Consider the significance of the ‘invisible primary’ in the presidential nomination process.

The invisible primary is the period of time before the primary and caucus season of the US nomination process begins. In primaries and caucuses votes are held to decide each party’s presidential candidate, unlike during the primaries and caucuses, there are no elections during the invisible primaries. However they still play a significant role in the nomination process, through candidates raising the 3 M’s; media, money and political momentum.

Candidates entering the presidential nomination process now often announce their intention to run up to 18 months before the presidential election. In the 2008 election race Hillary Clinton announced she was going to run for the Democrat nomination in January 2007, followed by Obama’s announcement in February. In the Republican race, John McCain announced his intention to run in April 2007, Kucinich announced a staggering 388 days before the first New Hampshire primary. Candidates announcing their intention to run increasingly early makes the invisible primary more significant as they span over a longer timeframe.

It is said that ‘money is the invisible primary’ as the hidden primaries can be seen as a time where it is vital for candidates to raise money. Due to frontloading and the increasingly important ‘Super Tuesday’, the nomination process has become more expensive. In the 2007 invisible primary Hillary Clinton raised $90 million and Obama raised $70 million, this money was important for the candidates nomination campaigns. In 2000, Liz Dole only raised $4.6 million which was not enough and she was forced to withdraw before the New Hampshire primary, showing that it is vital to raise money in the invisible primaries. However money, the most significant part of the invisible primaries does not generate success, shown by the fact that Hillary Clinton raised $20 million more than Barack Obama but did not win the Democrats candidacy. Being mentioned in the media is important for candidates to raise political momentum and for free advertising.

Being mentioned in the New York Times or the Washington Post for example, or on TV programmes such as the Jim Lehrer Show can raise awareness of candidates. To build momentum candidates may also write and publish a book, for example Obama’s ‘Audacity of Hope’. Candidates often also make public appearances, travelling around the US, which is another reason why candidates need to raise money due to the size and expense of travelling.

Debates between candidates occur in the invisible primaries and can be significant in the public deciding their favourite candidate, 16 debates occurred between the Democrat candidates before the primary and caucus season. However due to invisible primaries not deciding anything in the electoral process, they have limited significance. Polls during this period are often wrong, in 2008 they decided Hillary Clinton and Mayor Rudi Juliani to be the favourite candidates.

To conclude, invisible primaries are increasing in significance due to frontloading and the expense of US elections.

Levels / Descriptors
Level 3
(11-15 marks) /
  • Full and developed knowledge and understanding of relevant institutions, processes, political concepts, theories or debates.
  • Good or better ability to analyse and explain political information, arguments and explanations.
  • Sophisticated ability to construct and communicate coherent arguments, making good use of appropriate vocabulary.

Level 2
(6-10 marks) /
  • Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of relevant institutions, processes, political concepts, theories or debates.
  • Sound ability to analyse and explain political information, arguments and explanations.
  • Adequate ability to construct and communicate coherent arguments, making some use of appropriate vocabulary.

Level 1
(1-5 marks) /
  • Limited knowledge and understanding of relevant institutions, processes, political concepts, theories or debates.
  • Poor ability to analyse and explain political information, arguments and explanations.
  • Weak ability to construct and communicate coherent arguments, making little or no use of appropriate vocabulary.