The Dynamics of the 2020 Invisible Primary

We are currently nearing the end of what political scientists refer to as the invisible primary, the approximately one-year period leading up to the Iowa Caucuses in which candidates compete against each other for fundraising dollars, name recognition, poll standing, and voters in the early states.  While the invisible primary has arguably become much more visible over the past few campaign cycles due to increased media coverage of the candidates’ campaign tactics, the nomination campaigns are about to become even more visible as states start to vote. 

In her post a couple of weeks ago, my colleague, Dr. Lisa Parshall, makes a compelling case that the U.S. is making its way toward a national primary rather than the sequential, state-by-state series of primaries and caucuses we have been using since 1972.  Should we adopt a national primary, the invisible primary period will likely fade away, as candidates will have to wage national campaigns from the minute they enter the contest rather than build support in a handful of early states and hope that momentum propels them forward. 

Additionally, Dr. Parshall rightly points to the vaulted status of Iowa and New Hampshire (and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina) as being a major impediment to instituting a national primary.  As happens every four years, we see several people decry the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire—with this year Julian Castro, a former Democratic contender, joining the fight.  Most arguments center around the lack of diversity found in both of these states—an argument amplified in Democratic nominating contests, as Democratic candidates rely on a diverse coalition of voters to win elections.  In an effort to diversify the electorate early on in the primary process, Democrats added South Carolina and Nevada to the early carve-out states in 2008. 

Nonetheless, should candidates want to build momentum and be perceived as viable contenders throughout the nomination process, they need to develop strategies that align with the rules laid out by their Party.  And while not everyone may be happy that Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone for the remainder of the nomination calendar, candidates rarely ignore these two early contests because of the importance of being seen as a “winner” from the very beginning of the process.  Not only do these early wins allow candidates to be viewed more favorably, they also see a bump in fundraising and positive media coverage.  It is difficult for a candidate to be viewed as viable if they do not place in the top three in these early states.  Should Michael Bloomberg be successful in his bid for the Democratic nomination, he would be the first presidential contender to do so while skipping all four of the carve-out states since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. 

While Bloomberg is running with a largely unconventional campaign strategy (getting in the race late, ignoring the early carve-out states, and self-funding his campaign), the remaining candidates are competing in much more conventional ways: running advertisements, traveling to the states for rallies and town halls, and racking up endorsements from party leaders and elected officials [PLEOs].  To demonstrate, let’s look at the data.

Campaign Visits: Getting Candidates in Front of the Voters

In 2017 I published a book, Campaigns That Matter: The Importance of Campaign Visits in Presidential Nominating Contests, in which I argue that campaign visits are a crucial part of a candidate’s strategic tool kit to be used on the campaign trail.  These visits, which can come in the form of town hall meetings, large rallies, just popping into a local restaurant or pub, or intimate meet-and-greets with interested voters, provide candidates with the ability to connect with voters in a more personal way.  Voters are able to hear a more substantial discussion of a candidate’s policy proposals and vision for governing.  They are also able to better judge a candidate’s character and personality, as these events are mostly unscripted and more free-wheeling, especially when compared to traditional advertisements.  More importantly, visits are an important way to energize grassroots supporters who will campaign on behalf of the candidate in his or her absence and do a lot of the door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, and voter registration drives all in an effort to maximize their favorite candidate’s vote share. 

To that end, we can see the early states have received a lot of attention from the candidates this year. As of December 1, 2019, Iowa has received over 700 visits from the 28 candidates who have sought the Democratic nomination, New Hampshire received 431, Nevada received 185, and South Carolina received 226. 

One of the things we can see in these data is that visits are conducted by a variety of candidates.  Campaign visits are a way to level the playing field among candidates—they do not need to compete with other candidates for air time and the cost of conducting a visit are much less than running an ad.  So, when looking at which candidates are leading the visits race in Iowa, we see that both long-shot candidates and top tier candidates are visiting at high numbers.  Joe Sestak (who has now withdrawn from the race) led the field at the end of November with 50 visits to Iowa, while Deval Patrick (who recently got in the race) has made only one.  Further, the top tier candidates as of right now—Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and Sanders have made 29, 30, 37, and 37 respectively.  In contrast, long-shot candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Julian Castro (who has now suspended his campaign), and Andrew Yang have made 36, 46, 40, and 26 respectively.  This helps demonstrate that visits really are an equalizer among types of candidates—these visits are not as dependent on fundraising as advertising is. 

As the race continues on past the first four carve-out states, we should expect the attention of candidates to shift to the states holding contests on Super Tuesday.  As Super Tuesday is offering up about 1/3 of all the delegates available, the candidates still in the race after the four early carve-out states will have 15 states to compete in rather than just four.  Because of the increased volume in contests candidates will be conducting fewer visits to these states and likely spend more money on advertising. 

