Ron Paul sets GOP fundraising record
Posted by BrianRon Paul raked in more than $4.2 million in campaign contributions yesterday - the biggest one day total ever for a Republican presidential candidate. Paul has now raised over $7.2 this quarter alone and is well on his way to meeting his goal - a goal I personally didn’t think was possible - of $12 million in the 4th quarter.
I suspect the fundraising success will do wonders for Paul. Detractors are quick to point out that Paul lags badly in national polls, but those polls are more reflective of name recognition than actual support. The huge cash infusion will accomplish a couple of things. First it shows that Paul is a legitimate candidate with broad support. More importantly it provides a means of building name recognition and getting his infectious message of freedom and limited, constitutional government in front of voters. Just the massive one day total is giving Paul lots of free press.
Presidential primaries are notoriously quick to change. Just ask Howard Dean. As the elections draw close and casual voters open their eyes to the slate of candidates the ground can shift beneath candidates nearly overnight. Perseverance - and cash - will position Paul to rapidly gain ground in the coming months.
Related content:
November 6th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Your kidding right? Even Fred Thompson has raised more than Paul.
Hillary Clinton - $90 million
Barack Obama - $80 million
John Edwards - $30 million
Mitt Romney - $62 million
Rudy Giuliani - $47 million
John McCain - $32 million
Fred Thompson - $12 million
Ron Paul - $8 million
November 6th, 2007 at 7:27 am
No, I’m not kidding. You’re judiciously omitting two things:
1) Cash on hand is king. As of the end of the third quarter McCain had raised $32M, but he only had $3M on hand. Money that has been raised and spent can no longer help you. Paul had over $5M cash on hand (Thompson had $7M) at the end of the third quarter. He has since raised another $7M. His spend rate is much lower than the other candidates and his campaign strategy seems to be (I have no special knowledge) to grow through the grassroots until the election is near and then deluge voters with ads to boost name recognition. The other candidates don’t have the luxury of holding on to their money because they don’t have as active of a grassroots base. Even Romney only has $9M cash on hand - and he has been dumping his own money into the campaign.
2) Momentum. Paul’s third quarter numbers were up over 100% from the second quarter. Romney, Giuliani, and McCain were all down double digits. After raising $5M last quarter Paul more than doubled that amount as his target for the fourth quarter - to $12M. While he is surging the others (save Huckabee) are treading water or going backwards. Even Huckabee (as of the 3rd quarter) had only raised a total of $2M ($1M of that in the 3rd quarter) and had less than $1M on hand. He would have to increase his fundraising in the fourth quarter by over 1000% just to keep pace with Paul.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Presidential Candidates as College Football Teams
Posted by Nick Bradley at November 5, 2007 11:11 AM
A great blog post by Ivan Maisel at ESPN.com, comparing BCS hopefuls to the candidates they most resemble. I would swap Benito and Hillary, since Ohio State is (in my opinion) the most overrated BCS contender and will lose when the game is actually played — just like Bentio in a primary dominated by conservatives. LSU works well for Hillary because they’re the only 1-loss team that controls their own destiny (if they win the SEC championship game, they’ll edge out Oregon).
Ohio State - Hillary Clinton. The Buckeyes don’t make waves. They go out of their way not to be controversial, including not scheduling anyone this season who could beat them. They hope to bland their way to the nomination.
LSU - Rudy Giuliani. The Tigers are strong on defense, and their fans aggressively promote their qualifications. They gloss over their past missteps, hoping everyone focuses on their willingness to take on anybody.
Oregon - John Edwards. A good-looking team with an engaging personality, but the Ducks’ stance on defensive issues is wanting. Do they have the substance to go all the way?
Oklahoma - Barack Obama. Here’s a team that looks like BCS material, and it has all the resources in the world. But its potential continues to outweigh its performance. Maybe the next race?
Kansas - Mike Huckabee. A plucky candidate that can’t get anyone to pay attention, the Jayhawks keep hanging around, charming people and slowly moving their way up the polls.
West Virginia - Mitt Romney. The Mountaineers have great numbers and a wide-open attack, but they have done nothing to assure the voters they have the gravitas to make it to the top.
USC - Fred Thompson. The Trojans get a bump from their Hollywood connection, but once they got on the stump, they looked nothing at all like a BCS candidate.
Hawaii - Ron Paul. No matter how the Warriors perform, no matter how much support they drum up among the public, the opinion-makers never will take them seriously.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Sniper One’s comment is interesting in several respects. First of all he (or she) apparently didn’t read that the amount given to Paul’s campaign was a record for ONE day, because he compares it to the totals for the entire campaign or quarter for other candidates. Then over on his blog he has the audacity to call Paul a crackpot and those who donate to his campaign fools. That sounds sorta’ like the pot calling the kettle black. It seems he may not even know that there’s a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism besides just the spelling, and that both Washington and Jefferson warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Before being so fast to blindly condemn Paul, Sniper One should read the War and Foreign Policy page in Paul’s Issues @ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/ where the last paragraph says, “At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”
November 6th, 2007 at 8:47 am
One more thing about Sniper One: on his website above a photo of Fred Thompson it says, “I’m With Fred”. Fred Thompson is in the camp of the Council on Foreign Relations, and even after being confronted about his membership he has refused to fold his tent and leave that camp. Does this mean that Sniper One supports the CFR?
