E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
If there's been one familiar refrain among Republicans during this presidential primary, it's been that the hard-fought battle between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and other contenders hasn't hurt the party – arguably, it's even strengthened it.
"Don't always assume that a primary fight is a bad thing," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Mar. 7 on CNN. "In fact, I think it's the opposite. I think it's going to be great for our party."
And frequently, as a point of reference, Republicans point to the long – and, at times, bitter – intra-party battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 as evidence that an extended race to the nomination isn’t necessarily a hindrance to winning the White House.
But there are important differences between the two cycles. Some of them might serve as a warning sign for the GOP, such as less money and a more damaged brand. And some might give the party encouragement, like more enthusiasm among Republicans.
Of course, an important caveat: In some ways, it’s difficult to compare 2008 (a race without an incumbent and with two history-making primary candidates) with 2012 (when there’s a sitting president in the Oval Office).
Bank accounts
At this point in the Democratic primary in 2008, Obama and Clinton had each heavily outraised Republicans’ fundraising haul through the first couple of months of 2012.
In February of 2008, just as the Democratic campaign had appeared to shift into a two-person race, the Obama campaign raised $55 million for the month, and had $39 million in the bank going into March. Clinton raised $35 million over the same time period, and had $29 million in cash on hand. (It’s worth noting, though, that much of Clinton’s money was reserved for the general election, and she couldn’t use in the primary season.)
Compare that to the money raised by Santorum and Romney over February, according to their own campaigns’ estimates (official numbers have not yet been filed with the Federal Election Commission). Romney raised $11.5 million in February and Santorum raised about $9 million. Romney had just $7.3 million in the bank at the end of the month, though, suggesting that his campaign is spending at a rate that could threaten to bleed him dry by November, especially if the primary continues for a while.
A discrepancy would suggest some diminished enthusiasm for the Republican candidates this cycle, at least at first glance.
But there are some important things to keep in mind: First, overall fundraising is down in 2012 versus 2008, in part due to the impact of a deep recession that onset after the 2008 primary.
More Republican money has also flowed to super PACs that support the various GOP candidates. These groups didn’t exist in the last Democratic primary, and one Romney super PAC alone, Restore Our Future, has already spent over $30 million this primary season.
The brand
Perhaps the most illuminating figures on the impact of the Republican primary campaign comes from a series of national NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls and the exit polling conducted of voters in key battleground state primaries.
By March of 2008, both Obama and Clinton enjoyed net-positive favorability ratings among the public at large (Obama: 51 positive, 28 negative; Clinton: 45 positive, 43 negative according to the March 2008 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll).
Romney and Santorum haven’t fared as well with the general public, according to this month’s numbers, also taken from the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Romney has a 28 percent positive rating among U.S. adults, and a 39 percent negative rating. Santorum has a 26 percent positive rating, and a 39 percent negative rating. They each perform much better with Republican primary voters.
And in terms of the impact on each party’s brand, the Democratic Party had a 45 percent positive rating among registered voters in March of 2008, and a 35 percent negative rating. Four years later, the Republican Party has a 32 percent positive rating, and a 43 percent negative rating.
But the GOP’s ratings represent a recovery of sorts from the party’s depths in mid-2010, when the August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from that year had the Republican Party with just a 24 percent positive rating, and a 46 percent negative rating.
Republicans are also still dealing with the fallout from an unpopular two-term president in George W. Bush, who preceded Obama. The wars Bush had started are still winding down, and Obama still warns of a return to the policies of the years that preceded him, attacking Bush by implication.
The Bush years also left Republicans with a more fractious coalition with emerging fault lines of social issues and foreign and economic policy. Given those divisions, it might be tougher for any of these candidates to capture a broader swath of the electorate.
Enthusiasm, curbed
The figures from both primaries suggest that Democrats were happier with their choice of candidates than Republicans have been this cycle.
Fifty-seven percent of Republicans who voted in the Mar. 6 Ohio primary said in exit polls that they would be satisfied with Romney as the eventual nominee.
By comparison, 73 percent of Democrats who voted in the Ohio primary four years ago said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination, and 66 percent of Democrats said the same of Obama that same cycle.
Nationally, 45 percent of Republican primary voters said in the March NBC/WSJ poll that they would support Romney with enthusiasm, and 42 percent said they would support Santorum with enthusiasm.
Four years ago, in the same national poll, 60 percent of Democrats said they would vote for Clinton with enthusiasm, and 52 percent expressed enthusiastic support for Obama.
But in 2008, Democrats weren’t being measured against an incumbent president like Republicans are this cycle. The differences between the candidates were also more stylistic in 2008 than ideological, especially compared to the 2012 race in which Republicans do battle over the extent of their conservatism.
But the Democratic primary four years ago also featured two political heavyweights in Obama and Clinton, each of whom were poised to make history simply by virtue of their nomination. Obama would become the first African-American presidential nominee, and later, the nation’s first black president. Clinton would have been the first woman to top a ticket, and the first woman president if she were elected.
And Republicans can take solace in the fact that Obama is now their greatest unifier. While there might not be tremendous enthusiasm for either of the two major remaining Republican candidates, there’s a great deal of interest within the GOP about beating Obama.
A mid-February Gallup poll found that Republicans, by an 8-point margin, were more likely to say that they were enthusiastic about voting this fall compared to Democrats. And among certain key portions of Obama’s 2008 coalition, especially younger and nonwhite voters, enthusiasm was down.
But a mid-March poll, also by Gallup, found that enthusiasm for Romney and Santorum within the GOP is down from 2008; Republicans are motivated this time by voting against Obama.
And the numbers in the January NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggest that while Santorum and Romney might not generate tremendous enthusiasm, they’re at least acceptable. Seventy-five percent of Republican primary voters said they would be “comfortable” with Romney as the nominee, and 65 percent said the same for Santorum.
Leave a Comment:
But, the trees are just the right height?
What else could we ask?
You Libbies disgust me and let me say I do Hate Barrack Obama and all the Liberal PRogressives, because you stand for Communism. I almost threw up when I saw the NCAAP and the Unions in DC flanked by over 100 American Communist organizations . What has happened to the Democratic Party ? They have been hijacked by George Soros , Jay Rockefeller and the other radicals that you all bow and pray to .
Yes , Obama is a total failure and you loons are too stupid to understand it. Obama didn't save the auto industry ,, bankruptcy saved them by screwing their creditors. They went bankrupt AFTER Obama gave them the money. How dumb can you people be ?
What are Obama's great foreign relation successes ? The Middle East is in flames and Obama turns his back on Israel. Obama is such a coward he is afraid to take out Iran's nuclear threat. Once they have it -- it is too late.
The Stimulus failed,, unemployment is still higher than before it was wasted. For the life of me I cannot understand how you people believe this drivel in the National Media.
Do you actually read reports ? The CBO just published 2 reports ,,, and Obama controls them too you loons,, Obama Care will cost over DOUBLE what Obama promised !!!!!
20 million Americans now insured under their employers,, will lose their insurance because of Obama Care . This is success ? These people were happy with their insurance coverage.
By the way I went to high school with Hillary Clinton and she is a joke. Just like Obama' phony War on Women ,, you loons are so uninformed,, what is the war ? The whole issue was Obama forcing his regulations on religious institutions,, and he will fail at that . He will lose in court just like Obama Care will lose at the Supreme Court Level.. Anyone care to bet me ?
The Democrats have a powerful hand based on 100 years of Progressive Evil... you have the Fed , the IRS , the Entitlements , the Unions, the Gays, but worst of all ,, Democrats own the Media,,, and they control education .
I personally think this country is too far gone because of the Communist practices of the Democratic party.
What is really scary is you attack Republicans ? They stand for the Constitution and that is the only thing that makes this a great country,, but you loons will destroy if you succeed.
Anyone but Obama in 2012,, except Ron Paul.
Funny how Obama destroyed Herman Cain , a black man who was leading the Republican Party,, but we must remember it is Republicans who hate blacks,, what a crock of bs.
I think you were really trying to say "republicans are trying to hide behind the constitution, religion and use it to cloud, mask their agenda and as a stepping stone at their own convenience", looks like a lot of Republican rhetoric to me... ;)
Excape21 = Looks like the TRUTH to me.
