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:
INDY you can not get anything through there heads they are the one getting paid(BRIBED) to vote for DEMORATS
The UAW got GM how big of a payoff is that for there votes, and now the only people that are ENTITLED TO GET A JOB UNDER OBUMMERS JOB BILL ARE THOSE IN THE UNION.
SO just kick the poor when they are down and not offer them a JOB, ONLY THOSE IN THE UNION CAN HAVE THE JOBS THAT WAY THE UNIONS WILL GET STRONGER AND THE DEMORATS WILL HAVE PAID FOR THE VOTES.
Why does MSN continue to fail to fairly and accurately report the news? Where is there any political news article about the latest CBO report that President Obama's budget policies are predicted to produce a $977 BILLION deficit next year alone? (That's $75 billion MORE that the White House predicted and reported to you and me) Isn't the fact that our president is intentionally putting our country on the fast track to financial ruin, news worthy? Or just not in an election year?
Matt,,,I would love to see just ONE # that comes out of the white house that pans out or start with unexpected, unforseen, etc,etc by their so-called "experts"!
.
According to real Clear Politics, Hillary actually had more popular votes than Obama if Michigan had not been disenfranchised by the DNC. It was only with the caucus states that Obama won the nomination. In other words, a tie with just under 18M for each candidate. With the race decided by MSM and party leaders who "loved the narrative" and called Hillary a b1tch at every turn.
As of today, Romney 3.477M and Sanatorium 2.286M popular votes. Not even close.
Why is Hillary's virtual tie with Obama not even mentioned in this article? Sexism, in the view of many people who have not forgotten 2008. Dems are worried about Pennsylvania and Ohio turning red this year. These are the people who voted for Hillary and understood that Obama would never keep his promises. Told ya so...
.
obama's media complex will tell us he is our one and only savior,but his complete failure,as he planned it ,is covered up by wimpy journalists protecting him in fear of their jobs.he has failed america on purpose,and he is not even an american citizen nor christian.a complete fake and a lousy one at that.can't run on his track record,so the american people will fire his ass and elect an american patriot.goodbye you facist creep.
Dear Republican Nominees: I don't care what you do to gain voters share in the GOP. But I advise you against mud-slinging or shellacking the President. You could get our Leader killed by provoking International terrorism and Gen. David Petraus. There is much confusion about thee American economy and Global conditions. That if you mud-sling, you create a diversion, for terrorist assassins to creep in, and bring unstable secret service protocol to the fatwa at hand. Heaven forbid, but even homegrown plottings, from panic and gossip scandals. Many an American could follow you on the tight and exact moves The President must contend with, for a balanced society. Your verbalism could bring down even friendly fire on the victims (Obama and Petraus) and communities of other terror threats on our fellow Americans. Just use caution on the agendas you hope to positively implement. Thank you and no inciting terror. God bless?
Sorry, Obama has had enough free passes to last three lifetimes.
David, how is the whole passive mode and bowing to the Saudi king working for Obama. It has made it worse. His kissing arse to the mideast has made it worse and we look weaker.
David,,,,do you mean the General Petraus that the democrat leaders and fake news outlets called a LIAR even before he testafied before the senate on the war? Or the lib democrat movie producers that make movies about the assasination of a sitting president?
Obama was anti-Bush vote. Now, GOP front runner (give me anybody) will be the anti-Obama vote.
You all are thinking to hard about this...it's just this simple.
I agree with this: Get Obama out of this office and preferably railroad him out of this country. He is a con, a trojan horse let into the whitehouse.
Buffaloful,,,AMEN brother!
After the last few years, I'm not very sure at all that I want to stay a Republican. Certainly not a Democrat. I'd prefer to be an Independent, that way neither party can embarrass me with their antics.
I became an independent thanks to George W. Bush.
ihbo
Black supremacist (Derrick Bell) "We need to hear and embrace the words of Professor Derrick Bell..." Obama said on 1990's tape unveiled last week.
White supremacist (David Duke): So can we also say "We need to embrace the words of David Duke".
The media and left hacks all in an uproar over David Duke and should be over Derrick Bell.
Obama true colors once again show.
The thing is if you let the DEMORAT stay in power this country will be in DEBT BY OVER 20 TRILLION DOLLARS.
