Haha blast from the past, thanks!
had not thought of this in decades!
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
Must be costing Soros a bunch of money to pay all those people to show up at Ron Paul events. Plus it takes a lot of effort to make 100,000 individual donations.
However, I still find his position on National Defense in general, and the Iraq War in particular, reprehensible.
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.*******
The reason it so important is that it is a small state and candidates have to deal with the people, not just run a bunch of commercials.
Having a national primary will just put more power behind the big money candidates and the MSM.
How can you say that he gets “almost no support” from republicans when he regularly wins straw polls in which only republicans can vote?
>> Having a national primary will just put more power behind the big money candidates and the MSM.
First - the MSM is still exceedingly important ... the power is just concentrated on the NH mainstream media. Additionally - the MSM is the only outlet the rest of the nation has to the candidates. Outside of NH, ALL candidates are filtered through the MSM ... as we’re dependent on reports from New Hampshire. Just another flaw in this ridiculous system.
Second - It remains unclear as to why we should rig the system to benefit certain candidates (including “small money” candidates). I am less concerned with fairness to candidates as I am with fairness to voters ... voters, not candidates, are being trampled by the current system.
The system, as currently designed, is inherently unfair to voters who do not reside in New Hampshire, South Carolina or Iowa. The clamor to move primary dates up is a direct result of this inherent unfairness ... as states like Florida and Michigan try to get their voters into a more powerful position by accelerating the date of their primary.
An excessive amount of voting power is concentrated in the hands of less than 3% of American voters. The rest of the electorate faces the possibility of having the primary election skewed as the powerful few in NH and SC dictate the results to the powerless many in the other states. Primaries are often decided before their vote has even been cast ... and, as such, the voices and votes of people outside of NH, SC and Iowa are rendered less important.
Fairness to candidates is of secondary concern to fairness to voters.
>> The reason it so important is that it is a small state and candidates have to deal with the people, not just run a bunch of commercials.
No, they don’t have to “deal with the people” - they only have to deal with the people of NH. The rest of us aren’t getting candidates OR commercials! People in states other than NH should have the opportunity to meet candidates.
We’re getting our decisions made for us by people in other states. We’re getting news reports out of NH (by the way, an artificial empowerment of the MSM due to the flawed primary system) and Tonight Show appearances while people in NH get a hundred personalized stump speeches ... NH could do with a few less speeches and a few more commercials so that the rest of the country could have the opportunity to meet candidates and see speeches as well.
I’m not proposing that face-to-face meetings with candidates are unimportant ... I’m proposing that the nation would be better off if those face-to-face meetings weren’t concentrated exclusively on the people of NH.
H
If you have no proof, then there was no need to post your drivel to begin with. Virtually all of Paul's money comes from individual donors, and his website follows all FEC regulations.
BFD
Are you saying that being pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, and pro-border security is NOT conservative? If these are libertarian ideals, then just what makes up a conservative?
Ron Paul has none of these, as evidenced by his repeated direct association with the 'Rats effort to undermine the war. Paul's very public musings about 9/11 purportedly being an inside job, as well as his fears that our government would cook up a Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to whack Iran, don't do him credit as a Conservative either.
No, he's a hard core Libertarian, and a Libertarian he will always be, not a Conservative.
I must agree with you on this. Without this “testing” system the only states that would see any of the serious candidates for the office of President would be the most populous states. Plus, specifics about each candidate and their political ideology would not be available for public discourse if there were but one national primary.
New Hampsire Free State Potheads.
either Hsu donated for manilow or the toe tapping singer is doing his own version of electoral sabotage.
active and RETIRED? like weasely clark?
does this include democrats who happened to serve?
do draft dodgers count?
does MacArther the phoney count?
Does Mr. dailykos count?
how about active ALONE?
I’m really not interested in fairness when it comes to who sees a candidate. I’m interested in an informed electorate making an informed decision about who will be the leader of this country.
If you start nationalizing this process, what you’re going to get are:
1) Massive events still only attended by a handful of potential voters, and likely die-hard supporters, anyway
2) An electorate voting on the name-brand recognition of a candidate rather than what he stands for
3) Very few question and answer sessions. You see Romney doing hundreds of these “Ask Mitt Anything” sessions. Same thing with some other candidates, as well. If you’re jaunting across the entire country, what percentage of the early voters get to participate in anything like that?
Sorry, I’m just not going to be with you on your desire to have massive percentages of the population having an equal say in all of this. And I say that sitting here in Tennessee. I’m perfectly happy letting the people of NH, Iowa, and South Carolina make the decision.
As I cited in my earlier arguments, yes, they are more informed than your average American. I have no doubts they’d be more informed than your average American who would be voting in the hypothetical national primaries you mentioned, as well.
I also like the fact that these elections are state-wide things. They’re not influenced by the national media as much. There isn’t the hype to vote. The informed who have followed things will vote. Those who couldn’t care less will continue to do such.
>> I’m really not interested in fairness when it comes to who sees a candidate.
Fairness in voting is the utmost concern. The opportunity to see the candidate is secondary to the opportunity to have an equal voice in the primary process.
