THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONGRESSIONAL ENDORSEMENTS IN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES A Dissertation by CHRISTOPHER LEIF ANDERSON Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Paul M. Kellstedt Committee Members, Kenneth J. Meier David A.M. Peterson Arnold Vedlitz Head of Department, James R. Rogers August 2013 Major Subject: Political Science Copyright 2013 Christopher Leif Anderson ABSTRACT Little is known about why elected officials choose to get involved in presidential nomination struggles. Recent research argues that elected officials have a collective incentive to nominate an electorally viable and ideologically unifying candidate. Yet, elected officials must balance these collective incentives with their own personal con- siderations (e.g., reelection motives, policy interests, ambition, ideology) that may eitherfosterorinhibittheirabilitytoactontheircollectivedesiretonominateviable, ideologically unifying candidates. Further, this research then determines the extent to which elected officials are rewarded–or punished–for getting involved during the presidential nomination process. In particular, interparty differences between the Republican and Democratic coalitions predict that Republicans, but not Democrats, will be rewarded for attempting to lead intraparty nomination struggles. Finally, this research links the aggregate-level findings that endorsements from elected offi- cials are important determinants of nomination outcomes to the individual level by arguingthatelectedofficials’endorsementsmobilizetheirconstituentstogetinvolved in politics. In particular, as the mobilization process targets those who are already likely to participate in the first place, endorsements during presidential primaries leads to differential participation in politics. In sum, this research provides individ- ual level foundations for the causes and consequences of congressional endorsements in presidential nomination contests. ii DEDICATION To my family and friends, whose support made this possible. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a humble task to watch a word processing cursor blink back at you when you begin to thank those who have helped get where you are today. How do you thank everyone? The task has no bounds and knows no limits. That being said, the task is to be done, and so it shall. I first want to thank those individuals who provided me with a desire for learning early in my life. I was fortunate to have many teachers who, while faced with a multitude of other classroom challenges and constraints, were able to foster my passion for education. Regardless of whether it was at Waccamaw Academy, Conway Elementary School, Conway Middle School, or Conway High School, I was pushed to pursue my educational interests. In addition, I am thankful for all those coaches, instructors, counselors, and advisors who provided leadership and mentoring to me from early childhood. From my time at Furman, I am deeply thankful to Dr. Lyman Kellstedt, who recognized my late arrival to political science as an academic pursuit, helped me develop a plan for entering graduate school, and provided valuable life lessons (and a few on the golf course, as well). I am fortunate to consider him a friend, colleague, and golfing partner. Iamfortunatetohavehadacommunityingraduateschoolthatprovidedmewith helpful feedback and support. My course instructors helped mold me from someone with a firm liberal arts perspective into a thoughtful researcher comfortable with a quantitative approach. My dissertation committee provided constructive criticism and feedback at key points in my development, for which I am very grateful. My dissertation chair–Dr. Paul Kellstedt–provided me the room to grow as a iv scholar, for which I will always be grateful. I know I am a better researcher and better person for having been given both the space to develop and also the guidance when needed. Through course instruction, mentoring, and chairing this dissertation, Paul provided me with all I could ask for from an advisor. I’m proud to call him my advisor and my friend. I am deeply thankful for the love and support my family provided me in my journey through graduate school. My sisters Wyndi and Heidi were and continue to be sources of strength and individuals I rely on when I need support and advice that only big sisters can provide. As we learned during my time in graduate school, we don’t always come together often, but we always come through for each other. For that and many other reasons, I am fortunate to have such wonderful sisters. My parents (Nancy and Raymond) were supportive of my graduate school aspi- rations from the moment the notion crossed my mind. They provided me the all the support I needed to make my graduate school experience as comfortable as possible. I am thankful for the times they came to visit and support for me to come visit them. I appreciate the courage and strength that they both showed for each other and for me as I paused my graduate studies to return home upon my father’s passing. The love of learning, never-ending curiosity, and ability to sort through massive data to find meaning that they taught me continues to serve me well. I am so grateful and thankful for having my loving family. I was fortunate in graduate school to not only pursue my academic interests, but also pursue the love of my life–Erica. As Erica and I became closer and eventu- ally married, I was pleased to define and expand my family to include Erica’s, as well. Graduate school–and dissertation writing, in particular–are challenges that not many people understand. That is one of the primary reasons that I am thankful for the support and encouragement that Dennis and Suzanne provided to me. Their v confidence in my abilities–and in Erica’s judgment–were and continue to be sources of strength. Finally, I am so thankful to have met my best friend and wife, Erica. While I did not seek out a partner in school, I soon found one after I arrived. Erica’s unwavering confidence in me, her appreciation for my quirks and silliness, and her radiance kept me motivated and keep me loving our life together. Erica knows when something is special; when I think something is important, she does too; she knows how to be silly and when it’s time to stop being silly; she is a goofus on the roofus with me; really, everything that happens is nicer with her. Even writing a dissertation. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. WHICHPARTYELITESCHOOSETOLEADTHENOMINATIONPRO- CESS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 A Theory of Endorsements by Party Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.1 Electoral Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.2 Policy Interest and Institutional Position . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3.3 Member Ambition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.4 Member Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.5 Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3. THE LUCRATIVE REWARDS FOR INTRAPARTY ACTIVISM DUR- ING THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.2 Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.3 Theoretical Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.4 Research Design and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.5.1 Campaign Finance and Member Reelection . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 vii 4. THEMOBILIZINGEFFECTSOFCONGRESSIONALENDORSEMENTS IN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.2 Theoretical Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.3 Research Design and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 APPENDIX A. DATA CODING FOR IDEOLOGICAL PROXIMITY MEA- SURES FROM CHAPTER 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 APPENDIX B. PUBLIC OPINION DATA FOR GENERATING PUBLIC SUPPORTOFTHEPARTY’SFRONTRUNNERMEASUREFROMCHAP- TER 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 3.1 The Influence of Intraparty Activism on Member Reelection . . . . . 41 3.2 TheInfluenceofIntrapartyActivismonIncumbentFundraising, 1996- 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.1 The Interactive Effect of Endorsements and Education on Intentions to Vote in Presidential Primaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 4.2 The Interactive Effect of Endorsements and Education on Political Participation in Presidential Primaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 2.1 Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.2 TheDeterminantsofPre-IowaEndorsementsinPresidentialPrimaries by Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1996-2008 . . . . 26 3.1 Nomination Activity Participation Rates, 1996-2008 . . . . . . . . . 51 3.2 TheInfluenceofEndorsementTimingandAccuracyonPACFundrais- ing, 1996-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.3 The Influence of Extended Party Rewards on Incumbent Vote Share, 1996-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Models One and Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for Models Three Through Seven . . . . . . . . 76 4.3 The Influence of Pre-Iowa Endorsement on Voting Participation, 2000 and 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.4 The Influence of Pre-Iowa Endorsement on Other Political Participa- tion, 2000 and 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 x