Posted on 10/17/2007 11:01:03 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Romney, Obama Bring in Most Money in N.H.; Ron Paul Brings Second Most
By - Beth LaMontagne
(October 16, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., may be in second place in most New Hampshire polls, but he was far and away the winner of the third-quarter "money primary" in New Hampshire. His campaign brought in $125,538, more than any competitor on either side of the aisle, and four times more than the $28,170 U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., raised within the state.
His third quarter fundraising numbers in New Hampshire are twice what he raised last quarter, while Clinton raised about the same amount each quarter in the state.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had a strong showing in New Hampshire, taking in $24,745, a big improvement over the $12,833 he raised here in the second quarter. U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., showed an increase in support by raising a respectable $19,500, more than four times what he brought in during the spring.
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has seen his polling numbers drop over the summer and his fundraising numbers, which lag behind Clinton and Obama's, reflect this. Edwards came in fifth in local fundraising, bringing in $13,555, less than the $14,525 he raised last quarter. He did come in far ahead of U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the top Republican fundraiser, taking in $85,400, more than twice his two closest rivals in the polls, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
What may come as a surprise to some is the second highest fundraiser in New Hampshire. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has cultivated an avid libertarian following in the state, received $46,146 in campaign donations from New Hampshire voters. He out-raised McCain, who took in $33,167 and Giuliani, who raised $31,706.Romney and Paul's fundraising numbers indicate they are continuing to grow support in New Hampshire. Both saw sizeable bumps in the donations made in the Granite State this quarter compared with what was given in the spring. Giuliani, who raised $22,000 during the second quarter, also saw a jump in donations.
McCain, however, failed to top the $59,406 he raised in New Hampshire last quarter. Despite improved polling numbers and the fact McCain can still draw sizeable crowds in New Hampshire, his campaign failed to pull in the kind of money now expected of a top tier candidate.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who raised $10,825 locally, raised only half of what he pulled in during the second quarter despite an increase in media attention and a number of visits to the state this summer. He beat out former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who raised $9,450 locally. Thompson is a newcomer to the race and has only been in New Hampshire once since announcing his candidacy. The only candidates that fared worse than Thompson in New Hampshire were U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
October quarterly reports information from Federal Election Commission's Web sitehttp://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/
Republicans
Romney $85,400
Paul $46,146
McCain $33,167
Giuliani $31,706
Huckabee $10,825
Thompson $9,450
Brownback $2,762
Tancredo $555
Hunter $60
Democrats
Obama $125,538
Clinton $28,170
Richardson $24,745
Biden $19,500
Edwards $13,555
Dodd $3,200
Kucinich $3,035
I can’t prove it, but I just can’t shake the sneaky feeling that Paul’s campaign is being funded by Soros front-organizations and well-coordinated lib hacks trying to play havoc with the GOP primary process.
I’ve begun growing irritated at the bizarre focus on voters in New Hampshire. Its a VERY small state, and really has far too much influence on national elections.
I’m starting to think a national primary day sometime in March would be beneficial. This nonsensical focus on NH and Iowa has to stop.
H
Barry Manilow, musician
(Updated)
Q2/2007
Ron Paul
$2,300
2008 21650 OXNARD ST
Woodland Hills CA
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=manilow&fname=barry&search=Search
Soros seems to be the Karl Rove of the liberals. I seriously doubt he is helping to fund conservitive candidates let alone the most conservitive in the race.
Better still, RP should run for congress from New Hampshire, where they still seem to take “live free or die” seriously.
You left off the $2300 each he also gave to Clinton, Obama, Edwards & Biden.
Soros is not Karl Rove, in terms of strategic thinking or even position, but he does have billions of dollars that he's been spreading throughout the liberal establishment through various front organizations and think tanks. In short, he's manipulating the political process through his cash infusions, and I would not at all be surprised to find out that Paul was receiving Soros-originated money to keep his campaign going as loudly as he is when he has almost no support in the GOP at large. There's something very fishy going on there, but no one has bothered to follow Paul's funds to see where they came from.
Just my .02...
NH will remain the key early battleground state whether you like it or not. If you have to have just one early state, NH is a good pick in many ways.
The Paul campaign says they are going to spend lots of money on TV and Radio ads in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. And by the way, when I asked them what their number one targeted state will be the answer was New Hampshire. Makes sense. The voters up there have an Independent streak.