THE THIS COUTRY WILL NEVER GET BACK TO STABILITY. They will bankrupt this country!
the left are all communists to the core.they want power so badly they have to garner votes by buying the stupid people with their handouts.the more handouts the more votes they get to keep the cycle going.too bad this country has so many,stupid poeple that is.once caught up in thier game ,would you vote against freebies?there is the only education you need on socialism.wake up dumb people and see this administration is devastating to the once so great america.history proves socialism will run out of your tax money and then the masses relying on cheap promises will revolt.must stop omamacare,he is already planning,behind the scenes,to get our guns.once you have complete control with an unarmed society,the end result is venezuela,cuba,europe,etc.so all you left lovers need to take a step back,and see the big picture here.don't continue to be walking around with blinders on.you will be sorry,history gaurentees it.
i will give Obama credit for this: his is changing the country for what he said he would do. He will destroy this country and arrogantly stand back and see his black nationalism theology played out on us all. "Get even " is his M.O.
You say "your crazy and racist" Buffaloful.
Can you explain to me how Obama sat for 20+ years under "The Rev" Jeremiah Wright and now Prof Derrick Bell (black racists) and not be effected?
your're right,everything greenboy has done is designed to end capitalism,no drilling,no coal,no pipeline.look at solondrya,sun energy,the volt,not to mention the unrest in the middle east.it's planned to steer us to pathetic green energy.oil is capitalism's bloodline and he's stuck a hole in it.
The reason 2012 will be different than 2008 is because despite lamestream media spin, Obama will be running against his record, and not the Republican nominee. Bluegrass you regret voting for Bush, are you now suffering buyers remorse for voting for "hope" and "change"?(in truth you are a liberal claiming you voted for Bush). If you were really truthful to yourself, and showed as much disdain for Bush's economy vs Obama's, could you still deny the economy is far WORSE off, under Obama. The "anvil" you claim the GOP is carrying, was placed there by the willing liberal media. Did you know a recent poll in the New York Times has Obama's approval numbers at 41%? No you probably missed that because unlike the liberal media coverage of Bush's last year in office where the lead story night after night was Bush's dwindling poll numbers, Obama gets a pass. But as I said Obama and his willing slaves in the lamestream media cannot DENY facts. Want some? Despite the Democrats attempt to make this election about social issues, "GOP war on women", when asked women said the economy was more important. And when the public found out the truth about Sandra Fluke, she was a liberal activist and is now on vacation in Europe, with her rich boyfriend( she can go to Europe but can't afford contrception, really?) Well heres some numbers: 14,241,059 Americans, a 50.1% increase since Obama took office, price of gas since Obama took office has increased 103.5%, 2,413,000 Americans unemployed for atleast 27 weeks since passage of Stimulus in 2009......but of course its Bush's fault, the GOP, the "Teatards", did I leave anyone out?
Bush was an idiot along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Karl Rove. ( I used to be Republican, now independent)
Where are the oil revenues from Iraq that will be used to pay for the war? $107 bbl crude would pay for a lot of the costs.
Bush /Obama have wasted our treasure and blood (4400 lives).
What is the aim of our wars in middle east? When do i know we have won?
"Embrace the words of Derrick Bell" (noted professor and racists) says your President Barack Obama.
But unlike during the Bush's presidency where there was a "nightly scroll" of Americans killed in Iraq, on the lame stream media(almost like they were keeping score), where is that coverage of our fallen hero's under Obama? Precisely the point I was trying to make about liberal media hypocrisy. If the media was not biased, and covered Obama's Presidency as they did Bush, Obamas numbers would be even lower than 41%
Agree. You think Brian Williams of NBC is an 'in-depth and hard hitting " journalist?
They are hired models with talking points, not journalists.
where's code pink? cindy sheann? where are the peaceniks? not needed for dem pres i guess.WHERE is the constant drumbeat of the bias media complex i ask you libs,answer me damnnit.
yeah,the mask is off of this clown!
Like I said yesterday, the libs fought tooth and nail until June. Blah blah blah. Talk to me in November.
dems are in panic mode,41% approval rating! way too high by me.
