2012 Tuesday: Why the lagging candidates will hang on

Two medium-size items in this week’s edition of 2012 Tuesday:

Since Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the GOP presidential race, there’s been a lot of speculation as to who will be next to end his campaign, and when.

I’m not sure about the “who,” but there’s a pretty good chance that the “when” won’t be until after Jan. 1, 2012. Why? Federal matching funds.

Even primary candidates who flame out are eligible for federal funds to match contributions of up to $250 by any individual — up to a maximum level in the tens of millions of dollars. The spending limit, which started at $10 million in 1974, is adjusted for inflation each election cycle and in 2008 stood at $42.05 million. Primary candidates are eligible to receive up to one-half of that limit, so for 2012 a candidate could in theory receive well over $20 million.

Here are two relevant sections from a Federal Election Commission brochure about matching funds First:

Even if they no longer campaign actively in primary elections, candidates may continue to request public funds to pay off campaign debts until late February or early March of the year following an election. (However, to qualify for matching funds, contributions must be deposited in the campaign account by December 31 of the election year.)

And second:

A candidate may satisfy eligibility requirements and submit private contributions for matching payments any time after January 1 of the year before a Presidential general election. Actual payments are not made, however, until after January 1 of the Presidential election year. (emphasis added)

An FEC spokesman said a campaign has to be active after Jan. 1 of the election year to receive the matching funds. If you think that doesn’t appeal to a lot of the lagging candidates right now, I’ve got a spot for you at the next $1-a-head fund-raising dinner for the candidate of your choice.

***

A new Gallup poll among registered voters shows President Obama is in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney…and Rick Perry…and Ron Paul…and Michele Bachmann. Importantly, Obama is under 50 percent against all four candidates. Says Gallup:

These prospective election ballots — measured Aug. 17-18, well over a year before the Nov. 6, 2012, election — indicate that the race for president at this point is generally competitive, with voters fairly evenly divided in their preference for giving Obama a second term or electing a Republican candidate. Even though the four Republican candidates tested have varying degrees of name recognition, they all fare roughly the same.

All four, however, poll significantly better than the “generic Republican” did the last time Gallup asked that question.  While Republican voters view Perry and Romney more highly than Bachmann and Paul, independents like the three men about equally — and noticeably better than Bachmann. Democrats, not surprisingly, think all four are lousy compared to Obama.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

88 comments Add your comment

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
11:11 am

Howdy!
ABO 2012
Anyone But Obama

HDB

August 23rd, 2011
11:30 am

ABR-2012…anyone BUT a Republican!! Note what happened from 2001-2008…….

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
12:02 pm

What happened started in the ’90s when Democrats claimed that home ownership was a right, not a privilege, & that low- & moderate-income folks deserved the right to own a home, regardless of income, down payment & credit. That was what led to the recession: govt. intervention into the housing market, for votes.

Jefferson

August 23rd, 2011
12:11 pm

At this point it is a toss up, the GOP will hope the country does not improve or will pose roadblocks to derail things. This is politics in the 21st century. If re-elected the crying will be amusing, if not I doubt the lone ranger could do much.

Stevie Ray

August 23rd, 2011
12:12 pm

I still like the idea of outsourcing congress to India, implementing national referendums, and affording the executive branch all the power of the UK monarchy. Politics have become too much of a kindergarten playground to be of material value to the average taxpayer who gets close to zero value for each tax dollar. As much as it changes, it remains the same….Democrats are socialist, republicans are terrorists with neither possessing solid evidence either way..

Sean Smith

August 23rd, 2011
12:15 pm

You all can keep dreaming, its going to be 4 more years of Obama.

America is finally waking up to the fact that the republicans are only interested in taking care of the richest 1%.

Karl Marx

August 23rd, 2011
12:26 pm

Wow Mr. Smith The Democrats bailed out there friends, The Insurance companies (AIG), monster Mega Banks (not local banks), and US Car Companies except Ford. They also created a boom with Obamacare for Drug Companies and Health insurance companies. So what-who 1% was that again?

