and Wisconsin. And except for Illinois, which isn’t in play, there’s only one state left: Minnesota, the mouth of the river. And it’s dead even [i.e., a tie] there.” From CNN.com, ALLPOLITICS, September 23, 2004: Mercurio, John and Molly Levinson. “CNN Survey: Bush widens lead in Electoral College.” CNN Political Unit. 27 Sept. 2004 <http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/ 09/23/electoral.map>

All total, 21 states are in play. Some will bounce between “lean [toward a candidate]” to “tossup” throughout the campaign.USA Today, July 25, 2004: “AP: Bush leads Kerry in electoral votes.” A.P. 25 July 2004, <whttp://www.usatoday.com/news/Politicselections/nation/President/2004-07-25-bush-kerry-electoral-votes_x.htm>

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Althaus, S. L., Nardulli, P. F., & Shaw, D. R. (2002). Candidate appearances in {presidential elections}, 1972–2000. Political Communication, 19, 49–72.Google Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. M. (1985). Resource allocation in a presidential campaign. The Journal of Politics, 47, 928–936.Google Scholar
  4. Borel, E., & Ville, J. (1938). Application de la théorie des probabilités aux jeux de hasard,original edition by Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1938; reprinted at the end of Théorie mathématique du bridgéa la portée de tous, by E. Borel & A. Chéron, Editions Jacques Gabay, Paris, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. (1974). The 3/2’s rule in presidential campaigning. American Political Science Review, 68, 155–156.Google Scholar
  6. Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. (1975). Comment on campaign resource allocations under the Electoral College. American Political Science Review, 69, 155–156.Google Scholar
  7. Colantoni, C.S., Levesque, T. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1975a). Campaign resource allocations under the Electoral College. American Political Science Review, 69, 141–154.Google Scholar
  8. Colantoni, C. S., Levesque, T. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1975b). Rejoinder to ‘Comment’ by S. J. Brams and M. D. Davis. American Political Science Review, 69, 157–161.Google Scholar
  9. Crain, W., Messenheimer, H., & Tollison, R. (1993). The probability of being president. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 683–689.Google Scholar
  10. Fair, R. C. (1978). The effect of economic events on votes for president. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 159–173.Google Scholar
  11. Fair, R. C. (2004). A vote equation and the 2004 election. Website: http://fairmodel.econ. yale.edu/
  12. Grofman, B., & Scott, F., (2005). The Electoral College and the 2004 election. Public Choice (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  13. Gross, O., & Wagner, R. (1950). A continuous Colonel Blotto game. RM-408, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica.Google Scholar
  14. Hinich, M., Ordeshook, P., & Michelson, R. (1975). The Electoral College vs. a direct vote: policy bias, indeterminate outcomes and reversals. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 3–35.Google Scholar
  15. Holcomb, R. L. (2003). Electoral college, in C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. F. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 149–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jamieson, K. H. (1996). Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Merolla, J., Munger, M. C., & Tofias, M. (2003). Lotto, Blotto or Frontrunner: An analysis of spending patterns by the national party committees in the 2000 presidential election. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 3–6th, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Merolla, J., Munger, M. C., & Tofias, M. (2005). Lotto, Blotto or Frontrunner: U.S. presidential elections and the nature of ‘Mistakes’. Prepared for delivery at the 2005 Annual Public Choice Society Meeting. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Micro Incentive Research Center’s Conference on the Micro-Foundations of Federal Institutional Stability, Duke University, May 1st, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. Myerson, R. (1993). Incentives to cultivate favored minorities under alternative electoral systems. American Political Science Review, 87, 856–869.Google Scholar
  21. Rabinowitz, G., & MacDonald, S. E. (1986). The power of the states in U.S. presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 80, 65–87.Google Scholar
  22. Reeves, A., Chen, L., & Nagano, T. (2004). A reassessment of ‘The methods behind the madness: Presidential electoral strategies, 1988–1996.’ Journal of Politics, 66, 616–620.Google Scholar
  23. Shaw, D. R. (1999). The methods behind the madness: Presidential Electoral College strategies, 1988–1996. Journal of Politics, 61: 893–913.Google Scholar
  24. Soumbatiants, S., Chappell, H., & Johnson, E. (2003). Using state polls to forecast U.S. presidential election outcomes. Manuscript, Lincoln Memorial University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Merolla
    • 1
  • Michael Munger
    • 2
  • Michael Tofias
    • 2
  1. 1.Claremont Graduate University and Duke UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Duke UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations