More Active Posts
Front Page
Cha-ching!
 |
 31 Comments |
Guess who’s rolling in the dough after a fundraiser yesterday? The 24-hour event was “the best for any Republican candidate, anywhere, this year.” But will it make a difference or just prolong an inevitable demise?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: election-2008, Ron-Paul |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Less is more
This just allows Dr. Paul to buy a bigger knife, with which he will emasculate the eventual nominee.
Ron Paul may not be popular in the republican party, but he definately is among the people. He appeals to both republicans and dems alike. His stance cuts across party lines, and he is actually one of the most genuine cadiadtes from both sides. Politics aside, he deserves and should get a fair shot at nomination.
Ron Paul has no shot in the primaries.
He can, and may run as an independent, and lose.
I was worried that he may “Perot” Clinton in to office.
Obama may be the fly in the dem. ointment.
If Hillary doesn’t win the nomination, I expect her to run as a third, or maybe fourth party candidate. Everyone talks about the Bloomberg possibility. I’m beginning to see hints of a potential Clinton/Bloomberg independent ticket.
I’ve also noticed that Obama and Edwards aren’t taking shots at each other the way they are at Clinton. That’s not the usual strategy for candidates who “were” 2nd and 3rd in the polls.
Could there be a behind the scene alliance in the works?
I notice the same thing happening with Giuliani and Huckabee.
And I see hints of that between Thompson and McCain.
Paul is the modern Republican equiv of Dr HOward Dean.
Yes he can energize hard core fringe purist ideologues. No, he won’t overcome his fringe-ness to reach out to undecideds.
This is only going to prolong his demise. As for Mr_Meaner’s Clinton/Bloomberg scenario, it cannot happen as there is a law against two candidates from the same state running together for Pres/Veep on the same ticket. Ms Clinton and Bloomberg are both from New York. In 2000, Cheney moved back to Wyoming so he could be Bush’s running mate.
Sawgunner,
Reaching out to undecideds is what Paul does best. Search YouTube for his supporters — a popular sign among them is “Ron Paul cured my apathy.” He’s giving hope to people who previously thought politics was a sucker’s game. He draws huge crowds at college campuses. His anti-war stance appeals to 75% of the American public.
I think Paul’s greatest difficulty will be “the Establishment” — the entrenched political class who like the system as it is and don’t want to see it dismantled by somebody who won’t play ball by their rules. These are (unfortunately) the people who control primaries. His second greatest difficulty will be Bush’s “solid twenty-five” — the people who still think the War in Iraq is part of the defining struggle of our age, a Tolkienesque battle of light versus dark that must be won at all costs.
In this fundraiser he had 60,000 donors. When does a movement get large enough to graduate from “hard core fringe ideologues”?
Peter L
The Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot be from the same state. However, the 12th Amendment does say that electors may not vote for a President from their state and a Vice President also from their state. It is constitutionally possible however. The state party officails would likely suggest to the electors that their votes for the President go to the presidential nominee and that the votes for the Vice President be given in honor of a party official. Electors in all other states, as mentioned above, would be free to vote for both of the party’s nominees.
Now, if Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate against a dem-nominated Hillary, New York will be up for grabs to all three parties.
Mr_Meaner,
Giuliani and Huckabee? LOL and LOL some more.
As far as I’m concerned, Republicans and Democrats are both going in the wrong direction. We all know Ron Paul is not a Republican. Politically he’s a libertarian.
Kristin, you state “But will it make a difference or just prolong an inevitable demise?”
Ron Paul has already proven his success. He’s been the most effective user of the internet to fund his campaign. He’s demonstrated what’s possible for people with political views that aren’t accepted by the political establishment. In a sense, this may be more about gaining converts than winning the election. Hopefully, it will also be a demonstration of the willingness of voters to vote their conscience and NOT the lesser of two evils.
I doubt very seriously that Hillary is going to run as in indy if she doesn’t get the nomiation.
Will Ron Paul run a 3rd/indy race? I certainly hope so.
I have a question.
What happens if both parties have defectors that run independently, after losing the nomination?
Has that ever happened?
Can you imagine the confusion in parts of Florida, and the post-election trauma?
“Giuliani and Huckabee?”
I don’t know…It just seems like they do a lot of gushing over each other, evrery time you see them all togther.
Actually, it is the perfect strategy for Giuliani, who has trouble with social conservatives, to court a popular religious guy as a VP.
Peter L,
Actually, it’s not illegal, but it would be stupid of them to do so. The 12th ammendment stipulates that electors cast two votes, one for president and one for vice-president, and that at least one of the votes be for someone from a state other than themselves. Pairing two individuals from the same state would force that state’s electors to split their vote, choosing a president and vice-president from different parties.
#13
This election may be the most fun since Jefferson and Burr.
http://www.irakrakow.com/constitution/category/burr/
After the [treason] trial, Burr fled to Europe, had a number of mistresses, and was even sued for adultery when he was in his 80s. By any standard, he had the most checkered career of any Vice President in our history.
I hope the prediction about Hillary running as an independent was meant as a joke, because it sure made me laugh.
A more cautious and calculating politician it would be hard to imagine, and you really have to be the maverick type to go 3rd party.
As for this: I think Paul’s greatest difficulty will be “the Establishment”…
Well I think his greatest difficulty will be “remaining a viable candidate past Super Tuesday in anyone’s eyes besides a few thousand ardent supporters.” YMMV.
“Ron Paul has no shot in the primaries.
He can, and may run as an independent, and lose.”
