Patterico's Pontifications

11/5/2007

Ron Paul x $3.75M $3.8M

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 9:09 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

I wasn’t planning on posting on this subject but you can’t ignore a one-day internet haul like this:

“Today, Nov. 5, marks not only Paul’s best fundraising haul in a single day — approximately $3.75 million by 11 p.m. EST — but online observers say it’s also the most money raised by a candidate on the Web in a single day. And the day’s not over yet.

“Damn. Wow. Um, that’s pretty awesome,” said a stunned Jerome Armstrong who served as Howard Dean’s online strategist. Armstrong, the founder of the popular blog MyDD, said Dean raised as much as $700,000 in one day toward the end of the primary race. “But not a million,” Armstrong added. “What Paul is doing — or what his supporters are doing — is really impressive.”

Ron Paul’s website shows a final one-day total of $3.8M. Very impressive.

— DRJ

50 Responses to “Ron Paul x $3.75M $3.8M”

  1. Maybe the mainstream media will actually aknowledge Dr. Paul’s existence after this.

    Chris (d0f6b9)

  2. It is only the beginning of this revolution. Never… Never again will our main stream media “choose” our government!!!!

    Dan (07f7eb)

  3. Just proves P.T. Barnum’s axiom is still holding true today.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  4. Something for Republicans to consider…. I am an independent, not a Dem or a Rep, but I would actually go out & vote for this guy. I am not sure I would get out of bed for Guiliani. Choose your man wisely!

    Chris (4e1a58)

  5. I am flummoxed by the popularity of Dr. Paul. I understand that there are some long-time hard-core libertarians who are supporting him, but I also get the feeling that a large measure of his support is the anti-Iraq War crowd, who loves the fact that he is the lone Republican who is dead-set against the war. My suspicion is that if you asked a lot of these folks what they thought of Dr. Paul’s views on Social Security, or universal health care, or federal spending on education, or a whole host of other domestic issues, you would find that they don’t really follow libertarian beliefs to any real degree.

    There is a popular rumor out there that the GOP secretly financed Ralph Nader’s 2004 presidential bid as a way to siphon votes away from John Kerry. Perhaps Dr. Paul’s solid fundraising owes a measure of success to the George Soros crowd with deep pockets and no qualms about pouring money into a stalking horse on the right.

    JVW (951b34)

  6. Well, Ron Paul’s ideas on economics aren’t particularly libertarian, either. Or informed. Zero-sum money, for example. Milton Friedman would be appalled.

    I have no doubt that the anti-globo anti-war unwashed left is providing a lot of this funding. A lot of Truthers, too, since Paul seems willing to believe most anything that’s weird.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  7. BTW, you realize, given the front-loading of the primaries, he can “run” as a Republican and get airtime, then become the Libertarian Party candidate at the last minute. What little is left of the LP is pretty much out on the same limb these days.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  8. JVW,

    When it comes to politics, I won’t rule out any theory but in general I think a lot of Americans are unhappy with corruption, overspending, and the flip-flops that are characteristic of politicians. Ron Paul has voted his principles for many years, and he’s an inspiration to people who are sick of politics as usual and want someone they can trust to do what he promises.

    Of course, I may be wrong regarding why people support Ron Paul. As I’ve written here before, I am not a Ron Paul supporter because I think he is wrong on national security and the war. That’s a deal-breaker for me but I understand why people support him.

    DRJ (5c60fb)

  9. DRJ – I think it’s fine to have a few wacko members of Congress and both parties have them. After all, if, as some people estimate, 5% of the population is crazy, we need a representative sample of nutjobs in Congress. Individually they can’t do much damage in Congress, but it’s a mistake to believe they are qualified for the Presidency with the views they hold.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  10. Daleyrocks,

    It’s late and I probably should avoid this topic since, as I’ve said before, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter so it’s not fair for me to speak for people who are. However, I think there’s something unusual about everyone who runs for President. I’m sure there are exceptions but the political process weeds out most people and distorts what we know about the ones who survive the process. I doubt we really know the real Ron Paul or any of them.

    DRJ (5c60fb)

  11. If a mainstream Republican candidate did this, it would be hung around his neck as an example of how much money there is in politics, how he’s beholden to his donors, etc.

