This article assesses candidate competition in the pre- and post reform presidential primaries. It presents evidence that candidate competition initially expanded after the McGovern-Frazer reforms but subsequently declined. The proliferation of candidate-centered campaigns and front loading changed the competition in presidential nominating campaigns. Patterns of resource concentration limit the number of candidates who can compete effectively and, hence, are likely to win. Money on hand and national poll position prior to primaries are found to be significant predictors of the aggregate primary vote in the postreform era; money raised and prior television news coverage do not significantly affect the primary vote.