Ron Paul raises 4.3M in 24 hours online

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Today is the second-largest fundraising day for the Ron Paul campaign, as donations amounting to $300,000 were still steadily streaming in from 4,000 additional donors. 71 percent are first-time campaign contributors.

[/ QUOTE ]

RP press release. 71% new donors sounds good to me, of course I have nothing to compare that to but intuitively It sounds good since he's been raising money for many months now.

[Rhett]

I found this link interesting. I can see why the national news was ignoring Ron Paul. This $4M was completely necessary (and much more is still needed) for it to look like he even has a hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundrai...on#Republicans

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
I found this link interesting. I can see why the national news was ignoring Ron Paul. This $4M was completely necessary (and much more is still needed) for it to look like he even has a hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundrai...on#Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an error in that table, Paul took in 5.2 million in the 3rd quarter. The cash on hand and total receipts are accurate however.

Having raised lots of money is actually detrimental to a campaign if you've already spent it, as the wells are tapped.

2008 Republican Candidates Likely Cash on Hand

20 Million Giuliani (If Robertson gets people behind him, they almost assuredly haven't given to Giuliani yet.)
10 Million Paul/Thompson/Romney (Romney is 17 million in debt to himself though, ouch.)
2 Million McCain (Dead in the water.)
1 Million Huckabee (Good luck.)

Paul has caught up to Romney and Thompson in the money race and has more potential for donors over the next few months.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

10 Million Paul/Thompson/Romney (Romney is 17 million in debt to himself though, ouch.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't really call that an "ouch." I mean, when you have that kind of money, what else are you going to spend it on?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, Glenn Greenwald has a long and interesting post on The Ron Paul Phenomenon. Great analysis, as always, including some comparisons to Dean in 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did get hammered in the comments section though. I have read through a dozen pages or so and its ugly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read about 6 pages of the comments and it has put me on serious tilt.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, Glenn Greenwald has a long and interesting post on The Ron Paul Phenomenon. Great analysis, as always, including some comparisons to Dean in 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did get hammered in the comments section though. I have read through a dozen pages or so and its ugly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read about 6 pages of the comments and it has put me on serious tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Salon's a bastion of liberalism. What do you expect?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Also, Glenn Greenwald has a long and interesting post on The Ron Paul Phenomenon. Great analysis, as always, including some comparisons to Dean in 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did get hammered in the comments section though. I have read through a dozen pages or so and its ugly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read about 6 pages of the comments and it has put me on serious tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Salon's a bastion of liberalism. What do you expect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sure, I don't ever visit that site. But this is a good example of what nearly every single comment of the 1000 or so that were posted are like:

[ QUOTE ]
What's really wrong with Ron Paul's ideology
His foreign policy platform is laudable, correct and right on the money. However, in a US governed by Ron Paul, government regulations will disappear, which means that corporations would have unlimited power to control and run this country, even more than they do now. This would mean, for example, unfettered pollution of our air, oceans rivers and lakes, a sharp increase in the cutting of forests and the development of pristine federal land. The states would receive very little money from the federal government and they won't be able to ask for federal help during disasters such as Katrina, but won't have the resources to deal with such disasters. His domestic ideology would make the USA into a country that makes life pretty oppressive for those who aren't wealthy, and since he would abolish the EPA, even the air would be quite unbreathable. It would be in many ways a nightmarish country.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sure, I don't ever visit that site. But this is a good example of what nearly every single comment of the 1000 or so that were posted are like:

[ QUOTE ]
What's really wrong with Ron Paul's ideology
His foreign policy platform is laudable, correct and right on the money. However, in a US governed by Ron Paul, government regulations will disappear, which means that corporations would have unlimited power to control and run this country, even more than they do now. This would mean, for example, unfettered pollution of our air, oceans rivers and lakes, a sharp increase in the cutting of forests and the development of pristine federal land. The states would receive very little money from the federal government and they won't be able to ask for federal help during disasters such as Katrina, but won't have the resources to deal with such disasters. His domestic ideology would make the USA into a country that makes life pretty oppressive for those who aren't wealthy, and since he would abolish the EPA, even the air would be quite unbreathable. It would be in many ways a nightmarish country.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is right on the money.

Without federal money, corporations will grow out of control...oh wait

States can't even pass environmental laws...oh wait

States have no way of raising their own money...oh wait

Thousands would have died or been stranded without such a quick and effective federal response to Katrina...oh wait

The poor and middle class will have it so hard without regressive FICA taxes...oh wait

Nobody could even breathe before the EPA...oh wait

Well, uh, it would still be nightmarish. Obama'08

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to sure, I don't ever visit that site. But this is a good example of what nearly every single comment of the 1000 or so that were posted are like:

[ QUOTE ]
What's really wrong with Ron Paul's ideology
His foreign policy platform is laudable, correct and right on the money. However, in a US governed by Ron Paul, government regulations will disappear, which means that corporations would have unlimited power to control and run this country, even more than they do now. This would mean, for example, unfettered pollution of our air, oceans rivers and lakes, a sharp increase in the cutting of forests and the development of pristine federal land. The states would receive very little money from the federal government and they won't be able to ask for federal help during disasters such as Katrina, but won't have the resources to deal with such disasters. His domestic ideology would make the USA into a country that makes life pretty oppressive for those who aren't wealthy, and since he would abolish the EPA, even the air would be quite unbreathable. It would be in many ways a nightmarish country.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is right on the money.

Without federal money, corporations will grow out of control...oh wait

States can't even pass environmental laws...oh wait

States have no way of raising their own money...oh wait

Thousands would have died or been stranded without such a quick and effective federal response to Katrina...oh wait

The poor and middle class will have it so hard without regressive FICA taxes...oh wait

Nobody could even breathe before the EPA...oh wait

Well, uh, it would still be nightmarish. Obama'08

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy is right on the money.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.