Posted on 11/30/2007 9:07:21 AM PST by traviskicks
Ron Paul may not win his party’s primary, but he is on track to capture another big title: Top Republican fundraiser for the final quarter of the money-obsessed 2008 presidential primary.
In the first two months of the quarter that began Oct. 1, Paul already has raised more than $9.75 million, putting him easily within range to best the amount rival Mitt Romney received from donors during the entire third quarter.
The Texas congressman has set a goal of raising $12 million before the fourth quarter’s Dec. 31st deadline, a sum New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani couldn’t achieve in the third quarter when fundraising events still dominated his schedule.
Paul’s chief e-bundler, music promoter Trevor Lyman, hopes to raise $2.5 million by day’s end with the campaign’s second online money bomb.
Of course, Romney can still buy the fourth quarter title by making a multi-million dollar donation to himself, which is widely expected.
And it could be that Paul’s striking, eleventh-hour surge may have come too late to dramatically change the campaign dynamics.
Nevertheless, Paul’s staff is racing to put up more advertisements before the Christmas season shuts down campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Paul threatens to peel away libertarian-minded Independent voters sought by now less well-funded rival John McCain.
And Republicans find themselves asking an unexpected question: Could Ron Paul have a real impact on who the party nominates?
Paul’s last stand provides fresh evidence of how the Internet can transform a dark horse candidate and make him harder to knock off.
“It’s highly improbable that he will get into the first tier. But he’s colorful,” says David Gergen, a former White House adviser.
He’s certainly not the Republican Party’s first renegade. Indeed, there is a certain familiarity to the rebellious rank-and-file pushback inside the Paul insurgency.
Think Pat Buchanan circa 1992 and his launch of the “cultural wars” against gays and feminists; and Buchanan again circa 1996 when he upset Bob Dole in New Hampshire with the cry: “All the peasants are coming with pitchforks. We're going to take this over the top."
Think John McCain circa 2000 and his Straight Talk Express and upset victory in New Hampshire over Bush that prompted the first-recorded gusher of online giving.
Given the right candidate or call to action, populist Republicans have a colorful history of shaking off the party yoke and reveling in a wild-and-crazy moment.
That helps explain why a quirky Texas congressman who opposes the Iraq war got into the race in the first place.
Same goes for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who had hoped to use immigration as the launching pad for an insurgent campaign.
What makes the Paul phenomenon unique this cycle is that there is no clear front-runner who can simply ride out the rowdy rabble until the party’s top-down instincts silence them.
That is creating an intriguing choice for the 72-year-old doctor: plow ahead on what still seems a quixotic quest for the White House or play spoiler by using his millions to help take out one of the front-runners.
Thus far, Paul is playing it safe, still absorbing what seems to be his dumb luck.
His financial windfalls have come from spontaneous Internet giving or big, online donation days organized by supporters outside his campaign.
Earlier this month, those outsiders orchestrated a one-day $4 million donation dump, now nicknamed a “money bomb.”
Another is scheduled to take place today and a third later this month.
“It’s a tremendous burden put on us and a responsibility,” Paul told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough recently.
“We have all this money now. We didn’t plan to have this much money. Our obligation is to figure out how to spend it. We are doing our best.”
Before the first infusion of cash, Paul had begun a modest $1.1 million television ad drive, mostly in New Hampshire.
Since then, the ad campaign has been expanded in Iowa. Pre-money-bomb, Paul was airing three radio ads; now he has more than ten running.
His television messages are mostly biographical, noting his career as a doctor, his record of never voting for a tax increase, and his opposition to the Iraq war.
The radio ads have a slightly tougher edge, accusing his opponents of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens (a shot at McCain) and flip-flopping on issues (a dart at Romney).
But some Paul supporters grumble that the advertisements lack punch and they are pressuring the campaign to take on an edgier tone.
His first television commercial showed supporters, some sitting around a diner table, talking up his candidacy. “Look, the man’s a doctor; he understand the health care mess,” says one woman.
“OMG! Common Guys! This is a terrible ad! My goodness. The Ron Paul revolution means a lot more than this,” bemoaned one supporter in a blog posting.
“I got nothin’ but love for Ron Paul, but this is pretty bad,” responded another.
As Paul climbed to fourth place in some New Hampshire polls, his rivals have sensed the new threat.
McCain has stepped up his attacks on his less-known rival and more incoming is sure to follow.
And, of course, there are inherent hazards in having money when you haven’t really planned for it.
Howard Dean raised $41 million in 2003 in the first campaign to fully employ the Internet.
By year’s end, his early advertising campaigns and rapidly expanding operation had eaten all but about $9 million of that cash.
Among his expenditures: Stacks of cell phones for Iowa volunteers that wound up stored in an office unused.
BTW, when you post on an American Web site, you should use American political terminology. Canada and Britain have ridings, but we do not. As for the 14th Congressional District of Texas, the area it covered has not supported a Democrat Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Hardly a "democrat riding", eh?