Campaign Fundraising and Spending: The Importance of Ads

Conventional wisdom tells us that generally the candidate with the most money wins the race.  This is usually due to the fact that this candidate is able to outspend their opponents in advertising.  Advertising is the quickest way to reach a large amount of people, but it often comes with a high price tag.  Additionally, today candidates need to advertise on a variety of platforms (e.g. radio, newspapers, television, the internet, social media) so the costs of advertising continue to rise.  Looking at the amount of money raised by the Democratic candidates, we can see that Bernie Sanders leads the fundraising race.  He’s fundraised about $10 million more than his closest competitors in Iowa (Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren) and about $25 million more than Joe Biden (the candidate leading in most national polls). 

With fundraising numbers for the 4th fiscal quarter starting to trickle in now, these standings in the fundraising race seem to be holding steady.  Sanders raised about $35 million, the most raised by any candidate in any quarter so far in this competition and Joe Biden had his most impressive fundraising quarter to date, roughly $23 million. 

Looking at fundraising data tells us a couple of things about the candidates and the type of campaign each is running.  Fundraising tells us which candidate is financially able to continue in the race: they can pay for ads, pay their staffers, and pay their bills.  Additionally, these data tell us how many donors each candidate has.  Sanders is closing in on 4 million donors, Warren is approaching 2 million donors, while Buttigieg has yet to reach 1 million donors.  These numbers signal grassroots support among voters and what kind of people are donating to the candidates.  Sanders and Warren have both sworn off big dollar fundraisers, while Buttigieg has held several, including the now-infamous wine cave fundraiser in California.  So, while Buttigieg has outraised Warren, Warren is able to claim a more robust group of supporters as she has received donations from a wider cross section of voters.

Elite Endorsements: The Party Decides?

One more aspect that candidates compete over is endorsements from party leaders and elected officials [PLEOs].  These endorsements are viewed as a way for the Party to still maintain some control over the nomination process.  With the McGovern-Fraser reforms in the 1970s, the Republican and Democratic Parties lost a lot of control over who the nominee would be.  The Democratic Party adopted a robust group of superdelegates to help balance the will of the Party with the will of the voters (though superdelegates have never decided who would be the Party’s nominee).  In addition to these superdelegates, elite endorsements help the Party signal who they would prefer voters support—and we see endorsements used by both Parties. 

Because nomination contests are waged between members of the same political party, voters cannot simply rely on party identification when deciding for which candidate to vote.  Instead, voters need to use some other information when making a decision.  This information may be the visits or ads discussed above, or they may simply rely on the endorsement of a politician they trust.  When looking at the current group of endorsements, Joe Biden leads in the number of endorsements having received 46—including those from 22 current members of the House of Representatives, 3 Governors, and 5 Senators, among many others.  Sanders has received a total of 24 endorsements, Warren 23, Booker 21, Klobuchar 13, Buttigieg 9, Bennet 3, Bloomberg 3, and Delaney 2.  The charts below demonstrate where these endorsements have come from. 

 1= Past President, Vice President, National Party Leader ; 2= Governor; 3= Senator ; 4= Former Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates, Former Party Leader, 2020 Nomination Dropouts ; 5= U.S. Representatives or Large City Mayors; 6= Statewide Legislative or Elected Leaders ; 7= Democratic National Committee Leaders

What the endorsement data tell us is that Joe Biden currently has the most support from Democratic Party leaders than any of his competitors.  Because of Biden’s longevity with the Party it is unsurprising to see that he is currently leading in the endorsement race.  As the primary season continues, we will likely see more consolidation behind the eventual nominee—especially among superdelegates (and most of these endorsers also serve as superdelegates).  Whether or not that nominee is Biden remains unclear, but the Party is doing its best to signal their strong support for his candidacy. 

Overall Campaign Dynamics

Visits, spending, and endorsements are just some of the dynamics that are at work throughout the nomination season.  Starting with the Iowa caucuses on February 3, viability of the candidates will be added to the dynamics.  While viability is already discussed in terms of poll numbers, actual results from primaries and caucuses produce stronger evidence of viability.  Additionally, momentum will become a much stronger player as the nomination season continues on.  Voters are likely to jump on the bandwagon of the winning (i.e. more viable) candidate.  Momentum is more likely to have a stronger influence in a large field of candidates, as it can propel a candidate ahead of the pack in a much more significant way than when the field of candidates is smaller. 

The two-person 2016 Democratic nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is a good example.  Because Clinton and Sanders kept volleying wins back-and-forth, neither could muster significant momentum (the same can be said of the 2008 Obama-Clinton nomination battle).  In contrast, the 2016 Republican contest contained a large number of candidates, with the top tier quickly whittled down to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.  With four candidates remaining in the race, Trump was able to win contests with just 30% of the vote.  By racking up several wins—even with small pluralities—Trump was able to become “uncatchable” in terms of the delegate count.  Thus, in a crowded field, momentum helps quickly winnow the field after the first few contests, and then allows one candidate slowly, but surely, build an advantage in their delegate count that cannot be surpassed by any other candidate. 

