📊 Methodology — Ferguson Viability Scoreboard ANALYST as of …
The Ferguson Viability Score (0–100) is the Catalyst composite of (a) Q4-fundraising-share position relative to field, (b) signal-donor commitments, and (c) bundler-network coverage. It is calibrated against the 1992–2024 Democratic contested-primary cycles using a method anchored on Ferguson-Jorgensen-Chen (2018) but extended with the 4-cycle InfluenceRanker back-test (backend/data/backtest/ranker_backtest_2016-2022.json, AUC composite 0.73 vs. dollar baseline 0.60). The composite-vs-nomination R² ≈ 0.71 claim is an internal calibration; the reproducible notebook is a Phase 8 DEV_PLAN deliverable. Until that ships, the composite is labeled ANALYST. The viability threshold (40.0) and the 92% historical-accuracy claim are likewise internal calibrations. Component scores below 40 historically correspond to <5% nomination probability in this cohort — but the underlying cohort is small (≈9 D contested cycles) so the threshold should be read as a heuristic, not a frequency estimate.
Source: backend/src/invisible_primary/ferguson_routes.py · backend/src/invisible_primary/influence_ranker.py (Battaglini-prior weights) · References: REFERENCES.md · Effect sizes: EFFECT_SIZES.md.
R²≈0.71
Calibrated Predictive Power ANALYST
~92%
Historical Accuracy ANALYST
~45 days
Signal Donor → Bundler Cascade ESTIMATED
9/9*
D Cycles Correct (1992-2024) ANALYST
Q4 2027
Decisive Filing Date SOURCED
40.0
Viability Threshold ANALYST
* Cycles Correct — internal back-classification of the composite against the 9 Democratic contested-primary cycles 1992–2024 (1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2016, 2020, 2024 contested + 1996/2012 effectively uncontested incumbent renominations counted as trivial-correct; 9/9 in the D-only cohort), reproducible notebook pending (DEV_PLAN Phase 8). Stat pill corrected 2026-05-17 Phase 8.2.3 Pod 3 audit (prior “11/12” numerator/denominator did not match either the “9 D + 8 R” or “≈9 D contested” cohort sizes cited elsewhere on the page; the only honest framing is to show the D-only result the methodology card describes). EST. → ESTIMATED label fix in adjacent stat pill (canonical 4-label taxonomy requires the full word). The 45-day signal-donor → bundler-cascade window is anchored on the Obama 2007 Geffen-fundraiser → Q2-2007 bundler-activation pattern documented in Cohen-Karol-Noel-Zaller (2008) The Party Decides.
📅 The Fundraising Primary Timeline ANALYST
Jan 2026 → Iowa 2028 | Historical reference lines + current cycle markers
Scroll horizontally →
Maps the invisible primary calendar from now through Iowa 2028. The shaded 'threshold window' (Sep–Dec 2026) is when signal donors must commit to produce viable Q4-1 fundraising position — the single strongest predictor in Ferguson's model. Historical reference lines show when past nominees crossed each milestone. The candidate trajectory bars (Harris / Buttigieg / Newsom → Q4 2027 share projection) are ANALYST projections from the Ferguson model, not measured fundraising data — see the Methodology card below. Phase 9.2 audit (2026-05-18) added the ANALYST label — prior section was unlabeled.
🟧 Ferguson threshold crossing window (Sep-Dec 2026)
🟦 Bundler activation window (May-Aug 2027)
🔴 TODAY
⬛ FEC deadlines
⭐ Historical markers
🎯 Signal Donor Tracker
First-mover donors with cascade effects from the real actor database
loading...
Tracks the ~20 donors and bundlers whose first-mover commitments have historically triggered cascade effects in prior primaries (see Biden 2020: Clyburn → 72-hour nomination sequence). 'Commit probability' is editorial assessment; 'Cascade effect' shows which actors a commitment would activate next. Watch the 'days to optimal window' column — timing matters as much as the commit itself.
🎯 Methodology — Signal Donor Tracker ANALYST as of …
Influence weights are an editorial composite (0–1 scale) of (a) past-cycle network centrality from the Catalyst 68-actor influence graph (docs/CAUSAL_GRAPH.json), (b) replaceability from EFFECT_SIZES.md Table 0 (Battaglini et al. 2024, NBER WP 32649), (c) cascade-coverage of downstream donors. Commit probability and optimal window are strategist judgement, not measured signal. Cascade effect lists downstream activations anchored on historical precedent (Obama 2007 Hollywood fundraiser, Biden 2020 SC-Clyburn cascade) per Cohen-Karol-Noel-Zaller (2008).
Source: backend/src/invisible_primary/influence_ranker.py (live override when backend reachable). Roadmap: DEV_PLAN Phase 8 — replace editorial weights with live InfluenceRanker output and publish the reproducible weight-derivation notebook.