Stevie Ray

August 23rd, 2011
12:34 pm

Karl, to be fair, I think you will find that most of those bailees mentioned may actually contribute quite equally to both parties as so to hedge bets…it’s akin to short selling as a hedge. Don’t you wonder what decisions would be made in DC with the throttling of K Street? Maybe something may actually get done that benefits voters. The Supreme Court was merely translating existing law relative to Citizens I think. If lawmakers really wanted to change this for the better, they change to law to remove any doubt of intent.

that's goofy

August 23rd, 2011
12:40 pm

to make sure I understand:

Democrats are responsible for the housing collapse… even though they were a minority in Congress from 1994- until 2007. Housing ownership was championed by George W. Bush a democrat plant pretending to be a republican.

Big banks and insurance company bailouts were supported only by democrats… not the republicans. Why exactly did McCain feel the need to rush back to DC and exchange his republican hat for his AMerican hat? Again W (a democrat) championed the bail out.

or maybe: both parties continually fail to do what is best for the people… instead choosing to pander to their corporate and special interest masters.

It is easier to blame than accept responsibility.

JDW

August 23rd, 2011
1:05 pm

To your first veiled point Kyle, frankly we would be better off if taxpayers footed the bill for 100% of the campaign expenses and outlawed contributions. The we would have full time politicians that would be a bit more focused on their actual constituents. As it is we have full time fund raisers that focus 90% of their effort on their large contributors.

As for the polls, yawn, wake me up after the Repugican field spends the next several months inserting their respective feet in their mouths, knifing each other in the back, and learning to distinguish between Elvis’s birthday and the day he died.

That Black guy

August 23rd, 2011
1:30 pm

JDW “inserting their respective feet in their mouths, knifing each other in the back, and learning to distinguish between Elvis’s birthday and the day he died.”

but the real question is, in which of the 57 states did he die and did they give him a BREATHALIZER to try to revive him? Did they do their (as Plugs Biden said) “3 letter word J-O-B-S”?

JDW

August 23rd, 2011
1:50 pm

@That Black guy, and yet they got elected…doesn’t say much for the competition does it?

Tommy Maddox

August 23rd, 2011
1:59 pm

No – that speaks to the ignorance of the voting public.

Richard

August 23rd, 2011
2:01 pm

The road to Obama’s reelection goes through Michelle Bachman.

old timer

August 23rd, 2011
2:03 pm

Mr. Smith ..how about the 32 billion ginen to GE…..parent company of NBC news and whose CEO is Obama’s buddy……Is that the 1 you are talking about?

brad

August 23rd, 2011
2:07 pm

Hey Linda, I need an update: Is racism still dead?

old timer

August 23rd, 2011
2:08 pm

Also, we need to keep in mind the democrates controlled BOTH houses of congress 2006-2010….The house crisis begani hitting about 2007 or so. I think some republicans tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie. The Community Redevelopement Act also contributed to the problem. I am glad have alsways purchesed houses I could pay for….Though at times my husband and I worked two or more jobs.

brad

August 23rd, 2011
2:11 pm

Earthquake Strikes East Coast: god smites epicenter of liberalism.

JDW

August 23rd, 2011
2:15 pm

@Tommy Maddox

Well Tommy we have known the voting public was ignorant since 2000 and then they outdid themselves in 2004. I would be more inclined to say that they made the best of two poor choices one out of the last three tries.

carlosgvv

August 23rd, 2011
2:19 pm

Karl Marx – “so what-who 1% was that again”

The wealthy and powerful who fully fund Republican election and re-election campaigns and, because of this, totally own them.

brad

August 23rd, 2011
2:20 pm

DEVELOPING: Darrell Issa launches inquiry into why Obama didn’t prevent the earthquake.

Obama out of town…coincidence or not?!

jconservative

August 23rd, 2011
2:35 pm

The blame game.

Summary of who has been in charge, by party, since 1981, 30 years.

…………… Pres……… House…… Senate
Rep……… 20………… 12………… 16
Dem……… 10………… 18………… 14

I picked 30 years because 30 years ago we decided we could cut government revenue, increase government spending, and government revenue would go up. Reagan managed to triple the Nation Debt in his 8 years and it has been off to the races ever since. Or is that ever cents?

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
2:44 pm

The catalyst of the housing crisis began in 1994 with the National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, under Clinton with Democrat majorities in both houses. It was on the website of the Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev. until ‘07 when it mysteriously disappeared.

