Every four years, presidential candidates vying for their party’s nomination must begin the convoluted, prolonged, and high-priced process of competing in various state contests before the general election to win the coveted nomination for their party. However, the invisible primary, a “long-running national conversation among party members of each party coalition about who can best unite the party and win the presidential election,” begins a long time in advance (Cohen et al 2008, 13). The whirlwind of events surrounding the ongoing presidential nomination process for the Democratic party can be better analyzed by focusing on the invisible primary that has taken place. A useful way to view the current nomination process is to use the method of The Party Decides. This is done by focusing on presidential nominations from the point of view of the party who is attempting to secure a beneficial nomination for them, rather than that of the candidate yearning for the nomination (Marx 2011). Democratic Party lobbyists, activists, and elites have successfully managed to secure the nomination for Hillary Clinton by: (1) publicizing endorsements from Democratic interest groups, elected officials, celebrities, key party leaders, and office-holders; (2) financially supporting her campaign and (3) ensuring she is portrayed in the media as being strictly aligned with democratic ideology, and therefore the only candidate worthy of the nomination. Therefore, the party did decide.
Publicized Endorsements
The experienced party players who agreed on Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee have publicized endorsements from various groups and people associated with the Democratic Party. These endorsements include those from interest groups, elected officials, celebrities, key party leaders, and office-holders in order to ensure that she acquires the nomination. Throughout the invisible primary, Clinton had been putting her extensive government resume to work in order to attain public endorsement of high-ranking party insiders. In The Party Decides, Cohen states that “early endorsements in the invisible primary are the most important cause of candidate success in the state primaries and caucuses” (Cohen et al 2008, 305). Clinton had already accumulated “a higher share of intra-party support before the Iowa caucuses than any presidential candidate since 1980,” likely due to her connections with so many party members who vowed to endorse her in this election (Enten 2015).
Before announcing her campaign to run for president, “more than 60% of Democratic Senators had already endorsed her run,” providing her with an upper hand over other Democratic nominee hopefuls (Merica 2015). By assigning one point to members of the House of Representatives, five points to Senators, and ten points to Governors, Clinton has a total of 490 points compared to just 8 endorsement points given to her opponent Bernie Sanders (Bycoffe 2016). These elected officials, office holders, and key party leaders who have endorsed Clinton in the invisible primary are whom the public look to for cues on who to vote for during the primary election period. These endorsements also “matter most for candidates in their party's mainstream, and voters who identify with that party and for independents,” so Clinton’s acquisition of party insider endorsements can help her sway a partisan and independent voters during the primary elections (Kousser et al 2015)
During the 2008 invisible primary, Clinton initially received a substantially larger number of endorsements than her opponent Barack Obama, however, following his success in crucial states such as Iowa and South Carolina, he began to receive many more endorsements than Clinton (Bycoffee 2016). This turn in number of endorsements signaled that the political actors, who work as a party to find a candidate to unite the party and win the election, shifted their views toward Obama as being an acceptable choice for nominee. This lead Clinton to lose the nomination, despite having an extremely close popular vote count with Obama. This election cycle though, Clinton’s lead in high-profile party endorsements since even before her campaign announcement is viable proof that she will secure the nomination. Since the election of 1980, the quantity of quality endorsements a given candidate received has been an accurate prediction method for the number of delegates they will win at their party’s convention. Democratic political actors who have decided on Clinton and given her high profile endorsements have already secured her the nomination for the party during the crucial invisible primary.
Clinton has also received important out-of-group endorsements. These endorsements are far more likely to convey “more information about the acceptability within the party and will, therefore, have greater impact on the dynamics of the invisible primary” (Cohen et al 2008, 263). Although endorsements from the party elite are the main endorsements that presidential nominees aspire to attain, those from outside the party not only influence later, larger endorsements, but also other factors in who will become the nominee for the party. Robert Kagan, an author, foreign-policy commentator, and more importantly Republican was the first well-known Conservative to endorse Hillary Clinton, over the leading nominee from his party, Donald Trump. Kagan’s endorsement of Clinton shows that “others will take this as a signal that the candidate is a good bet to unify the party,” or at least the she is a better choice for either party than the candidates running on the Republican ticket (Cohen et al 2008, 261).
The role of superdelegates in the election is crucial to becoming the nominee, because they are free to vote for whomever they want at the convention. Many of these delegates, who are members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee, have implicitly pledged to vote for Clinton throughout the invisible primary, giving her a 362 to 8 lead over Bernie Sanders (Silver 2016). Despite only making up one sixth of total delegates, they have a large say in the nomination, being able to swing it either way. “The reason superdelegates came into being between the 1980 and 1984 elections was to allow the party establishment an increased voice in the nomination process,” thus giving the party another way of deciding who the nominee will become (Timm 2016). In the 2008 invisible primary, Clinton held an early lead on superdelegate count over Obama, despite him winning primaries. After winning various primaries though, superdelegates were much more likely to switch to him, thus earning him the nomination over Clinton (Timm 2016). Sanders is losing the superdelegate count by 212 delegates, and Democratic party elite have almost unanimously endorsed Clinton in the invisible primary (Wasserman 2016).