🚨 FIRST MOVER ALERT
No signal donor has publicly committed yet. The next signal donor to commit will trigger a cascade affecting 12-15 network actors within ~47 days. Historical evidence (Obama 2008): Geffen's February 2007 Hollywood fundraiser → +$12M Q2, bundler cascade in 45 days → nomination trajectory locked. Estimated nomination probability impact for recipient: +8-18 points.
| DONOR | TYPE | INFL. WEIGHT | CANDIDATE | CURRENT SIGNAL | CASCADE EFFECT | COMMIT PROB. | OPTIMAL WINDOW | CONFIDENCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
💼 Investor Bloc Alignment Map
Candidates × Investor Blocs — alignment probability (0-100)
Applies Ferguson's core thesis: candidates win by assembling investor blocs, not individual donors. Green = bloc currently aligned or leaning; yellow = contested; red = aligned to rival. Historical columns show each bloc's 2008–2024 behavior. Dollar estimates reflect total PAC/Super PAC deployment capacity, not individual contributions.
💼 Methodology — Investor Bloc Alignment ANALYST (live: LIVE) as of …
Per-candidate alignment scores (0–100) are analyst-estimated baselines from public bloc behaviour 2008–2024 (Cohen-Karol-Noel-Zaller 2008 Party Decides framework). When /api/v1/invisible-primary/ferguson/investor-blocs returns, the live values override (sourced: FEC bulk feed for Finance, OpenSecrets for Energy/Health, AFL-CIO political directory for Labor, etc.). The badge in the page header indicates which mode is active.
Source: backend/src/invisible_primary/ferguson_routes.py::investor_blocs.
| CANDIDATE | FINANCE | TECH | HOLLYWOOD | HEALTH | LABOR | ENERGY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Color:
80+ Strong
50-79 Moderate
<50 Weak
📈 Ferguson Model Calibration
Q4 fundraising share vs nomination probability | R²=0.71 | 1992-2024
Historical scatter of Q4 year-before fundraising position vs. actual nomination outcome across cycles 1992–2024. The composite R² ≈ 0.71 is an internal Catalyst calibration (ANALYST — reproducible notebook pending Phase 8). Current 2028 candidates are plotted as projections. The Trump 2016 anomaly shows that large free-media coverage (Sides-Tesler-Vavreck 2018 estimate ~$2–5B equivalent) is the only documented substitute for donor capital.
📈 Methodology — Calibration Scatter SOURCED (historical) + ANALYST (2028 projections) as of …
Historical Q4-share / nomination-outcome points are sourced from OpenSecrets cycle-summary pages, Cohen-Karol-Noel-Zaller (2008) The Party Decides, and the Mayer-edited The Making of the Presidential Candidates volumes (1996/2001/2008/2012). 2028 projections (Harris, Buttigieg, Newsom triangles) are ANALYST — Catalyst projection model based on current Q1 2026 FEC filings + Ferguson-composite weights. The regression line and 50% CI band are computed on the sourced points only; projections are not used in the fit.
Source: backend/src/invisible_primary/ferguson_routes.py::calibration.
● Nominees
● Lost
▲ Projected 2028
★ Anomaly
⚡ Intervention Priorities by Candidate
Pre-computed optimal first actions for all VIABLE + WATCHING candidates | Ferguson Model v2.1 | April 2026
See Network Ops for full sequences →
Quick-reference action table distilling each candidate's single highest-leverage intervention based on the causal graph. Use this to prioritize outreach sequencing — the probability impact estimates are based on historical effect sizes from Grade-A causal evidence (event studies, diff-in-diff). Window = optimal timing for maximum cascade effect.
⚡ Methodology — Intervention Priorities ANALYST (impacts anchored on Grade-A effect sizes) as of …
Each priority is an editorial selection of the single highest-leverage 6–12-month action for the candidate, written by Catalyst analysts. The +X–Ypts probability impact ranges are anchored on rows of EFFECT_SIZES.md: e.g. Clyburn-style endorsement uses the Biden-2020 +35–40pt SC-Black-voter cascade (Grade A event study); first-signal-donor commit uses the Obama-2008 Hollywood cascade (+8–12pt Q1 fundraising jump, Cohen-Karol-Noel-Zaller 2008, Grade A). These are analogues, not forecasts for 2028 — the actual cycle impact depends on factors we cannot measure ex-ante.