It read,
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

This is the speech by Bill Clinton on June 5, 1995 describing the strategy & how it will not cost taxpayers one dime:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=51448#axzz1VsG1wsRL

wallbanger

August 23rd, 2011
2:45 pm

Hey the Republicans aren’t holding up the “cure”. We have to wait for Obama to get home from vacation to get the “great reveal”. Obama has been such an awful disaster that if he didn’t have a solid 95% voting constituency, to which he has tried to add several million through backdoor amnesty, and were not most of his voters uneducated and ignorant enough to believe his bull, then he would already be ousted from office.

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
2:45 pm

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

August 23rd, 2011
3:07 pm

When parasites vote, Americans lose.

Rafe Hollister

August 23rd, 2011
3:08 pm

brad

No, unfortunately racism is not dead, and will not be, until the Dems quit using black Americans, or black Americans decide to voluntarily leave the Dem plantation.

stands for decibels

August 23rd, 2011
3:35 pm

(oops, I guess only one link per post is allowed? Let me try again…)

Interesting factoids about matching funds, Kyle, thanks.

its going to be 4 more years of Obama.

Well, that’s certainly the safer Intrade bet–he’s even money there.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

(they have Rick Perry at trading 18, and Mitt Romney at 14.)

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
3:53 pm

brad@2:07, I think Star Parker answered your question with her recent article “A dilemma for blacks: they’re worse off with Obama.”

She wrote that blacks are finally discovering that actions matter more than skin color (Obama’s). The civil rights movement was about equal treatment. Since then, the point has not been about just about equal treatment but the exact opposite: special treatment. It’s no longer about laws & policies that are neutral but about laws & policies that are racially slanted toward race, not on character & capability.

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/08/22/blacks_dilemma_with_obama

BTW, Parker happens to be black. Social justice was not in MLK’s vocabulary.

2012

August 23rd, 2011
3:54 pm

When Kyle posts, the terrorists win.

Nat Turner

August 23rd, 2011
4:03 pm

Brad, you do realize that the East Coast is part of the U.S. and affects us all you unpatriotic jerk.

And Rafe, thanks for keeping it real by saying that black voters are on the plantation. what a way to resurrect racism.

Nat Turner

August 23rd, 2011
4:25 pm

I read the article, Linda, and several others. So you went out and found the first black conservative that held your viewpoint?

I do love that Star wrote an article bashing liberatarians. That was an insightful read. She advocates for less government, but wants to make sure that government keeps marriage between a man and a woman? Hmm…

Libertarians are the only ones that have it right. Democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin.

Ayn Rant

August 23rd, 2011
4:31 pm

Deep down, the Republican candidates are all the same: their creed is “privilege for Big Business and the wealthy, personal responsibility for everybody else”. The alarming prospect is that their fantasies and lies, as projected by a relentless propaganda machine, may resonate with the dumbed-down American public.

Perhaps we need four more years of Reagan/Bush voodoo economics to rouse Americans into taking back our country. Please, let’s have the comedians of the lot, Bachmann and Palin, rather than that cash and carry hayseed who takes credit for inventing the great state of Texas.

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
4:59 pm

Nat@4:25, I have been following & been an admirer of Parker for years. She is one of many black conservatives who understands the dismal future of our country. Maybe you have not noticed the black conservative who is running for president, who is also an original Tea Party member

Still haven’t heard the new definition of marriage from any liberal or Libertarian. Certainly, you don’t want to be discriminatory! So, how many women to a man? How many men to a woman? What about parents marrying children? Will there be age discrimination? Will you discriminate against siblings marrying siblings? Will there still be consent? Are animals out of the question?

State your new definition of marriage for all of us to read. Can’t wait to read it.

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
5:12 pm

Nat, while you are at it, can you also tell us what day of the normal 9-month pregnancy that life begins? Is it day one, day 35, day 57, day 76, day 105, day 123 or day 279? Does life always begin AFTER the baby shower?

TrishaDishaWarEagle

August 23rd, 2011
5:13 pm

Best headline ever…

“All of Washington DC leaves work at noon, US experiences brief economic recovery’…

TrishaDishaWarEagle

August 23rd, 2011
5:14 pm

I wish there was a huge Tsunami heading toward DC as we speak..

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

August 23rd, 2011
5:20 pm

dummycrats think?