Financial Support
Members of the Democratic Party elite, as well as intense policy demanders, and activists have also been able to secure the Democratic nomination for their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, by financially supporting her campaign. They have done this through the use of Super PACs, campaign donations, and the allocation of recourses to her campaign. Clinton has received the most campaign donations, throughout the invisible primary and her campaign for the Democratic nomination, with over $222 million dollars raised (The New York Times 2016). These donations go into advertising, Get Out the Vote events, data-collection, and micro-targeting of potential voters. All of these are costly, so members of various areas of the party establishment allocate their resources to Clinton.
Almost 30 percent of campaign funding for the Clinton campaign has come from Super PACs and other groups. These “uncapped donations from a small group of wealthy backers can help give a presidential campaign a huge boost,” mainly by funding millions of dollars into television advertisement on behalf of the candidate (Mullins et al 2012). These ads can help sway independent voters to vote for one candidate over the other, therefore are a crucial part of a campaign, especially in the early stages of the primaries. During the 2012 elections, Super PACs dominated independent spending. By Democratic Super PACS funding advertisements that show Clinton in a positive light, or Sanders in a negative one, they are asserting that the party has already decided that Clinton has been the chosen candidate to unite the party and win the election.
Media Portrayal
By ensuring that Hillary Clinton is portrayed in the media as not only the most ideologically partisan and loyal candidate, but also the only candidate worthy of the nomination, democratic party activists and elite have managed to secure her the democratic nomination. Most campaigns were party-centered until the mid-1900s, since then the focus has shifted onto the candidates. Since most people get their political news through television, news ads and commercials are crucial during a preliminary campaign period. Candidates must find their target audiences for these commercials, as well as the funding to spend on their high costs. Political party aligned groups and Super PACS who have already decided on which candidate deserves the nomination will heavily assist in funding for these advertisements, as well as in finding the information needed to reach their target audience before the primary election. Early media coverage “encourages public recognition and support, thus increasing a candidate’s recourse base and probability of future success,” so when party leaders fund Clinton’s media presence they are ensuring that she has a grand probability of winning the nomination that they have chosen for her (Gurina 1986).
Party loyalty is extremely crucial to the party elite when choosing a candidate to become their nominee. Clinton’s campaign understands the invisible primary as a long-running conversation between party members. Leading party members who have already agreed on her as the nominee, enable this conversation to occur in newspapers, television talk shows, and in party events, where she often makes appearances to gain more support, endorsements, and to prove her loyalty to the party. These events generate more dialogue about Clinton and her campaign, so party players and groups who have decided on her will generate funds for conversation enablers in order to make Clinton seem like the only candidate anyone should vote for. Since Clinton has proven to party coalitions that she is someone who “by her prior records, predispositions, and group attachments- can be trusted to support the wishes of the coalition,” as well as the party as a whole (Cohen et al 2008, 83). Her appearances supported and funded by these coalitions will gain her broad support from party regular and independents.
Appearances in the media portray her as the most promising candidate for achieving group goals, so through the invisible primary they are crucial for party members to get on her successful bandwagon as early as possible, “both to increase their influence on which bandwagon succeed and to increase gratitude from the winner” (Cohen et al 2008, 103). Her fumbles in the media have disrupted her seemingly inevitable nomination. Like John Kennedy’s campaign for the nomination in 1960, Clinton must follow the rule that candidates with questionable national appeal must “demonstrate vote-getting prowess to skeptical party leaders” (Cohen at al 2008, 126). The events hosted by her and other party elite who support her are not the only tools she used to attain more party support during the invisible primary and election.
For years before his 1932 campaign began, Governor Franklin Roosevelt kept in “close touch with district leaders throughout the country,” also sending them letters and phonograph records (Cohen et al 2008, 100). By the time his invisible primary began, he already had wide support from the party, making him the frontrunner for the democratic nomination. He then transferred his support when he became the president back to those who supported him during the invisible primary, through patronage and policy positions that were beneficial to his supporters. Many Clinton supporters who may not have chosen her as their first choice understand that it is better to join on her bandwagon in order to be in good standing with her if she becomes President so she can pass their policy agendas.
Conclusion
Through the various publicized elite endorsements from democratic party members, as well as financial campaign support, and funneling of resources into her campaign, elite members and decision makers of the Democratic party decided Hillary Clinton would be their Presidential nominee even before a single vote was cast during the primaries. The invisible primary, was a time of discussion, funding, and endorsing so that a majority of the party would form a strong backing for the candidate they decided would ensure them a united, and winning party.