    If a Dem did it, it would be a sign of people power, etc. etc., especially if those people are poor Chinatown dishwashers who scrabble together $1,500 each because they love Hillary! so dern much.

    At least we know nobody is illegally bundling donations to Paul. That would be a foolish investment. Buying influence with Hillary!–that’s just smart politics. There really are thousands of people in this country who believe crazy conspiracy theories and have cash to burn. There’s a shocker.

    I’m guessing $100k of Paul’s take is from Stormfronters, $2m from 9/11 truthers, $1m from Buchananite fascists, and the balance from miscellaneous weirdos.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  12. i’d be more impressed if you could produce the bank statement where they actually *collected* this money, rather than just pledges…

    the only thing goofier than Ron Paul is his supporters. %-)

    redc1c4 (c18807)

  13. Every time Ron Paul starts on a rant his sound is so nasal and winny that his bark almost reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s cackle.

    Barkers and cacklers never win.

    syn (7faf4d)

  14. Does he get to keep whatever is left after he finishes campaigning?

    davod (5bdbd3)

  15. All across America, mattresses are empty, mason jars buried out in the backyard are now sitting empty in kitchens, and people named JoeBuck will have to go hunt for their food for the next week or so or turn off the space heater in the compound. Not that they don’t do that already in preparation for peak oil.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  16. I am just going to say it. I do not believe this for a second.If it is true, there had to be a couple large individual contributions, or they are funnelling money from fundraisers through their website to give the impression of momentum.

    Outside of the truthers, who is excited about Ron Paul? This just does not track.

    JD (49efd3)

  17. There’s 300 million people in this country. 3.8 million is about 50,000 75$ single donations. There are more than enough Troofers, defeatists, anti-semites, Buchananites (redundant?) and Mises fanatics around.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  18. . . . are funnelling money from fundraisers through their website to give the impression of momentum.

    hahaha! Like how the scientologists buy millions of copies of dianetics to make it look like people buy and or read that piece of garbage.

    dave (34f6d2)

  19. Google news reports about 22,000 contributors. I’d like to know the mechanics of this. How does the candidate achieve FEC compliance (individual, U.S. resident, within contribution limits, etc.) with online contributions? It seems to me that I could buy $10,000.00 worth of prepaid credit cards and get ten people out of the phone book to “make the contributions”.

    nk (334528)

  20. There is absolutely no control whatsoever, outside of your word, nk.

    JD (49efd3)

  21. I’d be interested to find out the role the Church of Scientology is playing in the Paul campaign.

    Banjo (b5278d)

  22. nk – Those Visa gift cards have to be absolute hell on the IRS, no?

    Again, I do not believe this for a moment. I have absolutely no factual foundation for same, but outside of the crazies, I do not see some groundswell of support for this truther. Maybe the truthers play fast and loose with their money, but it just does not ring true to me.

    JD (49efd3)

  23. Looks like Paul is getting some traction, to judge by the increasingly strident attacks being leveled against him.

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  24. JD #22,

    Actually, I think they are an IRS plot. To bring the cash out from the underground economy. OK, the government may have missed the first taxpayer but now it’s going to get all the subsequent ones.

    nk (334528)

  25. But, isn’t it all that filthy fiat money?

    Dr. Paul demands ingots!

    Techie (c003f1)

  26. “Perhaps Dr. Paul’s solid fundraising owes a measure of success to the George Soros crowd with deep pockets and no qualms about pouring money into a stalking horse on the right.”

    -JVW

    And you guys call Ron Paul a quack…

    Why the fuck would the Democrats fund a Libertarian darkhorse candidate who’s against the war? It’s not like Ron Paul is going to be stealing votes from the Republican base come November 08 (not if you guys are any indication of what the Republican base actually is). It’s not like he’s going to steal the pro-war independent vote from Republicans in the general election.

    Ron Paul is a blessing for the Republican Party, and a curse for the Democrats. If he runs as a third-party candidate in the general election, he could steal a huge percentage of the anti-war, I-Wanna-Vote-For-The-Little-Guy independent vote (and even a slice of the Centrist Democrat vote, if Hillary’s the alternative)…

    …Which could be enough to deliver the election to whatever half-bright hack the Republican Party eventually foists on the American people, despite their mumbled protests.

