Presidential Campaigns: 1952–1996

significant changes in party organizations and their relevance to the nomination of presi dential candidates. What this literature has so far neglected is the explicit link between nomination procedures and the possibility of maintaining democratic governance. Vari ous authors have speculated that the evolution of the presidential nominating proce dures from a party-brokered system to a candidate-centered system should have pro found implications for the way in which candidates act during the campaign and once they assume office,1 but few studies have explicitly explored the probable links between nominating procedures and governing activities.2 In this paper, we argue that as presidential campaigns have evolved from a brokered-convention system to a candidate-centered system, we should expect to see a shift in the way in which presidential candidates relate to the various elements in their nominating, electoral, and governing coalitions. We first look at the number of presiden tial issue stances taken by the candidates. We then compare these positions to the party platforms. The rate of agreement between the presidential candidates and their parties' platforms indicates the extent to which candidates take seriously the various elements of the coalitions that nominated them. Second, we categorize the types of issues that presi dential candidates address. The types of issues are relevant both to campaigns and to gov ernance. The types of issues reveal the coalitions, appeals, and strategies on which candidates will rely. If the actors in presidential campaigns have changed over time, then we should expect changes in the nature of the appeals candidates make. Finally, we com pare the stances of the candidates to positions taken by congressional leaders. If congres sional leaders have truly been excluded from the process of nominating presidential candidates, then we should expect candidates to articulate a greater number of positions that diverge from those taken by the party leaders. Congressional leaders once exercised a modicum of control over the presidential selection process. In the absence of such con trol, congressional leaders and presidential candidates are less likely to agree.