Ron Paul Third Quarter Fundraising
- Thread starter xd9fan
- Start date
applesanity
New member
stats, my friend, are not your forte.
heh, couldn't have said it better myself. Presidential material?
Good for him. I bet he wants a cookie.
Being a successful and powerful and *effective* politician means that somewhere along the way, you've become friends with people who have lots of money, and are in all the right places.
Not staging fancy overpriced "dinners" doesn't mean that you favor the chump change grassroots support - it means that you can't find enough people to attend.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Come on, Pauls been feeding at the Pork Trough with the rest of the pigs (including my own, but those are MY pigs) since hes been in congress and then champions himself as the messiah of constituionalism, all the while chanting womb control.
I wished Rudy would have got up and said "you and I are enemies but my pledge to you is that I will not sign any legislation regarding guns unless you approve it."
Much better.
WildnoneedtofurtherhijackpaulthreadwithresponsesaboutRudskiAlaska TM
Im not going
The National Review has finally decided to mention Ron Paul on their web site. This magazine, begun 50 years ago to rid the Republican Party of the old right anti-war, genuine small government activists, now says that Ron Paul Isn't the Story, one of their warmongering hopefuls is.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Then I wonder how Abe Lincoln finally got elected after all of his failed attempts in life...
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I hear that he sent out an fundraising e-mail that was aiming for 500k in the last week. Apparently he recieved $1.2 million instead. That is what I am most impressed with."
Back when I was in advertising for a financial institution, I wrote a piece that was part of a small savings campaign.
We were offering a special rate on a savings vehicle.
Our targeted test marketing aim was $10 million over a span of a month in a drop to IIRC 5,000 member households.
A month later we had $17.5 million or so.
Cool.
So we dropped the other 175,000 general distribution with a target income of $200 million over a 3 months span.
Four days into the promotion we got a call to a meeting...
Estimated response rate was averaging over 30%, average new deposit was $200,000, and inflow to that point was close to $79 million.
At the end of the month we were at $500 million.
At the end of the promotion we had pulled in over $1 billion.
Long way of saying... I'm available to the first candidate who wants to give me a job.
Back when I was in advertising for a financial institution, I wrote a piece that was part of a small savings campaign.
We were offering a special rate on a savings vehicle.
Our targeted test marketing aim was $10 million over a span of a month in a drop to IIRC 5,000 member households.
A month later we had $17.5 million or so.
Cool.
So we dropped the other 175,000 general distribution with a target income of $200 million over a 3 months span.
Four days into the promotion we got a call to a meeting...
Estimated response rate was averaging over 30%, average new deposit was $200,000, and inflow to that point was close to $79 million.
At the end of the month we were at $500 million.
At the end of the promotion we had pulled in over $1 billion.
Long way of saying... I'm available to the first candidate who wants to give me a job.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Then I wonder how Abe Lincoln finally got elected after all of his failed attempts in life..."
Four candidates on the ballot in every state certainly didn't hurt.
Four candidates on the ballot in every state certainly didn't hurt.
Here's a deal. All of you who are going to donate to Paul send me your money instead. This is serious, no joke.
I'll keep your money, and then when he loses, I'll give you back 2/3's of what you gave me.
Think about how happy you will be when you get some of the cash back that would have otherwise been wasted.
So who's up for it.
I'll keep your money, and then when he loses, I'll give you back 2/3's of what you gave me.
Think about how happy you will be when you get some of the cash back that would have otherwise been wasted.
So who's up for it.
The one thing we know about money going to Hillary is that little if any of it is coming from Reps who are hoping she'll get the Dem nomination as a way of torpedoing the Dem Party's chances in the election.
The one thing we know about money going to Rudy, Mitt, and Fred is that little if any of it is coming from Dems who are hoping any of them will get the Rep nomination as a way of torpedoing the Rep Party's chances in the election.
But can we say the same thing about Ron Paul's haul? It's assumed to be from grassroots, true-believers, but do we know that for certain? Or is there a Dem game going on as we saw the Dems do with Buchannon and Perot, or the Reps do with Nader?
I'm not saying that's what IS happening; I'm saying it's a real possibility for the Paul campaign that isn't such a possibility for the others I mentioned. Do the Dems see Paul as this election's Nader?
