Activists in the United States Presidential Nomination Process, 1980-1996 (ICPSR 6143)

Version Date: Aug 14, 2001 View help for published

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Alan I. Abramowitz; John McGlennon; Ronald B. Rapoport; Walter J. Stone

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06143.v2

Version V2

Slide tabs to view more

This data collection provides information on party activist involvement in the presidential nomination process. Surveys of caucus attendees and convention delegates were initially conducted in 1980 at the state conventions in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Delegates from both parties were polled on a variety of issues, including their opinions on candidate qualities, such as record of achievement, moral character, performance on television, knowledge of foreign policy, and most important quality for a candidate. In addition, information was gathered on the party position held by the respondent, degree and type of party participation, opinions on state and national leaders, reasons for being involved in the presidential nomination process, choice for presidential candidate, and membership in other organizations. In 1984, surveys were distributed at the Democratic state conventions in Iowa and Virginia. In 1988, delegates to both the Democratic and Republican state conventions in Iowa and Virginia were polled. Caucus attendees of both parties also completed surveys in 1984 and 1988 in Iowa, Michigan, and Virginia. Other areas of inquiry included attitudes toward the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, affirmative action, and military spending. Demographic characteristics of respondents, such as religion, ethnicity, education, employment, and income, are provided. In 1992, surveys were distributed to both Democratic and Republican state conventions in Iowa and Virginia. Areas of inquiry included attitudes toward abortion, affirmative action, the federal budget, a national health plan, foreign imports, the environment, United States involvement around the world, congressional term limits, the gasoline tax, homosexuals in the military, taxes, and the death penalty. Respondents were also asked to evaluate each of the candidates on some of these issues. In addition, data were collected regarding party position held by the respondent, degree and type of party participation, opinions on national leaders, nomination choice for presidential candidate, and membership in other organizations. Demographic characteristics of respondents, such as age, sex, religion, income, children, education, race, and military experience, are provided. In 1996, surveys were distributed before the election to both Democratic and Republican state conventions in Iowa and Virginia. Areas of inquiry included involvement in the presidential campaign, voting record, activities performed in 1994 campaigns, party affiliation, and opinions on such issues as abortion, United States involvement around the world, the federal budget, the environment, foreign imports, affirmative action, term limits, a national health plan, control of domestic programs, firearms, and income tax. Respondents were also asked to evaluate candidates on some of these issues. In addition, respondents were asked to rate the job performance of Bill Clinton, the economy, the political philosophy of the candidates, the candidates' performances on TV, and third party candidates. Demographic characteristics of respondents, such as education, age, sex, race, income, and religion, are provided. In 1996, surveys were distributed after the election to both Democratic and Republican state conventions in Iowa and Virginia. Areas of inquiry included voting record in the 1996 election, activities performed in the nomination campaigns for president, money contributed to political organizations, involvement in the 1996 presidential campaign and reasons for involvement, party affiliation, and opinions on such issues as abortion, United States involvement around the world, the federal budget, foreign imports, affirmative action, term limits, a national health plan, control of domestic programs, firearms, and immigration. Respondents were also asked to evaluate candidates on some of these issues. In addition, respondents were asked to give their opinions on the economy, the Reform Party, party positions held, and membership in other organizations. Demographic characteristics of respondents, such as education, age, sex, race, income, and religion, are provided.

Abramowitz, Alan I., McGlennon, John, Rapoport, Ronald B., and Stone, Walter J. Activists in the United States Presidential Nomination Process, 1980-1996. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2001-08-14. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06143.v2

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote
National Science Foundation (SES-8308871 and SES-8711037)

This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, certain identifying variables are restricted from general dissemination.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

1980 -- 1996 (national election cycle years)
1980 (April-June), 1984 (April-June), 1988 (April-June, November-December), 1992 (November-December), 1996 (November-December)
Hide

In some states, all delegates were given questionnaires. In others, a random sample was drawn.

Activists from the Democratic and Republican parties involved in the United States presidential nomination process.

self-enumerated questionnaires

Hide

1994-10-19

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:
  • Abramowitz, Alan I., John McGlennon, Ronald B. Rapoport, and Walter J. Stone. Activists in the United States Presidential Nomination Process, 1980-1996. ICPSR06143-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2001. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06143.v2

2001-08-13 Existing data files were updated and new data were added from the 1992 and 1996 waves of data collection. SAS data definition statements were added for each part and a PDF codebook is now available for all parts.

Hide

Notes