    Ron Paul is the Rohypnol dropped in America’s martini… Go ahead and figure out where Giuliani factors into the equation.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  27. I’ll take notice when he can garner more than 4% in a reputable poll, and he drops the truther kooks. Nothing says unelectable like having Justin Riamondo in your corner.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  28. It’s not like Ron Paul is going to be stealing votes from the Republican base come November 08 (not if you guys are any indication of what the Republican base actually is).

    Sure he will. If the war weren’t so important, I’d vote for him. I don’t agree with all his domestic policies, but I agree with far more of them than those of any other candidate, and I could tolerate the ones I disagree with. The war is the only deal-breaker as far as I’m concerned. There are many people who feel like me, but for whom the war isn’t a deal-breaker. They will support him if he runs as the LP candidate against the Republican.

    Milhouse (f10fb3)

  29. “However, I think there’s something unusual about everyone who runs for President. ”

    Anyone who presumes to have what it takes to lead the most powerful nation on earth and sees themselves as the next POTUS has to be egocentric with delusions of grandeur, at the least. But someone has to do the job.

    That said, whether for or against, Ron Paul is not a flip-flopper and has consistently stood his ground and held firm to his causes. In this day and age its says something about his character and stability by refusing to suck up to the media and play pretty, or compromise to get ahead.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  30. Right, that gold standard and isolationist feudal Japanese model are looking damn good right about now!

    I think I just threw up in my mouth.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  31. Ron Paul’s appeal is simple. It’s disgust with the huge government machine. There’s no particular issue that really drives people to support Ron Paul. Rather, it’s the hope, however faint, that maybe somebody can pull government back a bit.

    There is no one else out there offering that hope, on either party. Some of them may promise to pull government back in some areas, but it’s just a trade-off for the areas they want to extend government.

    Those who don’t understand this see individual issues Paul takes a stand on as crazy, and don’t seem to get the big, consistent picture — Paul is about reducing the size of government, and letting people be free.

    Whatever teat he’s pulling out of your mouth, that you think you can’t live without — bloated national security, militarized law enforcement, expansive entitlements, circular drug wars, a meddling federal reserve, etc. — at least he’s not trying to stick that teat in someone else’s mouth, like the other politicians. He’s trying to set you free to feed yourself.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  32. Why the fuck would the Democrats fund a Libertarian darkhorse candidate who’s against the war? It’s not like Ron Paul is going to be stealing votes from the Republican base come November 08 (not if you guys are any indication of what the Republican base actually is). It’s not like he’s going to steal the pro-war independent vote from Republicans in the general election.

    Of course he isn’t going to steal votes from the Republican base, but the Republican base is not enough to elect a Republican candidate. The party nominee will need to win over some independents to the cause, and that includes libertarians and other centrists.

    Follow the logic, Leviticus: Dems help fund Paul as an anti-war candidate who will appeal to small government conservatives who have soured on the war. They think this will cut into support for the GOP candidate. You seem to think that the Dems would be risking losing some of the anti-war voters that their candidate would normally expect, but all they would have to do is remind the left-of-center voters that Paul is against the minimum wage, against Social Security, against Medicare, against federal spending for education, etc. I don’t care what you want to think, Centrists Democrats are never going to support any candidate who would mess with their entitlements.

    JVW (951b34)

  33. You all can stay here and move the goalposts about how “internet support” doesn’t translate into monetary support or “boots on the ground”, and now how monetary support also doesn’t translate into real support. Meanwhile while you stay here and talk about what loons we are, I’m going out to campaign at tailgate parties, festivals, Republican club activities, rallies for Ron Paul, neighborhood canvassing, etc. etc. etc.

    It’s funny how we are the only grassroots volunteers for any presidential candidate showing up to any of these events.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (86312b)

  34. If Ron Paul wins, Babs Streisand and Alec Baldwin will move to Canada, or France, or somewhere …

    JD (49efd3)

  35. Have fun Jerri Lynn!

    daleyrocks (4b828b)

  36. “If Ron Paul wins, Babs Streisand and Alec Baldwin will move to Canada, or France, or somewhere …”

    Wow. How to sweeten the deal!

    Dana (b4a26c)

  37. I think it is some rich individual (liberal dem) trying to set up
    Dr.Paul as a third party candidate so as to make it easier to defeat the Rep. nominee.

