"Everything we think we know is wrong" (or is it?) : modeling voter decision-making in primary elections

How do voters make decisions in primary elections? In this project, I argue that voters first narrow down a large field of primary election candidates using information and viability cues, and then weight the remaining candidates more rigorously in an expected utility framework. I first expand upon a theory first proposed by Stone, Rapoport, and Atkeson (1995), both by incorporating new variables I think are important as well as explicitly incorporating over-time dynamics. My first two empirical chapters focus primarily on the "winnowing" or "narrowing the field" process for voters, analyzing what aggregate campaign and contextual variables influence aggregate indicators of opinion formation and viability. I find that media attention is a particularly important driver of both processes, and that debate performance and ad spending are also related to my aggregate indicator of viability (poll support). My third empirical chapter focuses on individual decision-making in an expected utility framework, and finds a particularly strong influence of electability perceptions on vote choice. Issue emphasis and candidate traits, however, also are significant predictors of vote choice even when controlling for electability perceptions. All three empirical chapters defend my theory against the "projection" criticism common to a good deal of work on campaign effects.