Resource Allocation Strategies in Presidential Nomination Campaigns

Candidates in nomination campaigns manipulate expendable resources to maximize their probability of securing the nomination. Since presidential nominations are determined by a majority of delegates at the national convention, candidates may rationally choose to allocate their resources to maximize their share of delegates. However, many candidates, particularly those who are neither well-known nor well-financed, must first increase their public support and resource base in order to have the funds to continue campaigning effectively. At least two allocation strategies are applicable to candidates in nomination campaigns: maximizing delegates and maximizing momentum. The appropriateness of each depends on the competitive status of the candidate at the time. These two strategies collectively explain much of the allocation behavior of the candidates in the two campaigns investigated, and they help to explain differences in that behavior among candidates. The presidential nomination system is a critical link between the American people and their political leaders. The behavior of the candidates, and the electoral consequences thereof, are influenced by a set of factors that comprise the formal and informal structure of the nomination process (Aldrich, 1980a).' The factors over which candidates have substantial control are those relating to the level, location, and timing of resources to be allocated to the various contests. From the perspective of the candidate, the nomination campaign involves a series of resource allocation decisions, accompanied by changes in the campaign environment. Some of these changes are partially dependent on previous allocations by the candidate. Candidates can influence, within legal, financial, and situational limits, the outcomes of state contests by manipulating the resources they expend.2 For example, a candidate may allocate substantial time and money to a particular primary that he or she