November 6th, 2007 at 9:33 am
If I were one to get offended I might take umbrage with Sniper One calling me a fool. We’ve met face to face before and I don’t recall him calling me a fool at the time. To be honest, I thought we got along very well.
I am a dedicated small government fiscal conservative and I DO NOT consider myself to be a fool. I’ve been waiting for quite a while for a candidate to come along who is committed to reducing the size and scope of the federal government. It is curious to see others on “the right” who have espoused small government talk for years condemning the first candidate with the gumption to follow through. Instead they rally behind candidates who talk the talk, but have no history (or intention) of tackling our government’s spending addiction.
Oh and by the way Sniper One, Paul is not an isolationist. He favors non-interventionism and there is a very clear distinction between the two.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Some of what Ron Paul has said about Domestic policy has been good. However, I cannot support any candidate who would pull the troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan unconditionally.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Paul has his rationale for pulling out the troops and I can’t say I agree with it completely, but he has at least been consistent in his views. He is not like one of the Dems who authorized the war and then looked for any and every way to undermine the troops once they are in harm’s way. Paul was in the military and is not anti-defense as some might like to characterize him.
Here’s my $0.02. Our military is trained to defeat an adversary and they’re damned good at it. They are not - and should not be - trained to be a police force. They cannot be used as an instrument to impose some semblance of democratic rule on a country that has not mustered the internal fortitude to pursue such governance.
We call our military the Department of “Defense” for a reason and they should be used for just that. I don’t see the former Iraq War (which we militarily won, now it’s the Iraq police operation) as a defensive or reflexive war. It was an offensive war of choice predicated on the doctrine of preemption. Afghanistan is another matter. We were justified in wiping out the people responsible for 9/11, although UBL is still on the loose and making propaganda videos. The Iraq war actually diverted resources from taking out a known, real threat.
What if we used our well funded and highly trained military to prevent attacks on the homeland rather than policing foreign countries or providing protective forces to countries that don’t contribute to our coffers? We have missile defenses to prevent rouge missile attacks. We could stage troops along the border and actually do something about illegal immigration. We could rigorously screen people and shipments into and out of the country. In other words, defend ourselves and not others.
I can say that Paul favors reasserting 2nd amendment rights in the U.S. (more so than any other candidate), which is an essential element to homeland security. What if the airlines had been allowed to arm their pilots and defend their property on 9/11? Box cutters aren’t terribly effective against a Glock.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
BTW Sniper One, what do think about the fact that Ron Paul has raised more money from active duty and retired military personnel than any other candidate?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Well, first. Your entire argument about the Iraq war is wrong. Saddam may not have had direct ties to Al Qaeda, but he did have ties to terror. He also had been in violation of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war, and was believed to have had chemical weapons (which he used before) and possibly a nuclear program. If Saddam has not been playing coy with the US, and the international community, he would still be alive, and in power today.
There were numberous reasons to take Saddam out, the WMD’s was the weakest reason.
As for the idea that Iraq took away from Afghanistan, I disagree. Once Osama went into Pakistan, there wasn’t much we could do but beg Musharraf to let us take him out.
The pilots with guns debate has been going on since 9/11. As an NRA member I back the idea of arming the pilots.
As for the idea that the military is giving Ron Paul more money than the other candidates, I think it’s too bad that the military is wasting their hard earned dollars backing someone who has no chance to win.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:51 am
There are other countries that have chemical weapons and we don’t attack them. That is not a precursor for war because if Iraq had them (they didn’t) we would not have been threatened by them. They don’t even have a delivery system capable of reaching us.
Iraq also didn’t have a nuclear program. Now we’re starting to see why preemption is a bad policy - too much room to be wrong and the results are disastrous.
You might disagree about UBL, but the facts say otherwise. Even the president was taken aback by how few resources were left to find and capture UBL thanks to the Iraq War.
I thought the Iraq War was justified at the time based on the policy Bush laid out. I have since come to the conclusion that his line in the sand, “with us or against us” policy is flawed. Clearly he established the preconditions by which an the Iraq War was inevitable. But his policy is flawed because once you apply it unevenly it all falls apart.
North Korea called our bluff and tested a nuke. We went to war in Iraq in part to prevent them from acquiring nuke technology and the Norks went and tested one with nothing but a diplomatic response. Pakistan is a whole ‘nother problem. The way we treat them with kid gloves just because they have nukes only incentivizes Iran (and others) to develop nuclear technology because they realize it makes them untouchable. Musharraf can allow UBL to roam about in the mountains, declare marshal law, and tear up the constitution - and we’ll do nothing.
Being an NRA member, you should read about Paul’s gun policy and legislation he has introduced. I think you’ll find him to be the most supportive candidate of ownership of firearms.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Well, as I said. While some of his Domestic ideas are good, I cannot support any candidate that is willing to leave the Iraqi and Afghanistan people, and democratically elected governments with their flapping in the breeze.