As always, I not the conservative commentators begin their posts by insulting everybody who disagrees with them. Then, they spew out a collection of unsubstantiated talking points, and then leave. There was a post earlier that made the point about the 2004 election very clear. When Kerry stated that he had supported the Iraq war. The analogy becomes even better when Romney said on his Fox news interview that he believes the economy is improving. And the general election hasn't begun yet.
I have to ask you: what is your point?
Do you support this president and the words of his professor Derrick Bell?
Do you dispute those facts? Do tell...
If you want substance(sources) Neolib, example:14,241,059 Americans on food stamps a 50.1% increase since Obama took office(source Department of Agriculture 3/9/12). All my statistics I posted can easily be confirmed by simply googling, wickapedia, bing or other search engines, but you are a liberal and you will not research negative information about Democrat policies, will you?
I did not realize that there were so many BUFFONS as Buffaloful, Neolib87, timejumper1 & Mruserhead
For the Common Good of the United States of America and 90% of our citizens VOTE a complete Democratic sweep in 2012! Democracy = Democratic Majorities
just telling it like it is (false) - just keep drinking that poison tea, it can not injure your brain since it is not apparent that your brain exists.
instead of spreading the talking points fed to you, do a little research, you will find that the facts prove your rant to be totaly false, for you to continue to rant in denial of the facts demonstrates your ignorance!
Conservatives,
I don't think your party's "war on women" and the "war on workers" are winning strategys for you come November. You may stir up your religious fanatical base and get more greedy billionaires and corporations to donate to these causes, but these actions are infuriating women and workers.
Each day that your party tries to turn back health care for women, you lose more and more independent women.
And please keep in mind, birth control is a FAMILY ISSUE, not just a woman's.
I am extremely proud of the people of Wisconsin and the protestors in Virginia who are taking a stand against these attempts.
Personally, I see little difference between the gullible people who eat up all of the hate and vile that Limbaugh spews and the gullible people who used to dress up in sheets and burn crosses.
war on women is a fabrication of the left to derail people away from obama's failures.stop being brainwashed by stupid liberal medias. oh,but it's ok for marr to call palin a dumb c%#$.then donate 1 mill to sup-pac.hipocrite.
You are an idiot Sara, there is NO "war on women". Your so-called war was started by Democrats during a Republican debate when George Snuflelupagus asked Romeny if elected would he support contraception for women. And Romney's answer was SPOT ON, "as far as I know contraception is still legal and available". And how quickly(did everyone notice) Ms Fluke disappeared off the radar when it was discovered she was a ativist libeal hack(not a contrived liberal VICTIM). And as I posted above she was recently spotted vacationing in Europe with her RICH boyfriend........DO YOU STILL WANT TO PAY FOR HER BIRTH CONTROL???........I can't afford a trip to Europe???
polls show most women aren't buying into this war crap,just the dumb ones.
Sara,,,Here we go,,,another oBAMAzombie that sticks her head in the sand with her msDNC talking points to spew the false social issues instead of what people here have been talking about! Sara, quit getting all your info from sargent "slut" shultz and rick madcow and is it not the sheet wearers, crossburners, nazis , talabhan etc, that endorses your democratic "occupy" party as oBAMA,reid and piglosi?
oops,clicked the check mark by accident.
My, my, my,
I mention the GOP'S 'WAR ON WOMEN" AND NO LESS THAN THREE GOP MALES start attacking my post.
Let's see............
GOP wants to force anyone any woman facing an abortion to be shamed and humiliated and forced to endure invasive procedures.
GOP want to discriminate against women by allowing mega-health corporations to not pay for birth control pills- but NOT A WORD AGAINST VIAGRA OR CIALIS. (Which one is more of a medical necessity?)
GOP wants a a female employee to have to PROVE TO HER EMPLOYER THAT SHE IS USING BIRTH CONTROL FOR SOME REASON OTHER THAN CONTRACEPTION. (Talk about invasion of privacy).
Yes, fellows, the rich, anal retentive men of your party are pushing for DISCRIMINATION OF WOMEN.
If your teenage daughter were raped, the GOP would first:
1) deny her emergency contraception to prevent any possible pregnancy
2) force her to have a probe up her vagina- effectively raping her again- to try to shame her into not aborting a pregnancy caused by the rapist.
Real men stand up for women's rights.
Sara M
You are dead on.
You did leave out one detail.
The GOP would make sure the child is born as best they can but would try hard not to permit government aide to the child.