Paul's Possibilities - The Brody File: David Brody Blog - CBN News
Democrats, total: $217,743
>>>I’m starting to think a national primary day sometime in March would be beneficial. This nonsensical focus on NH and Iowa has to stop.<<<
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I think it’s absolutely fabulous that we a system set up that puts essentially 3 states as the testing grounds before selecting the party nominee.
It just makes a lot of sense to see who is capable of organizing, setting up grassroots support, meeting people face-to-face, and holding daily scrutinized events before an informed public. And that these events are in smaller states where a great deal of the public can be addressed.
I’d hate to see the emphasis taken away from the early states, frankly. In a poll not too long ago, 40% of likely Republican voters couldn’t identify Rudy Giuliani as the one pro-choice Repubilcan candidate. I believe that figure was 7% in New Hampshire. The people know what’s going on there. They see it as a duty that comes every 4 years, and they take it seriously. Good for them!
If you don’t have the IO, NH, SC system in place, you’re going to have the candidates running to California and Florida and only those with huge name recognition getting anywhere. Frankly, that’s not what I want to see happening.
1- There is only one major television station, and it reaches the entire State.
2- There are only a few newspapers.
3- you can drive from one end of the State to the other, and back, in the same day.
4- Our State, with only 1.31 million people for just over 9,300 miles, has a large legislature, with 400 State Representatives and 24 State Senators. Hardly any of them have staff members, and the pay is $100 a year, paid biannually. State Representatives and Senators are easily accessible to the public, with almost all publishing their home phone numbers. New Hampshire legislature is the third-largest English-speaking legislative body in the world, behind only the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the United States Congress. So the average person on the street in New Hampshire is more politically aware than most other people from different States.
5- Registered independent or undeclared voters are a significant voting block because they can vote in either primary, and can decide as they walk into the voting booth. As of 2006, the breakdown of registered voters in NH is 44% undeclared, 30% Republican and 26% Democrat.
Indeed, New Hampshire will continue to play an important role in the primary process in the future. One point that I have to strongly disagree with you on is your advocacy for a national primary day in March. The current primary process is becoming very bad for America because the "debates" on mainstream TV aren't debates and the primaries are getting earlier and closer together. So far this cycle, the most debate we've gotten from any of the 5 or so major media "debates" was a 45 second exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Has there been any meaningful, memorable DEBATE between the candidates?
States moving their primaries forward only further reduce the changes of any meaningful debate between candidates, and a national primary day ruins the tradition of States setting their own primary dates, slowly eliminating lower tiered candidates and focusing real debate between whoever is left.
>> I think it’s absolutely fabulous that we a system set up that puts essentially 3 states as the testing grounds before selecting the party nominee.
It is simply out of whack that a state like New Hampshire (with a population of about 1.2 million) has a greater influence in primaries than Texas (population 21 million). There twice as many people living in the greater Houston area than in all of New Hampshire ... it makes no sense that NH should have a particularly large influence on nominations.
>> It just makes a lot of sense to see who is capable of organizing, setting up grassroots support, meeting people face-to-face, and holding daily scrutinized events before an informed public.
Imagine the organizing that would need to be done to campaign to the whole country (as it should be). I fail to see why New Hampshire voters should get catered to, while the rest of the nation is ignored.
I want to judge for myself - I don’t need New Hampshire voters as a buffer to test grassroots organizing and face-to-face talents. I’d like the opportunity to see all the candidates in action in my home state ... instead, we’re used as a fundraising state for New Hampshire campaigning. We’ve got to pay $1,000 a head to get into an event in Texas ... while candidates go out of their way to meet every lousy voter in Podunk, New Hampshire.
>> And that these events are in smaller states where a great deal of the public can be addressed.
So a great deal of the NH public is directly addressed ... and NOBODY in the remaining 49 states is even acknoledged unless they’re holding a checkbook? That doesn’t make sense.
>> I’d hate to see the emphasis taken away from the early states, frankly. In a poll not too long ago, 40% of likely Republican voters couldn’t identify Rudy Giuliani as the one pro-choice Repubilcan candidate. I believe that figure was 7% in New Hampshire.
Maybe if they’d leave NH for more than 15-minutes this wouldn’t be the case. This is EXACTLY the problem! Candidates are spending loads of money and time talking to and informing 1.2 million people in New Hampshire ... and precisely ZERO speaking to the rest of the population. The population is uninformed BECAUSE of the excessive focus on New Hampshire - not the other way around. New Hampshire isn’t a bastion of extraordinary voters ... they just get pampered and catered to so much that they’re more informed.