Hindsight is always 20/20. If Clinton hadn’t gutted the military or downsized our human intel capacity; or if Bush hadn’t “rushed to war”; or if this, or if that… it’s all hindsight and really has no bearing on the situation as it stands now.
Sure, we should learn from it, but that doesn’t mean that we just pop smoke and abandon the people we set out to help in the first place.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Oh, as you know, I’ve already been to Iraq and Afghanistan. However, FYI I’ll be going back over sometime in the spring.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
It’s a sad commentary on the Republican Party that Ron Paul is its only candidate for the presidency who adheres to the principles that the party previously stood for. And it’s almost distressing to see so many prominent Alabamians (including members of our legislature) who call themselves Republicans standing as candidates to attend the GOP nominating convention as those pledged to someone other than Paul. See “2008 Delegate Information” and “Click Here For the Final Unofficial List of Qualified Delegates” on the right side of the page @ http://algop.org/.
It seems that many Republicans are now willing to vote for party over principle.
On the other hand it’s refreshing to see so many average Alabamians who are willing to pay their own filing fee and qualify as candidates pledged to support Paul. The Republican Party has obviously lost touch with the very voters who could help bring the party back into a position of power in Washington.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“It seems that many Republicans are now willing to vote for party over principle.”
Don, I disagree with you that people are voting party over principal.
1) Since the party hasn’t come out with a nomination yet, it’s too early to say that.
2) I am not making my choice based on that the party is saying. I am making my choice based on the issues that are most important to me.
For me, the two main issues are the GWoT, and Immigration/Homeland Security.
While I like part of what Ron Paul says on Immigration, I cannot fully agree with him. If I remember correct, Paul wants no immigration in the US. None, Nada, Zilch, Zero. I am for illegal immigration quotas to be increased, not removed entirely.
On the GWoT, Ron Paul and I couldn’t be father part.
My third consideration would be Pro-Gun Rights, which is why I won’t support Rudy.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I’ll jump in the fold. Ron Paul wants to end illegal immigration by eliminating the incentives for them to come over here such as birthright citizenship, free education, free health care, food stamps and so on. (Tancredo wanted to end ALL immigration)
As for Fred Thompson, do you honestly think he has the balls to fight and implement his immigration plan? Fred is a nice enough guy, but what makes you think he is any different that Jorge Bush when it comes to immigration? I’ll leave the war issue alone, but I don’t think Fred has much more of a plan than “stay the course for ever and ever amen”.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Sniper One - I wish you well on your upcoming tour.
You said: “I cannot support any candidate that is willing to leave the Iraqi and Afghanistan people, and democratically elected governments with their flapping in the breeze.”
Interesting mindset. My #1 priority is protecting American interests, not those of others. You rightly said that hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn’t mean that the vision of the future has to by myopic. Neither of us can rightly say whether violence will increase or decrease if we left Iraq.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Your correct, I don’t have a crystal ball, and I can’t 100% predict if violence would go up or down. However, if I was betting man, I would lay money down on whatever the odds are in Vegas on violence increasing.
In my opinion we are very close to being able to effect a troop draw-down in Iraq. From what I am hearing from the guys on the ground, we may be able to significantly reduce troop levels over the next year.
Nobody wants the US to be in Iraq forever. At the time time, “stay the course” is a euphemism for “We will adjust our strategy as the enemy adjusts their’s; and I am not about to tell the enemy, on CNN what our plans might be.”
If you look at this kind of thing historically, we are still have bases in Germany, Korea, and Japan. It is not unreasonable to expect some kind of presence in the middle east for at least the next fifty years.
I’m not sure how you can say that having a stable Afghanistan and Iraq are not in American interest. We have seen what a safe haven for terrorists can do to American interests.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:26 am
“As for Fred Thompson, do you honestly think he has the balls to fight and implement his immigration plan? Fred is a nice enough guy, but what makes you think he is any different that Jorge Bush when it comes to immigration?”
For that matter why trust any politician. They are thieves, they are liars, and when they aren’t kissing babies, they are taxing their lollipops. We all know that the only time a politician lies is when their lips are moving.
I don’t have any reason, other than faith in Fred, to believe that he will be any better than El Presidente Jorge. However, I have more faith in Fred than I do in anyone else, at this point. (At least he isn’t Rudy, we know he doesn’t have the balls to do anything about it)
November 9th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Sniper One, first, as a military retiree I hope you’ll accept my salute to you for your service and I, too, wish you all the best on your next overseas assignment.
When I said Republicans seem willing to vote for party over principle I was talking about all of the Republicans who are willing to vote for party candidates other than Paul. An examination of their positions and records I think will show that other than Paul they all have abandoned some long standing principles that the Republican Party stood for in the past.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Sniper, that is fair. I guess I have been spoiled because for the first time I can actually believe what a candidate is saying. You are right about Rudy though, he doesn’t even try to pretend he is not another open border fool.
BTW, good luck on your upcoming tour. I will keep you and your comrades in my prayers.