Instead of killing eggs in the womb, they'd just starve it to death after it was born.
Cheer up though, when the time comes for the rapist to require Viagra to get it up, the GOP supports it 100%.
Funny how the GOP scream for less government and then shove government up your vagina.
The United States continues to spiral downward. It's time for change.
And during a recent poll Sarah when asked, women(atleast intellegent informed women) stated it was the ECONOMY, not contraception was what women were most concerned about(one woman even said if she had a job she could pay for her own contraception). So despite Democrats best efforts, you liberals failed to resinate with the American public on your contrived "war on women" or take Rush Limbaugh off the air..........EPIC FAIL!!!!
yep,typical outcome again.they lose again.
Give it a rest, guys. Your party is picking on women.
No wonder most women are for Obama.
By the way, your hero, Rush, is a sexist pig. He's been married 4 times, had /has a drug problem, talks out of his azz and you guys hang on his every word. Go figure...
I will stand up to your attacks any day of the week. Sorry you are so threatened by my posts.
wonder what's next for the dems looking to direct attention away from failing economy,war failure,mideast failure,pathetic approval ratings?should be fun to watch!maybe get another bimbo to blab out some s%*$ on tv?
time- Maybe you should jump back to march 17 2012, the economy is improving, the war in Iraq over, the time table set for the war in Afghanistan, poll numbers up and down but hovering for the President around 50%, and approval numbers for the GOP candidates? All over the place, like the candidates themselves. Obama/Biden 2012
hummerbird recent New York Time approval ratings for Obama.........41%
14,241,059 Americans on food stamps 50.1% increase since Obama took office
2'413,000 Americans unemployed for atleast 27 weeks since Stimulus passed in 2009
So tell me little birdie where is your "economic recovery" you are claiming?
omfg ! you clowns still REFUSE TO SEE THIS IS THE AFTER AFFECT OF FKING BUSH !
Because it isn't there. Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress, this disaster is all on their watch. Presidents don't pass laws, they can only sign what congress sends them. Obama's idiocy is that he is cheering on the destruction instead of threatening veto's like Bush did.
Compare the dozen years republicans ran congressm (last 6 Clinton-first 6 Bush), to the last five. No contest, democrats are completely incompetent.
Well, then, riddle me this, Phil - why did the Democrats take over Congress in 2006?
Because the cracks were beginning to show. Unpopularity with the Iraq War (only $50B, eh?), huge deficit spending (budget deficits only showed $1.5T over 6 years but the debt grew $4T+ the people weren't fooled) and the Republican "culture of corruption" all combined to sicken American voters.
Although they inherited 4.6% unemployment, it was already on the way up. It steadily increased for every month thereafter. And, no, not due to Democratic legislation. Bush used the veto pen to kill every attempt by the Democrats to fix anything! That includes attempts to forestall the housing crisis that eventually brought down our economy.
Try as you might, you cannot put this failure on Democrats. Even the Republican party acknowledges the facts. Why else is Bush "he who must be named" in the current election? Because they know it is the kiss of death to remind voters of the dismal failures of his administration.
I couldn't agree with you more..
the republicans are complete wack cases ! and could care less about anyone who does not have a 10mil plus portfolio !
the dems cant get a sh itting thing done cus the wack case republicans !
but for anyone who actually wants to win in november ..
just give your campaign fund back to the public , let us be able to eat , pay a bill , maybe keep our home the media exposure will be so insane that you wont need to print 1 lousy sign !
oh and by the way it would actually SHOW that someone gives a F U Ck about the people in this country and just just care about your own WALLET !
AND THE MAIN THING ! GET OUR JOBS BACK FROM INDIA , CHINA AND EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY WERE OUTSOURCED TO ! Cus if ya have not NOTICED THAT WAS NOT COST EFFECTIVE FOR THE US PEOPLE !
what! what is this?
Yet Obama is not shy about asking POOR Americans to gamble everything and go " ALL IN." It's not his money. He can just print more. Inflation doesn't hurt him.
Yeah the poor liberal left, they were unable to keep up their "poster child victim" Ms. Flukes actual life style, "under cover". Can't afford her $9 a month birth control, but her rich boyfriend and her can gallivant all over Europe. Again............EPIC FAIL