Skip to comments.Will his 'Paulbots' torpedo Ron Paul in Iowa?
Posted on 12/30/2011 12:11:15 PM PST by presidio9
Four years ago, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had raised $8.3 million by the end of the third quarter of 2007. One-third of that came in small, unitemized contributions of under $200 each -- the proverbial "small donor" giving that is the mark of a grass-roots based campaign.
In the 2012 cycle, he has raised $15.4 million through September 30, of which 41% has come in amounts under $200.
Four years ago, according to the Campaign Finance Institute (my source for all these numbers), by September 30 Paul had a little more than 7,000 itemized individual donors -- the people who give between $201 and the top individual limit, which was then $2,300 (and is now $2,500). This time around, he had more than 12,000 itemized individual donors at the end of September. (By comparison, Mitt Romney only had 19,700 itemized individual donors this past September 30, compared to 29,700 four years ago.)
Clearly -- only six days before voters caucus in Iowa -- Ron Paul is doing something more right in 2012 than he did in 2008.
That includes keeping his massive online base engaged after 2008 with various campaigns, including his son Rand's successful bid for the U.S. Senate. It also includes spending lots of money earlier this summer in Iowa and New Hampshire on TV ads that were far more professionally produced than anything he ran four years ago. He has spent oodles more hitting his Republican rivals hard now that the first actual caucuses and primaries are just days away. He also has developed a well-organized campaign organization on the ground, something he lacked four years ago.
Says Republican online strategist Martin Avila, who worked on Paul's 2008 e-campaign, "It's wonderful to see the campaign building early state infrastructure, something 2008 was lacking,
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.cnn.com ...
The Pyrrhic victory watch begins.
"Day-after pill allows individual moral choice." (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of pro-life causes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Perhaps Ron Paul will win Iowa (although my money, with a heavy heart, would be on Romney), but I remember being told the same thing about Howard Dean, and his ‘Perfect Storm’ of volunteers, in 2004. That didn’t end so well....
And how much from Soros to muck up the GOP primaries?
I don’t support the Roe vs. Wade ruling, much less federal funded abortion on demand, but I’m not the least bit enthusiastic about federal bills or amendments that are far less likely to pass than anti-abortion bills at the state level that they are meant to supercede. The “life begins at conception” debate does nothing but give so-called moderates of both parties the cop-out they need to allow the march towards government funded abortion on demand to continue unimpeded. What has the anti-abortion crowd in DC accomplished in the last 40 years? Count the number of dead babies since then and find out for yourself. Some of Paul’s statements regarding foreign policy and a few of his supporters don’t appeal to me, but sniping by the pro-life establishment just makes me bored.
$15 million doesn’t pay for a Presidential election cycle, especially when they are getting longer and longer.
Obama spent a billion in 2007-08.
Maybe, just maybe, there are those on this website with different views on this subject than your own? The majority, perhaps?
Yeah, mebbeh. Or mebbeh not.
Gee, he sounds a lot like a Republican candidate!