Yes, "Obamacare" will cost more than expected, but it'll still cost less than the current system of having the government pay for the uninsured.
That's the only point worth responding to. The rest is just unfounded blathering.
What kind of idiots are Americans that actually determine your president by gas prices lol hows that working out for you. In canada not one election has ever been decided by gas prices what control does the government have on it and we actually export the stuff and our price is more than yours to fill up our tanks. And on top of that your war ranting republicans talking about invading iran all the time what the hell do you think would happen to gas prices then. Either way you vote do it on who you think will be best to lead your country on several different areas not gas prices that is just plain stup id.
We civilized Americans know that gas prices are market driven, controlled by speculation and market conditions. Only the mindless and weak of mind followers of the extreme right believe the myth that anything can be done about gas prices by anyone in the short term, including the President.
It is truly embarrassing that other people around the world watching this media circus play out can see the obvious, and yet we have an entire party right here in America that just refuse and reject common sense logic.
;)
ryan-1853964
Sometimes our liberal friends get just a bit confused with their stories.
SAICS
Hope the clown car gets to the big tent soon,so the President can crack his whip against the elephants.Personally,if there is a brokered convention it will be trully hilarious to see them try to convince their sheep who will best for the job. It will be nice to rehash,Palin,Bachmann, Cain and the rest of these pathetic candidates views on our country.They are gloom and doom,but that's what they are good at. It's funny how all these so call economist know whats best for our country,maybe they should have told that to LIL BUSH! BUSH F@$%^d up our country and the cons blame the blackman. OBAMA-BIDEN 2012 J-MAL
This is just a History lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party .
I bet I know who wouldn't read it -- those afraid of the truth. It is history and nothing can change it.
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007,
the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start
of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the
103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that
everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the House:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and
4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars
of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was
financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy"
(and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress,
especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have
been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were
driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from
Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on
spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing
resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they
passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time?
He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked
like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the
Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit
spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama,
who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. ! ! !
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand
that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends this information on!
"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those
who vote for a living."
Correct, there are no so called "Progressives" involved. 1984, 14% of families paid no federal income tax. Today it's almost 50%. Poverty level have risen over 6 million since the 2009 inauguration. 46 million on food stamps, a double digit increase. 9 Trillion dollar debt, to be halved in his first term is over $15.5 trillion now. Over 25 million plus either unemployed, underemployed or no longer looking................
Libtards think we are a democrocy so they need those numbers growing to 51% so that 51% is ruling over the 49%. Libtards dispise our Republican form of government and it's found principle of limited government.
Libtards have NO personal responsibility and need the BIG government to tell them what to do and what to buy and from whom to buy it. It's now called the Democrat plantation and all will be slaves to the BIG government.
Why does news that affect our country have to come from another country?
youtu.be/iUbFy9eiJvy
Maybe it's the same reason 1 candidate has been banned from the media, even though his numbers are increasingly growing.
And who is that?
In 2008 the media did a great job holding Bush accountable and reminding the America public that the recession was Bush's fault and no one else's. They forgot to mention Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid contributing to the demise of our country so it's no wonder people were looking for a "change". Now, we have a President that by every measure has failed at least as miserably as Bush did but the media has been reluctant to point that out, in fact, they now blame Congress more than the President. Hmm, I wonder why?
I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal. The current batch of Republicans scare the hell out of me; they have said nothing to satisfy my concerns about the economy, but they've said everything to terrify me about the personal freedoms of our citizens.
Here's the thing about business taxes that nobody seems to understand: when taxes are low, companies don't have any incentive to reinvest in their own business. They'll pay the modest tax on their profits, take the money, and run. When taxes are high(er), businesses will be more inclined to reinvest in their company because it will reduce their tax liability. Higher taxes on businesses increases cash flow from the top down. Anyone who has ever done their own taxes should know this: the more you can deduct, the less you have to pay the government. When taxes are higher, businesses pump their revenue back into the business, which grows the business AND reduces the tax liability.
The GOP walked away from the most qualified candidate they had. Huntsman should have been the choice. Since they prefer the lesser of their candidates, none of whom has near the talent , smarts, or experience Obama cannow bring to the table, I'll stick with Obama.