I certainly hope you’re right on this one, Mr. Meaner!!!!!!!! I’ll even send him some money to do it
My mileage is already looking better than you predicated.
By “a few thousand ardent supporters,” do you mean the 60,000 people who donated an average of $100 each to help him reach $6 million yesterday?
I certainly hope you’re right on this one, Mr. Meaner!!!!!!!! I’ll even send him some money to do it
I suspect that there are a lot of people doing just that. That would explain why he is going nowhere in the GOP polls, despite his money-raising. We know you guys are trying to “Perot” the GOP again.
Keep at it. You just might pull it off, again.
Cha-ching!
I think it’s time to change our political mascot from an elephant to a gnat.
That seems to better represent the average GOP voter’s memory.
MR_Meaner,
I think the voting results will show that the polls are more skewed than ever. This will continue as it becomes clearer that telephone polling is outdated.
60,000 people sounds like a lot (it’s a full football stadium, after all) but spread out across fifty states and inumerable cities and towns, it’s still just a drop in the bucket. I daresay that Obama sold more than 60,000 copies of his book (I can’t find any stats to back that up, in the interest of full disclosure).
Also, getting people “reinvigorated” about the political process is one thing: appealing to a broad enough range of the gneral public without looking like a wack job is another thing altogether. Just like I would’ve loved to see Kinky Friedman as the governor of Texas, Paul’s is an idealistic campaign that’s doomed to fail when faced with modern political reality. 60,000 people do not a revolution make.
You may be right. I don’t know what 60,000 people at this stage in the political game makes.
Curious, I did a little googling and came up with this:
Published in April 2007, and seems to refer to donations made in the first quarter of 2007. So Paul’s one-day total of 60,000 donors looks pretty good, stacked up next to those numbers. Over an entire quarter, he may even give Obama a run for his money.
Man, I really, really hope Ron Paul runs an indy/3rd campaign!
Mr_Meaner (18): That would explain why [Paul] is going nowhere in the GOP polls, despite his money-raising.
Frank: Another reason might be that many of those “polls” are stacked against him by design.
Talking about telephone polling, check out this article: Cell phone spending surpasses landline spending
Plus, with dry looping for DSL, landlines for phone will become even less needed.
I see JJF in 17 wishes to debate whether 60K is a “few” thousand or a really huge bunch of thousands.
Whatever.
I remain unconvinced that this guy is going to be a major factor in the election no matter how successful his fundraising. Case in point: are these 60K donors localized, or are they spread evenly over the country? Unless he starts winning primaries early and often, his goose is cooked with the GOP. Is he a threat to take IA, NH, or several super Tues states? (I don’t know; I’m asking) If he doesn’t make his mark early in the primaries, I suspect his fundraising will slow.
And even if it doesn’t, he’s still faced with the problem (as a possible 3rd party) that he enjoys minority support many places, rather than majority support in a few key states. Think electoral college.
Frank: Another reason might be that many of those “polls” are stacked against him by design.
Frank, thanks for posting that link to the eye-opening video. But you should warn people (unless you want to get banned), that after that first segment is over the video is filled with Penn Gillette’s cursing Christ and using the F word over and over.
I have no particular feelings either way about Ron Paul. But reading some of the comments is vaguely reminiscent of a certain candidate in 2004. I recall the claims of the internet being behind this person, how it was bringing disaffected people into the process, how he was going to shake things up.
I get the feeling that a substantial portion of Paul’s support is coming from young people, who are not very good at turning out to vote. They talk a good talk, but when the actual voting day comes, if there’s a “South Park” marathon on Comedy Central, they’ll stay home and watch it instead of getting out and voting. Then they’ll be in the bar the night after the election saying “bummer man!” over the Democrat or Republican that does get elected.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Sawgunner on this one.
And if Paul goes 3rd party, he’ll become the Ross Perot of 2008. The political climate isn’t quite right yet for a truly competitive 3rd party.
I saw Ron Paul last night on a rerun of the Colbert Report and found him entertaining. I disagree with him on some issues, but greatly respect him for voting against the Patriot Act and the Iraq Occupation.
RR,
Why “Whatever”? From the looks of it, Paul had more donors — real flesh-and-blood people — in one day that all the other Republican candidates had in an entire quarter. That doesn’t seem like a “Whatever” to me.
In fact, to the extent that having twice as many donors as your opponents is a “Whatever,” that reflects very badly on our supposedly democratic political process. If having twice as many supporters is only a “Whatever” because it doesn’t translate into electability, then our system is overrun by factors other than the will of the people.
JJF,
The “will of the people” rides in the back of the pick-up on a cold winter night when it comes to politics and elections. The “powers that be” in both parties control who gets in and who doesn’t. I forget the percentages, but it’s quite high of the number of “super delegates” to the Republican and Democratic conventions. These “super delegates” are hand-picked by the party bosses and other big-wigs. The “powers that be” control the money, the agenda, the debates, and all the other intangible resources necessary for the election.
The “powers that be” have already decreed that certain people are “out”, including Ron Paul on the Republican side and Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic side.
Night Train (26): Frank, thanks for posting that link to the eye-opening video. But you should warn people (unless you want to get banned), that after that first segment is over the video is filled with Penn Gillette’s cursing Christ and using the F word over and over.
Frank: Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
When I saw the phone “polling” video that I linked to, I stopped watching when it got to the Penn & Teller part, because I had seen the original P&T piece when it first came out a month or two ago. Unfortunately, I had forgotten about the foul language in their segment.
I beg a thousand pardons.