If this conventional wisdom holds, we should expect momentum to play a big role in the 2020 Democratic contest.  We should expect several withdrawals after the carve out states vote.  The remaining candidates will try to piece together a coalition of voters they believe will allow them to capture the nomination.  However, only one will be successful.  This candidate will likely start to emerge after Super Tuesday, giving us a much clearer picture of who the Democratic nominee is likely to be. 

Campaigns That Matter

By Jay Wendland

Earlier this month, my book, Campaigns That Matter: The Importance of Campaign Visits in Presidential Nominating Campaigns was published.  This project began as my Master’s degree paper in 2010 and quickly morphed into my dissertation, which was defended in 2013.  In both of these research projects, I analyzed the 2008 presidential nominating contests and the role that campaign visits played in influencing voters’ decision-making processes.  In this book, I build off of my previous work and include data on the visits made throughout the 2012 and 2016 campaigns as well.  Throughout every campaign season, we hear about the various rallies, town hall meetings, and stump speeches candidates make, but political scientists have largely ignored the role these campaign events play in the voting booth.  Do these visits get more people to come out to cast a ballot?  And more importantly to the candidate, do they help garner votes? These are the two main questions I attempt to answer throughout this book. 

Photo from PolitiFact.com showing Bernie Sanders at a rally.  Sanders achieved record numbers of attendees at many of his rallies, including a Seattle rally that attracted roughly 30,000 people! 

However, before I could answer these questions I needed to pull together research done on various aspects of campaigns (e.g. advertising, media strategy, and political communication) to develop a theory for why visits should impact voters.  I argue that visits are an important avenue of learning for voters. When running for office, candidates are charged with convincing voters to vote for them.  Most of the research done on campaigns focuses on advertisements and media coverage, while visits have largely gone overlooked.  This is likely due to the fact that data on media coverage and ads are much more readily available than are the data on visits.  Candidates must report their campaign spending broken down by state on a monthly basis.  However, they are not required to report where they visit.  Sure there is media coverage of these visits, but there is no central agency collecting this data.  The Federal Election Commission [FEC] is charged with collecting and reporting the spending habits of candidates.  There are also various websites that report this information in a more user-friendly manor than does the FEC—like opensecrets.org.  Yet with the ever-growing number of PACs, SuperPACs, 527 groups, and 501(c) groups even keeping track of spending related to a campaign is getting to be a difficult task.  Nonetheless, these spending reports are generally used as a proxy for a candidate’s advertisements, as these are usually the biggest expenditure a candidate has.  Ads have proven to be helpful to candidates—both in mobilizing voters as well as persuading them to vote a certain way.  I argue that campaign visits should have an even larger effect than ads do, as candidates are able to personalize visits more than ads.  Candidates are given ample time to explain their issue positions and build a relationship with their audience.  In a 30-60 second ad, candidates cannot fully elaborate their position on an issue.  But, in a 15-30 minute speech, a candidate can clearly articulate their plan and try to connect with those in attendance. 

Photo from YouTube showing Donald Trump at a rally.  Throughout the campaign season, Trump continuously bragged about the size of the crowds at his rallies.  It turns out that Trump did receive an increase in support due to his visits.  In fact, Trump's visits increased his support over 100%.  

After crafting this theory, I begin my analysis by examining whether or not campaign visits are strategic in nature.  Ultimately, what I find is that they are.  Candidates spend the invisible primary phase (the year-long run-up to the Iowa Caucuses) trying to fundraise and build a name for themselves.  Then, once voting begins, candidates focus on the number of delegates they are accumulating.  Throughout the invisible primary phase, candidates are focused on states with more delegates available, those that hold early contests, states that do not hold their contest on the same day as another state, and states that uses a winner-take-all [WTA] delegate distribution.  Once voting starts, the number of delegates and shared contest dates are still important, but states that hold primaries are more important than states that hold caucuses.  Caucus states receive fewer visits, likely due to the fact that they have fewer delegates and because caucuses require a bigger time commitment from voters.  I turn then to answering the questions of whether or not visits impact mobilization and candidate preference.  In terms of mobilization, visits appear to help increase turnout for long-shot candidates.  Candidates that are well known do not seem to receive a bump in turnout due to their campaign visits, whereas candidates that are less well known do receive a bit of a bump in turnout.  In terms of vote choice, candidates that out-visit their opponent do receive an increase in votes.  So, when running for office, if you want your visits to matter, you need to ensure you are holding more campaign events than your opponent. 

Photo from NPR showing Hillary Clinton with a Cheesesteak in downtown Philadelphia in the 2008 Democratic nominating contests.  Showing affinity for local customs is one of the benefits of campaign visits.  

Ultimately what I have tried to do with this book is shed some light on the impact campaign visits have on voters.  Little has been done to analyze their effects and much more research is needed to fully understand their effects—I spend a significant amount of time in my conclusion discussing future avenues of research based on my findings.  Nonetheless, even though they have been overlooked, campaign visits do matter.  And more importantly, if we are to understand the impact of presidential campaigns, campaign visits need to be included in any discussion of how that campaign influenced voters.