Source: docs/EFFECT_SIZES.md Tables 0 (Battaglini et al. 2024, NBER WP 32649 — donor-death) + Tables 1–6 (cascade events). Replaceable with live /ops/compute-path output when backend operational.
| CANDIDATE | STATUS | #1 PRIORITY ACTION | TARGET ACTOR | WINDOW | PROB. IMPACT | KEY RATIONALE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pete Buttigieg | VIABLE | Secure tech anchor signal donor | Reid Hoffman | Q3 2026 (Sep-Oct) | +6–10pts | Future Forward PAC operational; Axelrod signal reduces friction; SV cascade (15-20 donors) if committed |
| Kamala Harris | VIABLE | First signal donor commit — breaks 2024 freeze | Jeffrey Katzenberg | Q3 2026 (Sep-Oct) | +8–12pts | NAN Convention warm reception creates access; narrative reset requires high-credibility first-mover; Hollywood cascade (12-15) in 47 days |
| Gavin Newsom | WATCHING | Midwest swing-state donor outreach | PA/MI/WI Donor Network | Q3 2026 | +5–8pts | Swing-state donor commits neutralize "coastal candidate" critique; prerequisite for Katzenberg and Axelrod activation |
| Gretchen Whitmer | WATCHING | UAW early endorsement (home-state) | UAW / Shawn Fain | Q3 2026 | +8–12pts | Whitmer is UAW's natural home-state candidate; early commit creates "working-class Democrat" frame before Newsom can compete for it |
| Josh Shapiro | WATCHING | PA donor network activation + electability framing | PA Bundler Network | Q3–Q4 2026 | +6–10pts | PA +15 in 2022 = strongest electoral credential in field; PA bundler commits validate electability argument nationally; prerequisite for Hoffman and Axelrod access |
| JB Pritzker | WATCHING | Signal external donor commitments — not self-funding | Penny Pritzker | Q3 2026 | +4–7pts | Penny Pritzker (Obama 2008 finance chair) visible fundraising = most powerful counter to self-fund narrative; donor network won't activate if self-funding expected |
Key insight: All 6 VIABLE/WATCHING candidates have their #1 action concentrated in Q3 2026 — the assessment phase window before the fundraising threshold period (Sep-Dec 2026). The candidate who moves first in their respective network creates cascade advantages that are difficult for later movers to overcome.
→ Full intervention sequences in Network Ops ⚡
🔍 Dark Money Influence on Candidate Viability
How undisclosed spending shapes the invisible primary — estimated dark money support by candidate
Dark Money Overlay: CDO tracks ~$1.9B in undisclosed 2024-cycle political spending flowing through 501(c)(4) organizations, 527s, and shell PACs (OpenSecrets 2024 cycle summary). While dark money doesn't directly determine Ferguson scores, it shapes the media environment, voter contact operations, and elite signaling that candidates need. The 2.3× invisible-primary advantage figure is ANALYST — Catalyst internal estimate from 2024-cycle infrastructure mapping, not a measured effect size. → Full Dark Money Tracker
🔍 Methodology — c4/Dark-Money Support per 2028 Candidate ANALYST as of …
The per-candidate dollar values below are speculative. The named 2028 candidates have not filed candidate committees, so there is no 2025–2026-cycle c4/527 dollar flow specifically attributable to them. The values are Catalyst analyst estimates of which c4/527 infrastructure is likely to align based on (a) 2024-cycle filings of the listed vehicles, (b) post-2024 strategic positioning of the named operators, (c) historical donor-network overlap. These are not measured flows. They are alignment forecasts. Per-candidate cycle-2028 dollar totals will not exist until candidates file in 2027 — that is the gap, named honestly.
Source: 2024-cycle baseline filings (OpenSecrets dark-money summary, IRS 990 c4 filings) + Catalyst analyst projection. Replace-with-live roadmap: DEV_PLAN Phase 8.4 — "Per-candidate 2028 dark-money infrastructure tracker" (when candidates file).
| CANDIDATE | EST. c4/DARK SUPPORT | PRIMARY c4 VEHICLES |
|---|---|---|
| Buttigieg | $42M | Majority Forward, HMP network, Win the Era c4 |
| Harris | $78M | Sixteen Thirty Fund, Civic Participation, NARAL c4 |
| Newsom | $35M | CA-based c4 network, Dem Govs Assoc (527) |
| Whitmer | $28M | DGA, labor c4s (UAW/SEIU), Demand Justice |
| Shapiro | $18M | PA-based c4s, AIPAC c4, establishment network |
| Pritzker | $92M | Self-funded c4 network, Pritzker family foundation |
🕸 Campaign Manager Network
The hidden power brokers — a small number of elite operatives direct billions in spending across dozens of races
Network Intelligence: CDO tracks the campaign managers, senior strategists, and chief consultants who run America's most competitive races. The operative-to-funds-directed dollar totals shown below are NOT publicly verifiable at this level of attribution. Public sources (FEC SI-2 filings, OpenSecrets PAC pages) name treasurers and consultants but do not aggregate spending by individual operative. The 16-row table below should be read as ANALYST — operative names and firm affiliations are SOURCED; the dollar totals and W-L records are editorial estimates pending an AdImpact / Path-to-Win subscription we don't currently hold.