    Be nice to know what the largest contribution was.

    rab (7a9e13)

  38. Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinic with his Arcturan love slave Elizabeth… are reptilian alien overlords who have INTERSTELLAR funding that is cleverly laundered through Paul Soros’ purchase of black helicopters and media stations. This site reveals all the details… http://www.davidicke.com/

    EdWood (c2268a)

  39. Despite the various claims from all sides that Ron Paul is “crazy,” he isn’t trying to force anyone to do anything in the private sphere — he’s just trying to reduce the size of government.

    His entire platform is about creating more individual freedom. Oddly enough, “freedom” is simply presumed by all other candidates — apparenly, in their eyes, we have plenty of it, and we don’t need any more. What we need is help, intervention, control, rules, protection, subsidies, regulations, laws . . . everything BUT freedom.

    That’s what’s mindboggling to some people, I think — they’re looking for who he’s trying to attack, control, demonize, blame, etc. But there’s none of that in his policies — except toward the use of government power to reduce individual freedom.

    Even the purpose of returning the gold standard is really about freedom. It’s about removing the federal reserve from arbitrarily deciding that our money should be worth less/more by injecting funds into the economy.

    Surely nobody has missed the fact that at the same time oil and gold prices are through the roof, the dollar is sinking like a stone. Banks are falling apart on mortgages in part because of all the near-free money being artificially injected into our economy over the past few years.

    The gold standard is about stopping government meddling. Sure you can say “but the government meddling might help. Can’t someone help us?”

    Some people just want help, help, and more help from government. Those kind of people don’t get Ron Paul. They’re like the sheep that run farther into the corral when the gate is open.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  40. Phil, ignoring the foundation of nutty conspiracy positions in Ron Paul’s “platform” makes him easier for you to swallow?

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  41. SPQR, that depends how you define “foundation.” If you mean Ron Paul himself has expressed, in his writings/speechs, some sort of conspiracy theory, I’d like to see it.

    If you mean that he attracts conspiracy theorists, yeah, he does. It’s the nature of his message — they’re paranoid of government, and he wants less government.

    And George W. Bush attracts creationist nutjobs who want an Israel/Palestinian war to start Armageddon. Doesn’t mean either of them are defined by the nuttiest wing of their supporters.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  42. Except for the part where the creationist nutjobs who want an Israel/Palestinian war are virtually nonexistant, and Ron Paul’s 9/11 Truthers are out and about protesting and besieging the blogosphere like a plague of flies …

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  43. “Except for the part where the creationist nutjobs who want an Israel/Palestinian war are virtually nonexistant . . . ”

    You clearly live in a different part of the country than I. But I agree they don’t spend much time on the “blogosphere.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  44. I don’t want a racist as a president, which is why I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul or any of the Democrat candidates.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  45. creationist nutjobs hoping for a war between Israel and Palestine are out raising millions of dollars to elect a candidate that shares and espouses their views, huh Phil?

    JD (388d32)

  46. Actually Phil, it has been my experience that this mass of “creationist nutjobs who want an Israeli/Palestinian war” are the figment of anti-christian prejudice.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  47. I too would like to see where Ron Paul has said he believes in conspiracy theories like the Truthers.

    Links, please.

    Bradley J. Fikes (efe728)

  48. Re #45 Whoa there Daley, taking over for Alphie now?

    Phil- It does seem a bit desperate to try to define a candidate entirely based on a single group of that candidate’s supporters. Probably the more the mainstream piles on Ron Paul and his “Paultards” (they will eventually turn that into a T-shirt I bet) the more they fuel the heroic, paranoid, world view of RP’s more-out-there supporters.

    Since there is no way he is going to win the primary I think he would make the perfect protest vote. If you don’t like what the party has offered in the last few years or as presidential contenders right now you could vote for him and still save the vote that counts for whatever the estab. offers up in 08.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  49. A Reason interview with Ron Paul in May elicited this flat denial of 9-11 conspiracy theories:

    Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

    Paul: I’d say there’s no evidence of that.

    Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you’d be open to a new 9/11 investigation?

    Paul Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don’t think there’s any evidence of [an inside job] and I don’t believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated. The people who believe in a one world government are well motivated, but they disagree with me.

    Bradley J. Fikes (69cf2a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0900 secs.