Comparing the Last Two Presidential Primaries
by Steve Levy
The 2012 Republican primary has both noteworthy similarities and differences with the events that transpired in the Democratic primary of 2008. One of the biggest things in common was the impact of timing. Timing is everything, and that is especially true in politics.
Think back to 2008 when a young, inexperienced, two-year senator distinguished himself from the pack of other Democratic candidates by being the only one who had a clear record of consistently opposing the United States’ involvement in military operations in Iraq. Fortunately for Obama, the public mood was quite sour on the war at the time that the primary campaign was in full swing. Hillary Clinton, who was the odds-on favorite to take the nomination before the primary, laid claim to almost every demographic within the party. The war was the one defining difference. But, had the primary gotten into full swing just six months later, Obama would probably never have gotten out of the starting gate. By that time, the surge, implemented by Bush months earlier, was starting to work and a vote in favor of the war years ago would be seen as less of a stain on a Democrat’s résumé. The war would not have been the major wedge issue that it became just six months earlier, which helped propel Obama to victory.
Timing meant everything to Mitt Romney as well. Romney’s strongest points were his perceived advantages as to electability in the general election and his brand as being the fixer – the candidate who had fixed companies and now could fix America’s ailing economy. In the months leading up to the 2012 Republican primary, the economic numbers were still looking anemic. But, three additional months of rising employment numbers and rising consumer confidence have made the economy, while still the number one issue in the campaign, less of an Achilles heel for the president Had the better news over the last several months been evident in the months leading up to the Iowa caucus, it is questionable whether Romney would have been the fruntrunner.
While the issue of timing played a role in both primaries, a sharp difference is evident in how the respective candidates have been able to attack, or not attack, their opponents. In 2008, Obama was able to create a perception that he was above the fray – that he was ushering in a new style of campaigning, one that promoted hope over division and unity over attacking one’s opponent. The fact is, the Obama campaign was brutal in its attacks on Clinton, but they were clever enough to be able to do so through surrogates and in a manner in which it did not stick to the young senator. On the other hand, the Clintons were paralyzed in their attempts to lay out even the slightest distinctions with Obama. Obama surrogates such as Congressman Clyburn, and their loyalists in the media, went so far as to shamelessly label Bill Clinton, who was once termed America’s first African-American President, as wallowing in the gutter of racial politics for merely attributing Obama’s South Carolina victory to the strong African-America voting block there.
This year, in the Republican primary, the candidates have tried to distance themselves from the attacks on their opponents by leaving it to the supposedly non-aligned political action committees, but the public is not buying it. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have all relied on multimillionaires to finance these PACs, which are supposed to be totally independent, yet are nevertheless perceived by the public as being the surrogates for the candidates themselves. Consequently, while Obama was rising in the polls and building a perception as being a post-partisan, totally positive candidate in 2008 (despite the brutal attacks his surrogates were leveling on Clinton), Romney has been losing support amongst independents for being seen as waging a very negative campaign.
So far this year’s primary candidates have been unable to emulate the Obama teflon measures of 2008. It will be interesting to see if the ultimate nominee is able to incorporate this skill to actually turn the tables in the general election on the current president who employed these methods so well just four years ago.
Making police departments more efficient, the teacher evaluation distraction, promoting independent redistricting panels, and the politics of casinos.
March 19, 2012Former Suffolk exec Levy seeks gov’t savings | By John Callegari
March 23, 2012Comparing the Last Two Presidential Primaries
Comparing the Last Two Presidential Primaries
by Steve Levy
The 2012 Republican primary has both noteworthy similarities and differences with the events that transpired in the Democratic primary of 2008. One of the biggest things in common was the impact of timing. Timing is everything, and that is especially true in politics.
Think back to 2008 when a young, inexperienced, two-year senator distinguished himself from the pack of other Democratic candidates by being the only one who had a clear record of consistently opposing the United States’ involvement in military operations in Iraq. Fortunately for Obama, the public mood was quite sour on the war at the time that the primary campaign was in full swing. Hillary Clinton, who was the odds-on favorite to take the nomination before the primary, laid claim to almost every demographic within the party. The war was the one defining difference. But, had the primary gotten into full swing just six months later, Obama would probably never have gotten out of the starting gate. By that time, the surge, implemented by Bush months earlier, was starting to work and a vote in favor of the war years ago would be seen as less of a stain on a Democrat’s résumé. The war would not have been the major wedge issue that it became just six months earlier, which helped propel Obama to victory.
Timing meant everything to Mitt Romney as well. Romney’s strongest points were his perceived advantages as to electability in the general election and his brand as being the fixer – the candidate who had fixed companies and now could fix America’s ailing economy. In the months leading up to the 2012 Republican primary, the economic numbers were still looking anemic. But, three additional months of rising employment numbers and rising consumer confidence have made the economy, while still the number one issue in the campaign, less of an Achilles heel for the president Had the better news over the last several months been evident in the months leading up to the Iowa caucus, it is questionable whether Romney would have been the fruntrunner.
While the issue of timing played a role in both primaries, a sharp difference is evident in how the respective candidates have been able to attack, or not attack, their opponents. In 2008, Obama was able to create a perception that he was above the fray – that he was ushering in a new style of campaigning, one that promoted hope over division and unity over attacking one’s opponent. The fact is, the Obama campaign was brutal in its attacks on Clinton, but they were clever enough to be able to do so through surrogates and in a manner in which it did not stick to the young senator. On the other hand, the Clintons were paralyzed in their attempts to lay out even the slightest distinctions with Obama. Obama surrogates such as Congressman Clyburn, and their loyalists in the media, went so far as to shamelessly label Bill Clinton, who was once termed America’s first African-American President, as wallowing in the gutter of racial politics for merely attributing Obama’s South Carolina victory to the strong African-America voting block there.
This year, in the Republican primary, the candidates have tried to distance themselves from the attacks on their opponents by leaving it to the supposedly non-aligned political action committees, but the public is not buying it. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have all relied on multimillionaires to finance these PACs, which are supposed to be totally independent, yet are nevertheless perceived by the public as being the surrogates for the candidates themselves. Consequently, while Obama was rising in the polls and building a perception as being a post-partisan, totally positive candidate in 2008 (despite the brutal attacks his surrogates were leveling on Clinton), Romney has been losing support amongst independents for being seen as waging a very negative campaign.
So far this year’s primary candidates have been unable to emulate the Obama teflon measures of 2008. It will be interesting to see if the ultimate nominee is able to incorporate this skill to actually turn the tables in the general election on the current president who employed these methods so well just four years ago.
Steve Levy
Related posts
Senate Immigration Bill a Gift to Open Borders Democrats
Read more
Senate Bill Sanctions Illegal Immigration
Read more
Media an Arm of Democratic Party, Especially on Immigration
Read more