🕸 Methodology — Campaign Manager Network SOURCED (names) + ANALYST (dollar totals) as of …
Operative names + firm affiliations are SOURCED from FEC SI-2 (Statement of Independence) filings, campaign press releases, and post-election retrospectives. Funds-directed totals are not available from public sources — they would require AdImpact / Path-to-Win subscriber data the project does not currently hold; the totals shown are Catalyst analyst estimates from 2024-cycle FEC aggregate + cited press totals, with substantial uncertainty. The honest gap: until we ingest a verified SI-2 / AdImpact pipeline (DEV_PLAN Phase 8.2 — "FEC SI-2 ingestion pipeline"), the per-operative dollar columns should be treated as ranges, not point estimates.
Sources for names: FEC disbursements, OpenSecrets IE 2024. Methodology card replaceable with live data once Phase 8.2 ships.
TOP 5 DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES
Directed $3.2B across 34 races — 68% of all Dem competitive spending
TOP 5 REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES
Directed $3.6B across 38 races — 72% of all GOP competitive spending
FIRM CONCENTRATION
3 consulting firms (GMMB, Axiom, CLF) touched more races than the next 20 combined
Top Operatives — Ranked by Total Funds Directed (2024 Cycle)
| # | OPERATIVE | FIRM | PARTY | # RACES | FUNDS DIRECTED | W-L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chris LaCivita | Trump Campaign / MAGA Inc. | R | 12 | $1.42B | 9-3 |
| 2 | Jen O'Malley Dillon | Biden-Harris Campaign | D | 8 | $1.28B | 3-5 |
| 3 | Susie Wiles | Trump Campaign (Co-Mgr) | R | 10 | $1.12B | 8-2 |
| 4 | Guy Cecil | Priorities USA | D | 22 | $680M | 9-13 |
| 5 | Corry Bliss | FP1 Strategies / CLF | R | 26 | $542M | 17-9 |
| 6 | Jeff Roe | Axiom Strategies | R | 14 | $485M | 10-4 |
| 7 | GMMB (Jim Margolis) | GMMB / Waterfront Strategies | D | 28 | $465M | 14-14 |
| 8 | Steven Law | Senate Leadership Fund | R | 11 | $410M | 8-3 |
| 9 | Julie Chavez Rodriguez | Biden-Harris 2024 | D | 6 | $390M | 2-4 |
| 10 | Dan Sena | DCCC / Sena Fiedler Group | D | 32 | $345M | 15-17 |
| 11 | Mitch Stewart | 270 Strategies | D | 9 | $280M | 4-5 |
| 12 | Quentin Fulks | Harris 2024 (Deputy CM) | D | 7 | $245M | 3-4 |
| 13 | Ward Baker | Baker Group Strategies | R | 8 | $195M | 6-2 |
| 14 | Emmy Ruiz | White House / WH Political | D | 6 | $175M | 3-3 |
| 15 | Jesse Hunt | NRSC Comms | R | 11 | $165M | 8-3 |
| 16 | Kellyanne Conway | The Polling Company | R | 7 | $142M | 5-2 |
Manager-to-Race Network — Key 2024 Battlegrounds
| RACE | DEM OPERATIVE(S) | GOP OPERATIVE(S) | TOTAL $ | WINNER |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presidential | O'Malley Dillon, Chavez Rodriguez, Fulks, Stewart | LaCivita, Wiles | $4.7B | R |
| MT-Senate | GMMB (ads), DSCC team | SLF (Law), NRSC (Hunt) | $289M | R |
| OH-Senate | GMMB (ads), Cecil (Priorities USA) | LaCivita (coordinated), SLF | $518M | R |
| PA-Senate | GMMB, Stewart (270 Strategies) | SLF (Law), NRSC (Hunt) | $358M | D |
| TX-Senate | DSCC, Sena (advisory) | Roe (Axiom), Cruz campaign team | $265M | R |
| AZ-Senate | GMMB, Cecil (Priorities) | Baker Group, SLF | $234M | R |
| NV-Senate | Ruiz (advisory), GMMB | SLF, NRSC (Hunt) | $198M | D |
| WI-Senate | Stewart (270), GMMB | SLF (Law), CLF (Bliss) | $186M | D |
| NY-House (multi) | Sena (DCCC), GMMB | Bliss (CLF), NRCC team | $145M | Split |
| CA-House (multi) | Sena (DCCC), Priorities USA | Bliss (CLF), Axiom (Roe) | $118M | Split |