The one thing we know about money going to Rudy, Mitt, and Fred is that little if any of it is coming from Dems who are hoping any of them will get the Rep nomination as a way of torpedoing the Rep Party's chances in the election.
But can we say the same thing about Ron Paul's haul? It's assumed to be from grassroots, true-believers, but do we know that for certain? Or is there a Dem game going on as we saw the Dems do with Buchannon and Perot, or the Reps do with Nader?
I'm not saying that's what IS happening; I'm saying it's a real possibility for the Paul campaign that isn't such a possibility for the others I mentioned. Do the Dems see Paul as this election's Nader?
Stage2, I already consider the money I sent to Ron Paul to have not been wasted.
WhyteP38, that's a silly theory. Try this:
Attention all gun owning Republicans! Given that we may very well wind up with a Democrat President, we should all donate as much as we can to Bill Richardson to try to derail the Hillary train. Gentlemen, get out your credit cards!
Think I'll get any money for Bill?
WhyteP38, that's a silly theory. Try this:
Attention all gun owning Republicans! Given that we may very well wind up with a Democrat President, we should all donate as much as we can to Bill Richardson to try to derail the Hillary train. Gentlemen, get out your credit cards!
Think I'll get any money for Bill?
You are comparing apples to orangutans. The difference between Richardson and Nader is that Nader had a large number of hard-core supporters. With those supporters, Nader could and did take votes (and money) away from Gore. Paul is similiarly positioned to Nader. On the other hand, Richardson never had a large number of hard-core supporters that someone could use against Hillary. IMO, he's still in the game simply because he wants the VP slot with Hillary.
Also, when Obama first started, rumors were that Reps were donating to his campaign as a way to derail Hillary. Obama, like Nader and Paul and unlike Richardson, has a hard-core group of supporters.
Also, when Obama first started, rumors were that Reps were donating to his campaign as a way to derail Hillary. Obama, like Nader and Paul and unlike Richardson, has a hard-core group of supporters.
I thought Ron Paul supporters were supposed to have the tin foil hat paranoid theories around here. Get off our turf! 
For better or worse, government rules have made campaign fundraising transparent enough that we can see that Ron Paul's money is coming in in contributions averaging $40 or so. What you're suggesting is a large scale but very secretive Democrat conspiracy.
For better or worse, government rules have made campaign fundraising transparent enough that we can see that Ron Paul's money is coming in in contributions averaging $40 or so. What you're suggesting is a large scale but very secretive Democrat conspiracy.
A conspiracy without facts is just a theory.
The fact is that in this particular presidential race the so-called front runners are dwarfs when you match them up against Hillary Clinton. She'd be happy with a rematch with Rudy, she'd beat him again even if she gave him his testicles back.
The one candidate that Hillary won't want to meet up with is Ron Paul. She can't get to the left of him on the war she voted for, so the anti-war vote is missing from her vote tally right up front. The high tech vote (aka the young vote)? Also Paul's, his internet operation is seeing to that, plus he's an MD, Hillary can't match that, so if the race turns into a health care debate, Paul wins that too. Children's issues? Ron Paul has delivered over 4000 babies into this world, Hillary wrote a book about them. No matter what you look at Clinton can't win against Ron Paul. Triangulation will not work.
Pure rhetoric. Occasionally, you have folks like Richardson who are playing for the second-position, or people like Nader who are making a statement, or people like Perot who are acting as spoilers. But the vast majority of candidates, and their supporters, believe their guy/gal is "the one person the opponent fears" who will "mop the floor" with the other guy/gal." Otherwise, they wouldn't spend their time and money on their campaigns. Huckabee, Romney, Obama, Edwards, etc. and their supporters would all say similar things about their being matched up with Hillary.
Nah, I think that Hillbama would love it if Paul were the nominee. No offense, but Paul is not charasmatic, and he's a poor public speaker. She'd destroy him in the debates.
But hey, if he can convince the conservative republican base to nominate him, we'll see what happens.
At this point, Hillary has such a commanding lead over Obama and Edwards that I doubt she's afraid of any candidate, Republican or Democrat. If she is, I'd like to see the proof that she, her campaign, or any of her significant supporters have such a fear. If that proof doesn't come from one of those sources, it's conjecture not fact.
Her only fear is the truth, regardless of who tells it.
Her only fear is the truth, regardless of who tells it.