Clinton crushed 'invisible primary.' Will that matter?

Hillary Clinton has corralled the support of 59 percent of national Democratic Party leaders, while Bernie Sanders has been shut out altogether.

Brian C. Frank/Reuters
US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks in the gymnasium of Moulton Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday.

It’s true that Hillary Clinton is slipping in the polls. But she’s still got an overwhelming lead in another measure that political scientists consider very important: endorsements.

Mrs. Clinton has corralled the support of 59 percent of all Democratic Party national-level officials – governors, representatives, and senators – according to a list compiled by the folks at The New York Times data arm, The Upshot. Joe Biden has been endorsed by 1.2 percent (that’s one governor and two lawmakers), even though he has not officially declared his candidacy. Bernie Sanders has none. He’s been shut out.

In this context, endorsements aren’t really an advertisement, like an athlete’s endorsement of a shoe. Few voters are going to think, “Oh, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York likes Hillary Clinton, maybe I’ll back her, too.”

What they are is a means for party elites to organize and communicate amongst themselves. These people want the strongest possible nominee on the top of the ticket. They want that person identified early, so there’s lots of time to raise money, plan strategy, and campaign.

That’s what the so-called invisible primary is all about. In the months prior to actual voting, candidates vie for the backing of party insiders. Since 1980, the number of a candidate’s endorsements has been an accurate predictor of the number of delegates that the individual will win at the convention.

“Endorsements by party leaders are the most visible part of the invisible primary,” write political scientists John Sides of George Washington University and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA in their book on the 2012 race, “The Gamble."

This year, the question is whether all those Democratic Party leaders made their pick too early.

Clintonworld did a great job in the invisible primary. All those endorsements are a big reason why VP Joe Biden didn’t lay the foundations for a 2016 run. It was clear the party had decided Clinton was its best chance to keep the White House.

Now the e-mail imbroglio and the rise of Senator Sanders have cut deeply into Clinton’s poll lead. While she still has a substantial survey lead, it’s nowhere near as overwhelming as her endorsement edge, and it’s narrowing.

If Clinton loses the nomination despite her internal party backing, it will be a huge upset – changing not just the contours of the 2016 race, but likely the way political parties conduct future invisible primaries, and the speed with which they bestow endorsement picks.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.