Come on Kyle, be serious.

Nat Turner

August 23rd, 2011
5:30 pm

Oh Linda, how did you bring abortion into this? I am actually AGAINST abortion, but keep on assuming.

You have the intelligence of a rock, and love to present straw-man arguments.

The government should stay out of people’s lives. Plain and simple. How can you call yourself a Republican and then want bigger government? Or do you want less government in some cases and more in others?

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

August 23rd, 2011
5:30 pm

@calebhowe: Breaking: Obama administration points out they “inherited” fault lines from previous administrations.

@Ben_Howe: As all of DC leaves work at the same time, the United States experiences a brief economic recovery.

Exit Strategy

August 23rd, 2011
5:52 pm

Thanks Kyle for pointing out another of the many Republican hypocrisies. The Rethuglicans will continue to take millions upon millions of federal dollars to pay their election debt, when they know they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to win. The truly disgusting part is that they will be happy to jump in front of a camera to espouse their Small Government drivel, while spending their matching federal funds.

Laughable

August 23rd, 2011
6:03 pm

brad
August 23rd, 2011
2:11 pm
Earthquake Strikes East Coast: god smites epicenter of liberalism.

Epicenter of liberalism? Richmond, VA? I wonder if the Confederate White House was damaged?

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
6:05 pm

Nat@5:30, Can’t help but notice that you TOTALLY evaded my questions about the definition of marriage.

If you are against abortion but for all kinds of marriage between Lord knows who, are you for bigger or smaller govt.? I can’t tell.

You said that you disagreed with Parker’s belief that “govt. (should) keeps marriage between a man & a woman,” & “should stay out of people’s lives.” This premise has absolutely nothing to do with the SIZE of the fed. govt.

You might try to present yourself as a Libertarian, but your have the same meanness as a liberal. You compare my intelligence to a rock? What a gentleman!

Phil's Tel-A-Gramm

August 23rd, 2011
6:07 pm

Do Republicans really accept tax dollars to help pay for their campaigns! How socialist of them.

Really?

August 23rd, 2011
6:10 pm

Linda
August 23rd, 2011
4:59 pm
Still haven’t heard the new definition of marriage from any liberal or Libertarian. Certainly, you don’t want to be discriminatory! So, how many women to a man? How many men to a woman? What about parents marrying children? Will there be age discrimination? Will you discriminate against siblings marrying siblings? Will there still be consent? Are animals out of the question?
State your new definition of marriage for all of us to read. Can’t wait to read it.

Are you really THAT big of a bigot and idiot?

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
6:19 pm

Really@6:10, Still waiting for your definition! Bring it on!
What a gentleman!

Nat Turner

August 23rd, 2011
6:29 pm

How is that not government intrusion? The government will be in our lives telling us exactly who we can marry. It starts with marriage, inch by inch the government starts making personal decisions in private lives.

I deliberately ignored your outrageous questions about marriage because they really don’t deserve an answer. Two consenting adults versus an adult and a child? Two consenting adults versus an adult and an animal?

TrishaDishaWarEagle

August 23rd, 2011
6:30 pm

If there is no government involvement, I have no problem with a man marrying a horse, a woman marrying her cousin, or sibling marrying. I simply want the god given right to say I choose who and what I do business with, and who I do not do business with. If government just left us alone we would not need marriage licenses..why does government license marriage in the first place? CONTROL and REVENUE! I want the god given right to pick and choose who I would serve in my restaurant or my hotel and who I wouldn’t.Who i would sell to and Who I wouldn’t..who I will allow membership in my organization and who I will say no , go away to. If you restore that right, then all the marriage restrictions in the world become moot.

Linda

August 23rd, 2011
6:32 pm

Irene is threatening Obama’s golf game & vacation. Which federal agencies will he sic on her? Will it be the Dept. of Justice, the EPA, ICE, the IRS, the NLRB or the SEC? Will it be one or a combination of agencies? Where will he go in the midst of both a hurricane AND an earthquake? Will he get on one of his buses manufactured in Canada & go to Canada & run for Prime Minister?

TrishaDishaWarEagle

August 23rd, 2011
6:36 pm

@Linda..

If the winds gets really hard…and Hussein-o’s big circus freak ears catch it just right..he could be OZ’s problem soon.