Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
How significant are invisible primaries? (15) (Momentum (Longer…
How significant are invisible primaries? (15)
What is the Invisible Primary?
'Money Primary'
Time between first announcing run for presidency and first primary - a time to get name recognition and support
Candidates who raise the most money will appear the strongest = more money from donors who seek to engage in 'pork barrelling' (utilizing government funds for projects designed to win votes),
aura of inevitability
Momentum
Longer significant primary = more time to appear presidential and gain support! Serious candidates should start early
eg. Clinton and Sanders both formally announced their runs in April 2015 - almost a year before the first primary! - Other candidates, such as Webb announced runs in July - 1st Iowa caucus 49.9% and 46.6% Clinton and Sanders!
By March 2015, almost 60% Democrat Senators already endorsed Clinton
Consider: Clinton had been potential nominee since 2008 after loss to Obama! Tenure as Sec of State ended in 2013, 'campaign in waiting' began - eg. large donor network, Ready for Hillary superPAC, suggests anticipation = more chance of success!
Media
2016: Trump made lots of controversial statements = more media coverage despite lower polling averages than opponents!
eg. June 2015, said Mexico bringing 'rapists' etc. - at this point Bush ahead of polls (19% vs 12%) BUT Trump got lots of attention = can share platform, gain support
Money
Establishes the front runners of the race
eg. 2016 Trump - spent $67 million! Only outspent by Ted Cruz, who spent $85 million
BUT...
Consider: Ben Carson spent $60 million by the end of February! Suspended his campaign in March - Trump had only spent $33 million at this point = shows spending more money does not necessarily mean success?
Similar thing happened in 2007 with Clinton/Obama
IMPACT: YES significant! More money = generally, taken more seriously/more to spend on ads! Not always the case, just need to have significant war chest to be considered a contender (this is why third parties are not successful?)
BUT...
More time for scrutiny - move onto media point
BUT...
Being a clear frontrunner = immense scrutiny! eg. Clinton 2016, Benghazi hearings in October, 8 hours public hearing! Can be said to have been largely politicised
Also consider: Benghazi hearings seemed to generate positive momentum for Clinton! "
Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed
" (CNN) - received several new donors after the hearings
Target for scrutiny since 2012/people considering her candidacy