>> I’m interested in an informed electorate making an informed decision about who will be the leader of this country.
And I’m interested in that electorate actually being representative of the entire country. An “informed” New Hampshire resident might not come to the same conclusions as an “informed” Texan ... it simply isn’t right that New Hampshire has more powerful voters than the rest of the country.
>> If you start nationalizing this process, what you’re going to get are: 1) Massive events still only attended by a handful of potential voters, and likely die-hard supporters, anyway
That’s what you have now. The only difference is the “handful” of attendees are all from one state. The undecided outside of New Hampshire are no less important than the undecided inside New Hampshire.
>> 2) An electorate voting on the name-brand recognition of a candidate rather than what he stands for
The people outside of New Hampshire are already voting this way. We don’t get to see anything but prepackaged debates and commercials. We’re forced to vote based ENTIRELY on mainstream media coverage - as we’re not given the opportunity to question candidates as NH voters are.
>> 3) Very few question and answer sessions. You see Romney doing hundreds of these “Ask Mitt Anything” sessions. Same thing with some other candidates, as well.
You’d get the same number of sessions ... simply spread out to more than one state.
>> If you’re jaunting across the entire country, what percentage of the early voters get to participate in anything like that?
What percentage get to participate now? I certainly don’t ... do you?
>> Sorry, I’m just not going to be with you on your desire to have massive percentages of the population having an equal say in all of this.
So you’re in favor of “massive percentages of the population” having an unequal say? That’s ridiculous. I’m sorry, but New Hampshire voters simply don’t have the right to diminish the weight of other voters in the primaries. A Texan vote should be equal to a NH vote ... right now, it isn’t.
>> And I say that sitting here in Tennessee. I’m perfectly happy letting the people of NH, Iowa, and South Carolina make the decision.
You’re comfortable with someone else deciding for you? Why vote at all, then? You may be comfortable with that ... I am not. I am as American as anyone from New Hampshire - and my primary vote should have equal weight to a vote from New Hampshire, South Carolina, or anywhere else.
>> As I cited in my earlier arguments, yes, they are more informed than your average American. I have no doubts they’d be more informed than your average American who would be voting in the hypothetical national primaries you mentioned, as well.
It is not within their prerogative, or yours, to determine that a NH vote should be more important than a Texan vote because people from NH are deemed more informed. A vote is a vote ... they should be equal.
New Hampshire has been arbitrarily deemed more important, and more informed, for decades. It is a self-powered cycle ... NH voters are more informed, so the candidates give them more speeches, so they’re more informed, so candidates spend more money there ... so they’re more informed.
And then people like you say they deserve more powerful votes because they’re more informed. I’d suggest they’re more informed precisely because they’ve been given more power. Distribute voting power equally, as it should be, and things will even out.
They’ve been artificially given excessive power in determining the nominees for President, and doing so has lessened the importance of votes outside of the “early” states. Such inequality in voting power cannot stand.
>> I also like the fact that these elections are state-wide things. They’re not influenced by the national media as much.
Voters outside of the “important” states are subjected exclusively to national reporting, and are influenced exclusively by national media. We’re not afforded the opportunities for face-to-face discussion ... as we’re in states deemed “unimportant” outside of fundraising trips.
>> There isn’t the hype to vote. The informed who have followed things will vote. Those who couldn’t care less will continue to do such.
If driving down voter turnout is your goal, then casting 97% of the population into irrelevancy might be the way to go.
The goal should be to inform and turnout voters nationwide - not elevating a few small states to ultra-important status, putting their voters on a pedestal as if their high-mindedness makes their decision-making superior to that of the rest of us ... and ultimately discouraging informed voters from other states from voting at all.
H
Conservatism follows fiscal, social, and other spectra. One definition of a conservative is someone who calls for a restoration of original or traditional views.
Ron Paul is about as fiscally conservative as you can get. He's personally a social conservative. He's also conservative by traditional standards, calling for a return to the old ways of the Constitution.
Where he differs from contemporary 'conservatives' is that he sees foreign policy from a more restrained perspective. He does not believe that our power to bring about change outside the United States is unlimited. This is prudent, and cautious, two other adjectives often used to describe conservatives.
>> he sees foreign policy from a more restrained perspective
“Restrained” is a nice little euphemism there. I’d say “liberal”. It does not bode well for Paul that similar “restraint” can be found in the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.
>> This is prudent, and cautious, two other adjectives often used to describe conservatives.
Prudence and caution in the defense of good, and in the fight against evil, is not a virtue.
H
In the abstract, you would be correct. In practice, our current foreign policy dabbles in evil far more than I can tolerate. We hold hands with Saudi royalty and permit their youth to come to America in droves, after the Royal Saudis have and continue to spend billions around the world constructing mosques. Mosques are being built by the hundreds here in America by Saudi money. We leave Pakistan alone, and bin Laden is probably comfortable in one of their underground networks. We force Israel to negotiate with terrorists, conceding hundreds of square miles of territory, to appease the Saudis and Arab Emirates. The list goes on and on. Our foreign policy is out of control.
It won't change with any of the "same as always in Iraq" candidates. They'll bring more of the same.
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.