2008 was a choice between two excellent candidates. Without Bill as a distraction, I'd have voted for Hill in a heartbeat, although in office he would have been invaluable. I was concerned the parade of past girlfriends would have kept her out. Having a woman Pres would have been icing on the cake. I hope she runs in 2016. Bill shouldn't be a problem by then-he's has been an excellent ex-Pres.....notice the Dem exes are so much better than GOPers? Carter can be a pain, but he has done wonderful work. He and CLinton have become heroes in humanitarian work, while the Bushes play golf mostly, except when Bill can get them to come out and do some good.
2008 in the Dems was a contest between two excellent candidates-one young, with energy, brains, vision and talent, the other, more experienced and practical, with great intelligence. Both had great understanding of how govt works, with national level experience.
In 2008 the GOP offered McCain and Romney. McCain had certain qualifications, but a history of bad judgement(s&l scandal), and really not the right temperament or age for the job. And then he picked Palin without checking her out properly. We all know how that went. Romney, then as now, has nothing to offer but lots of money to get elected. He is a chameleon, which is not a good thing in a candidate.
Now in 2012, we are back to Romney, and the rest of what's left of the GOP field. If Romney stuck to his Mass record and ran as he ran for Mass gov, I'd at least consider him. As it is, there's no way, because I just don't know how sincere he is. None of this crowd has any honor at all. I respected McCain-he never once suffered anyone to disrespect Obama in his presence. This bunch has no class. I don't care if Romney is toffee nosed, I do care that he got that money by truly unscrupulous means, and he surely did. He is out for himself here, not the American people. Santorum is unimpressive except on social issues, and I am not interested in going back to the past there. Newt is so smart, but he is so egocentric, he is a poor choice. No one wants to work with the guy. Ron Paul would torch the economy, and while he claims he would get the govt out of our lives, he just means the feds-he'd be happy to allow the states to do whatever they want. Truthfully, we need less of a mosaic of state laws, not more. We need the feds to help us compete. We need national education standards, national funding for schools to level the playing field, so that poor kids get the chance to prosper. A better educated workforce would mean a better chance of economic competition. We should be graduating 100% of our kids who are capable of graduation from high school. Schooling for vocation should be available to all, as well as college. Every person who is not educated to capacity is a resource potentially wasted. We are paying the price every day. We talk about our kids, and how important they are, but we allow teachers to be paid next to nothing, and allow them to be laid off when they are desperately needed. Public schools are a tool that can be used to generate huge economic payoffs, or they can be used as warehouses. Currently, we seem to prefer the latter. Since many parents cannot be induce to push their kids to get an education, schools must be given the tools. It all means money. Instead of condescending to kids who aren't lucky enough to have parents who care, we should all be working to help them, as they are as much our future as the kids who get the help they need at home.
The GOP would do well to lose its contempt for the electorate. Until they do, I'm on the other team.
Ma'am, you really hit the hammer on the nail-head here. And you're right, the GOP really does have a lot of contempt for the electorate. And they always have.
I think that the main difference between 2012 and 2008 is that in 2008 people were really excited to be supporting Hillary or Obama. In 2012 the Republicans are only excited to vote against Obama and don't really care about any of their candidates. I am not seeing the the kind of true fervent desire for any of these men to be president, just a lot of well if we have to vote for one of them.
What defines the presidential race so far is a lack of enthusiasm. People are shuffling to the polls to vote for the guy they think can win, rather than the guy that they want to win, and bemoaning their fate for having such a weak field of choices.
While many of the Republicans here will be voting against Obama just to be voting against him, if any of these clowns get the nomination I will be voting for Obama just to be voting against them. I wouldn't put any of the Republican candidates in charge of a dog pound. That would be cruelty to animals.
As long as none of them can get the 1144 delegates needed to force the Republican party to accept them, there is always hope that cooler heads will prevail and they will run someone reasonable. I truly am holding out for that slim option.
I consider myself an Independent and I will vote for whoever I feel will do the best job. Of the 5 choices we currently have I've got to say that is Obama.