>> The people know what’s going on there. They see it as a duty that comes every 4 years, and they take it seriously. Good for them!
They know what’s going on? In 1996 they voted for Pat Buchanan, and in 2000 they voted for John McCain. They’ve been wrong in the last two contested Republican primaries. I question their qualifications to decide for the rest of the country.
Perhaps the rest of the country might see it as a “duty” if candidates paid any attention to the rest of the country. Instead, people like you would rather cede the responsibility to the miniscule population of New Hampshire. There are plenty of people outside of NH that take this seriously ... and plenty more that might if they thought their state mattered in the primaries. The nomination will likely be decided before Texas ever votes ... why should we care?
>> If you don’t have the IO, NH, SC system in place, you’re going to have the candidates running to California and Florida and only those with huge name recognition getting anywhere. Frankly, that’s not what I want to see happening.
I see no reason that a California, Texas, Florida, New York system would be any more absurd than a New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina system. At least they’d speak to a larger segment of the population if the primaries were focused on larger states. Right now, they’re speaking to a miniscule population (4M people in SC, 1.2M in NH, and 3M in Iowa) that has a hugely excessive influence in the primary system. Assuming EVERY person in SC, NH and Iowa is spoken to ... that’s 3% of the population. There are more people in TX than in those three states combined.
The current primary system makes little sense - and gives excessive and undue influence to an insiginificant minority of voters in three VERY small states ... while entirely ignoring the 97% of the population living outside of those three states.
H
>> It just makes a lot of sense to see who is capable of organizing, setting up grassroots support, meeting people face-to-face, and holding daily scrutinized events before an informed public.
It also should be noted that nationwide primary organizing and a nationwide primary election day would more mirror the current system for the November elections. Perhaps it would be better to test national viability in the primary rather than local organization in New Hampshire.
If we want to test organization skills for the actual election, it would make more sense to make the primaries a national event that mimics the actual election.
H
>> New Hampshire is the key early primary State for several reasons: 1- There is only one major television station, and it reaches the entire State. 2- There are only a few newspapers. 3- you can drive from one end of the State to the other, and back, in the same day.
I fail to see why any of these items makes New Hampshire voters more qualified to select a candidate than voters in states with (1) more than 1 TV station, (2) more than 1 newspaper, and (3) that you can’t walk across in a day.
>> [...] So the average person on the street in New Hampshire is more politically aware than most other people from different States.
Oh - I get it. Its because you’re “more aware” in NH than the rest of us ... so we should just let you decide for us. Ridiculous. I don’t need the population of NH to decide for me.
>> Registered independent or undeclared voters are a significant voting block because they can vote in either primary, and can decide as they walk into the voting booth. As of 2006, the breakdown of registered voters in NH is 44% undeclared, 30% Republican and 26% Democrat.
People who can’t decide until they walk into the voting booth do not inspire confidence in their decision-making skills. Neither does the label “independent”.
>> One point that I have to strongly disagree with you on is your advocacy for a national primary day in March. The current primary process is becoming very bad for America because the “debates” on mainstream TV aren’t debates and the primaries are getting earlier and closer together.
Setting a national primary day would stop primaries from getting earlier. Additionally, if everyone was allowed to choose on the same day, there would be more necessity for national debates ... as it stands now, Texan voters don’t have to decide until March, while NH voters decide in January ... so we’ve got a dozen forums for individual states.
>> The current primary process is becoming very bad for America because the “debates” on mainstream TV aren’t debates and the primaries are getting earlier and closer together. So far this cycle, the most debate we’ve gotten from any of the 5 or so major media “debates” was a 45 second exchange between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Has there been any meaningful, memorable DEBATE between the candidates?
That’s my point entirely. The current primary process is a mess. The complaints you’ve listed above are the result of the system you’re currently advocating ... with states having sporadic and chaotic primaries, and where individual states are jockeying for the “first” primary date to exert more influence than they deserve.
A structured primary system, like the current electoral college system, with a national primary voting day and national debates is the answer to the problems the current system has caused.
H
Actually, a lot of people have been following Ron Paul’s fundraising. Check out http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/directory.html for detailed information about fundraising. That link provides 45 near-realtime graphs and charts. For a list of the last 699 unique donors to Ron Paul, visit http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html. More graphs are available at http://slact.net/paulcash.php.
The Ron Paul campaign truly is the largest GOP grassroots campaign right now, and the most open amongst all Presidential campaigns.
LLS
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.