Why is the invisible primary thought to be so important?

Indicative Content

• the invisible primary is the first stage of the presidential campaign, in the year preceding the election and before the first actual primary
• potential candidates try to generate momentum behind their campaign by establishing name recognition and political identity, creating a campaign infrastructure and organisation in key states, and raising as much money as possible;
• they will also try to secure prominent endorsements, e.g. Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in November 2007

Evidence for its significance includes:

• a strong showing in the invisible primary is essential:
  • by December 2007, the Democratic field had been reduced to three (and realistically two) contenders, and, while the Republican race remained more open, the moderate performance of candidates such as Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson foreshadowed their eventual fate
• momentum is arguably more important than front-runner status though, and the ‘winners’ of the Democratic invisible primary in 2004 and 2008, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, both failed to gain the nomination
• arguably the trend towards ‘front loading’ increases the significance of the invisible primary
• the 2012 invisible primary saw a number of apparently well qualified candidates (e.g. Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie) declare their non-candidacy;
  • the withdrawal of Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain, and a decline in the fortunes of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, such that their early withdrawal from the race was inevitable;
  • the emergence of ‘super PACs’;
  • a series of debates which had a significant influence on the decline of Rick Perry and the rise of Newt Gingrich;
  • by the end of December, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were more or less tied nationally at around 25%, but the eventual winner of the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum, was still below 5%

2016 Example Update:

• in order to be competitive candidates needed to raise at least $10 million to $15 million during the course of 2015 (prior to the caucus and primary elections in early 2016)
• Ben Carson ‘won’ the Republican invisible primary raising $22million, and Hillary Clinton ‘won’ the Democrat invisible primary with $38million.
• althoughDonald Trump raised ~$2m dollars from his campaign-announcement in mid-June 2015, he has a personal net worth in the billions of dollars, and stated he would  self-finance his campaign.
• The 2016 invisible primaries clearly show that although the biggest spenders often ‘win’ – there are always exceptions.

Could I successfully answer an exam question on the invisible primary?