"yeah, real sane, no budget, 8 TRILLION IN DEBT, 20 percent unemployment and a president that has shwn nothing but contempt for the constitution. he should be in jail then hung for treason for what he did to this countries finances. DEBT MAN WALKIN!"
Careful, Russ, we don't hate BushJr THAT much!
Just what will all you ObamaBots do when he's sent packing in November?
$5.00 gas, 16+ TRILLION deficit, more spending, no budget in 1000+ days, ObamaCare mess, fast & furious, 8.3% unemployment, Solyndra, Sec of Energy wanting $9.00 gas, bowing to the mid-east, campaining for 3+ years.
Yeah, he's doing a great job!, LOL! I laugh at you libs. You are truly and sad and lost bunch.
It's hard to take criticism from someone who doesn't know the difference between a debt and a defecit.
My life has improved greatly under this administration. I own a car, but I take public transportation to and from work (my very right-leaning employer pays for my bus pass) so I'm not worried about gas prices. The Affordable Healthcare Act is still cheaper than the current system of the gov't paying for the uninsured, and it doesn't affect me personally because I already have insurance. Yes, President Obama bowed in a foreign country (as is customary to show respect), but let us not forget that President Bush literally kissed a similar foreign official on the lips and often held their hands. Criticism is a two-way street.
It's easy to spout off talking points, but examine you life. Are you confronted with real problems, or are you angry about things thave have little influence on your life? It seems many people are upset on behalf of other people and while that is noble, unless discrimination is involved, it's no way to vote. Fast & Furious and Solyndra were problems, sure, but neither of them had anything to do with my lot in life. Every administration has problems and PR blemishes.
I've had some ups and downs, but overall the last two years has been very good to me. I will continue to vote for my own best interests.
It's equally hard to take criticism from someone with bad grammer "It's easy to spout off talking points, but examine you life."
So since you get a bus pass, and at the moment, none of Obama's terrible policies affect you, on the surface, then you are all set. Well way to be a good citizen and think of others and the good of the country! You are a model of a true liberal and democrat. Way to go!
YOU are dead wrong though, if you think Obama's spending and healthcare won't affect you. AND dead wrong if you think gas prices don't affect you. You have to eat right? Don't think food prices will go up as gas rises? How does food get to the supermarkets? Algae powered trucks or rail????
Solyndra not your problem? Do you pay taxes? That was our money Obama and Chu just flushed down the toilet.
Wake up! these failed policies and this failed admin affects ALL Americans. Either get invloved or get a clue, but get something Mr. if it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Might want to look up JFK's innaugural speech. You know, Ask not what your country can do for you, but...
See, here's the thing about taxes: they're not "our" money. Taxes are the money we pay to the government to keep the government services running. I can't get upset about how congress spends it because my vote enabled them. If they've failed to spend it properly, then I've failed as a voter. That's on me. Rather than getting upset and pointing fingers, I'll try to do better next time.
My point wasn't that I don't care; it's that my vote is MY vote. I vote for my interests. I don't vote for other people's interests because, civil rights aside, it's awfully presumptious for me to assume what other people want and need. Everyone else has a vote that counts just as much as mine, and they can use that vote to express their own desires.
And don't give me the JFK bit. I contribute time and money to my community, I vote, and I pay my taxes. That's all that's required. For all the right cries about socialism, you'd think they'd be against voting in deference to others.
Steve, if you find it difficult to argue with someone who does not know the difference between a deficit and the debt try to convince an Obamatron that the fact Bill Clinton had a budget surplus one year does not mean that he did not have a national debt outstanding.
Let me get this straight. According to the mid-2010 polling data, the Republican Party had a positive rating of only 24%. Yet they went on to win 23 of 36 Senate races, 22 of 37 Governor's races and gain 63 seats in the House a few months later?? You might want to hire some new pollsters.
While both primaries were/are competitive, the similarities end with a resounding thud right there. Anyone who has followed the charade of the last several months knows what I'm alluding to here.
Heres what America needs! Search YouTube for Ouzzy88 watch Decision 2012, someone from the ranks.
Don't believe anything that has the name "Wall Street Journal" attached to it, because it's owned by Murdoch's News Corp. Since he bought it, it's become a propaganda organ for the Republican Party.