Deep down I hope he does especially if that POS Rudy is nominated. All of the 3rd party talk is coming from GOP insiders. They need a scapegoat because their candidate is toast in the general.
I noticed that too...that’s the system we REALLY have in America today. I don’t think the poster meant it that way, unfortunately.
As for the straw polls, yes I still think people won't vote when it counts. When Paul is still polling in single digits at the time of the primary, a large percentage (a term, looking at the polls, that Paul supporters are obviously quite unfamiliar with) of those few of his supporters who actually could even get their hands on a Republican ballot (please don't try to sell me on every one of his supporters switching parties for him. I'm not buying.) will decide enough is enough and won't bother to go. Primaries have notoriously low turnouts anyway. Support for candidates like Paul who have no chance to win when the primary time rolls around is next to nothing. So to reiterate, Paul will fare poorly in most states because A) many of his supporters aren't registered as Republicans and therefore can't get ballots to vote for him, B) many of his younger supporters, even in open primary states, can't be bothered with actually voting, and C) of those who can vote for him in closed primary states, many will be dissuaded by the fact he's still polling in single digits and has no earthly chance to get the nomination.
In the future, I expect we'll be talking about Paul about as much as we talk about Ross Perot. Just think... instead of hearing people with fake thick southern accents saying "Look, here's the deal. Hear that giant suckin' sound?" as a joke, we'll hear people making their voices as high and squeaky as possible to say "...but I'm not an isolationist! Gold Standard! GOLD STANDARD!!!!" as a joke. That has got to make you proud.
And nice of you to show a bit of nervousness about Peden's candidacy. I'm not in Texas, and have no real worry which way the primary in that race turns out. Paul is relatively harmless in the House, in the same way crazy Uncle Lou and his "I'll make city hall pay!" diatribes won't really harm a family. It would be nice to see his fringe ideas purged, but if not, no big deal. But it is funny to see those who complain about Paul being dismissed and made fun of doing exactly the same thing to Peden. I guess it isn't against the Constitution to be a hypocrite in that regard. As far as "leave him alone"... why do I suddenly have this vision of you doing a Chris Crocker-style YouTube video?
Is advocating for no gun laws a "fringe" idea?
I just wish more people here would learn that attacking other candidates isn't the same as supporting your own. You can achieve the latter without resorting to the former. Wouldn't it be better for those rabid supporters to tell those of us as of yet undecided (other than decidedly not a Democrat) why we should support the candidate they support, instead of expending so much energy running down others?
Why the double standard?
Listen pal, even the Centers for Disease Control conceded that traditional land-line polling is obsolete as they were having a hard time with the results from them. Here, let me break it down for you:
Dr. Paul has thousands of people attending his rallies. He has the most extensive grassroots support of the candidates. He is leading all GOP candidates in fundraising for the 4Q, almost all of it from small, individual donations. He wins straw polls and online polls, and online polls A LIVE PERSON still has to point and click on the radio button to select a choice. You're going to believe that he's at "2%" when overwhelming empirical evidence says otherwise? Your screename is appropriate.
But if you want to be brainwashed by MSM spin, go ahead. But don't deny that he doesn't have support and base this off of obsolete polls conducted by the media, which obviously has an agenda.
I think he is too, though Paul has indicated the decision is 3 or 4 months off. It'll be a plus for the GOP, far more one issue antiwar voters on the left, and my guess the Dem candidate will be in the process of becoming a hawk post-convention. A wiser hawk than GWB, but a hawk nonetheless.
Paul calls Kucinich veep speculation "premature" [will think about it in 3 or 4 months]
You're right, another problem he faces is high negatives. From this weeks Rasmussen Iowa poll
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 77%, Huckabee by 76%, Giuliani by 68%, and Thompson by 71%. Those numbers reflect an eleven point-gain for Huckabee and a six-point decline for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged.As for unfavorables, just 20% offer a negative assessment of Huckabee. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, 24% say the same about Thompson, and 30% have a negative opinion of Giuliani.
McCain’s numbers have fallen since the previous Rasmussen Reports survey. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 54% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 44% have an unfavorable view.
Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 39% and unfavorably by 52%.
Highlighting the personal nature of the Iowa caucuses, 44% of those who are likely to participate have seen at least one of the Presidential candidates in person this year.
52% negatives out Hillary Hillary. A higher provile doesn't help if the effort to create it is turning off half the voters.
“If they can hurt the good Republican candidates in the primaries by pumping a loon, then so be it.”
Exactly, they couldn’t talk Perot into running again so they’re using Paul.
NYBOT DX rallied from 74.8 to 76.1 this week.
Go Paul Go! Take our great country back from the neo-CON idiots. Great job they have done LOLOLOLOLOL.
You hate Jews.
I don’t hate myself (ancestry) but I would sure like to scrub the neocons.
I wonder if Dale Carnegie ever met Paul supporters? Apparently they're not familiar with his books.
But you know, anyone who is not a fan of domestic liberals who happen to be right on foreign policy is an anti-semite. At least that's what some freepers tell me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.