How Can A 5%'er Raise This Much Money?

[35Pete]

Really? It's a serious question. Are "bots" donating all this money? LMAO!!!!!


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/35Pete/how_can.jpg

The way I see it either Ron Paul's campaign is fibbin' or perhaps the media is?

[keyron79]

Paul is at 1% That is what the media wants you to think.Just look at polls here on the Range People love him.Did't a coulble months back on FOX after a dabate on a text mesg. Poll he got something 26% of the vote witch was 1st. Then Sean Hannity tryed to push it of has the poll was tainted.Then Paul come on and said Come on Sean belive in your own poll.

[nehemiah]

are you proud of his money grubbing nature?

[35Pete]

One thing that I have noticed, and noticed it again after the CNN debate, is that the media talking heads, during their post-debate "roundtables" always make a point to say something to the effect of "Ron Paul has no chance". It's repeated EVERY debate. OK, that's fine. They are entitled to their opinion. But you don't see that continual repetitive implanted suggestion to the voters for any other candidate. Just Ron Paul. Ron scares the crap out of the establishment. Therefore he gets "special attention". And not in a favorable manner either.

[35Pete]

are you proud of his money grubbing nature?

Your candidates are pulling in big-time corporate money. Are you proud of them for that?

[nehemiah]

Your candidates are pulling in big-time corporate money. Are you proud of them for that?whose "my" candidate?

[kybillsfan]

whose "my" candidate?Your canidate is Dr. Paul, you just havent put two and two together.

[nehemiah]

Your canidate is Dr. Paul, you just havent put two and two together.:yawn:

[JoeMama]

One thing that I have noticed, and noticed it again after the CNN debate, is that the media talking heads, during their post-debate "roundtables" always make a point to say something to the effect of "Ron Paul has no chance". It's repeated EVERY debate. OK, that's fine. They are entitled to their opinion. But you don't see that continual repetitive implanted suggestion to the voters for any other candidate. Just Ron Paul. Ron scares the crap out of the establishment. Therefore he gets "special attention". And not in a favorable manner either.

It makes sense to me that Ron Paul can poll poorly despite raising a lot of money.

Only a small percentage of Americans are actually donating to campaigns right now.

IE; the real political junkies who care enough to donate money this early in the game.

The average voters - who most likely lean in favor of a generic, mainstream candidate - are probably starting to throw their weight behind a certain candidate but not necessarily their money.

And one thing you can give Paul is that he has a devoted group of true believers; a larger proportion of his base probably donate to his compaign. At least more so than the tacit support the mainstream candidates receive from casual political spectators.

[35Pete]

It makes sense to me that Ron Paul can poll poorly despite raising a lot of money.

Only a small percentage of Americans are actually donating to campaigns right now.

IE; the real political junkies who care enough to donate money this early in the game.

The average voters - who most likely lean in favor of a generic, mainstream candidate - are probably starting to throw their weight behind a certain candidate but not necessarily their money.

And one thing you can give Paul is that he has a devoted group of true believers; a larger proportion of his base probably donate to his compaign. At least more so than the tacit support the mainstream candidates receive from casual political spectators.

Well, here's the issue that I have with that. The "fat cats" are going to give, give the max, and give early. And those fat cats are giving to Rudi, Fred, and Mitt.

And presently Rudi, Fred, Mitt, and Ron are polling 28%, 19%, 16%, and 5% (I need to change the title. I hadn't read the polls in a while).

Normalizing the dollars to the fraction of people supporting each candidates to the fration of dollars of people supporting Ron Paul we have normalized supporters per dollar or:

[(dollars)/(percent)]/(ron pauls dollars/ron pauls %).

Rudi: 18.9 cents/unit supporter
Fred: 26.4 cents/unit supporter
Mitt: 31.8 cents/unit supporter.

Ok, there's a bit of variation there but they are all in the same order of magnitude so I suppose that passes the sanity test. But what about Ron. Well, look at the equation, I normalized everything to Ron's treasure chest.

Ron: 1 dollar/unit supporter.

That means that Ron Paul supporters, who are NOT fat cats, are giving 5.3x's as much as Rudi supporters, 3.8x's as much as Fred supporters, and 3.13x's as much as Mitt supporters.

That does NOT make sense. Remember, fat cats can give up to $2,300.

[JLB]

It's called politcs for a reason.

That will be your final clue and should be all you really need.

[35Pete]

It's called politcs for a reason.

That will be your final clue and should be all you really need.

Don't oversimplify. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

[dilbert]

I have to agree with JoeMama, Pete.

Paul has relatively small, but devoted group of followers. People wre much willing to give to him than the followers of Rudy, et al are. They are political junkies. They are also more likley to be internet savvy.

That is where it is coming from.

I do agree that a reason he has problems is the lack of attention from the MSM, though.

[JLB]

Don't oversimplify. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

it is simple though Pete you know that.

[pcnorth22]

the money part really gets to me...it really bothers me...

to an extent its the whole "only rich people can get elected" thing...but its more than that...

its the fact that most of our public servants spend so much time and energy on raising money...and far less than they used to on actually governing...

i've thought of working for someone in office; but I can't get over the fact that it seems that at least 25% of the work an elected official does is strictly related to reelection...

i volunteered for an erie co. legislator for about 2 weeks after i moved back to buffalo (someone I knew through a friend)...part of it sounded great, the legislator was a young guy and I had more experience than he did in government and public policy, so he was all set to use me in a large capacity...

but...then the reality of his reelection campaign (6 months down the road) set in...I was asked to contribute to phone banks (cold calling dems for cash) and door-to-door capaign contribution requests...

I bailed...I mean, I know its part of politics, but its become all that politics really is...its disappointing...on all sides...

[35Pete]

I have to agree with JoeMama, Pete.

Paul has relatively small, but devoted group of followers. People wre much willing to give to him than the followers of Rudy, et al are. They are political junkies. They are also more likley to be internet savvy.

That is where it is coming from.

I do agree that a reason he has problems is the lack of attention from the MSM, though.

Dilbert. At face value that still doesn't explain the large gap, especially given that the fat cats are contributing little to Paul and the lot to the "mainstreamers".

There may be a logical explanation for this. But as of now I have not seen one that convinces me.

[Green Lantern]

Dilbert. At face value that still doesn't explain the large gap, especially given that the fat cats are contributing little to Paul and the lot to the "mainstreamers".

There may be a logical explanation for this. But as of now I have not seen one that convinces me.

AN answer could be this, Pete: only 2 of 100 of the supporters of McCain give while 50 of 100 of the Paul supporters do. Maybe most people do not give to candidates and Paul's supporters, like NRA supporters, do.

[pcnorth22]

I think a candidate should want my vote more than my dollars...

and if he's smart, he'd realized I really only have one of those to give

[slowpokemcgee]

So you'd give Ron Paul money and then proceed to not vote for him?

[pcnorth22]

So you'd give Ron Paul money and then proceed to not vote for him?


I'm not giving anybody any money...but I understand your point...

still...candidates seem to spend so much energy on making sure they have enough money to campaign...yet often forget about the real point of campaigning

[Sparx]

whose "my" candidate?

Isn't it Chris Dodd?

[35Pete]

AN answer could be this, Pete: only 2 of 100 of the supporters of McCain give while 50 of 100 of the Paul supporters do. Maybe most people do not give to candidates and Paul's supporters, like NRA supporters, do.

Do you know if there is anyway in the FEC records to check?

[micknaboz]

Pretty simple why he polls so badly actually.
Its all about the polling.

Most organizations poll “likely voters” - in this case, “likely Republican voters” which generally means Republicans who voted in the last election. This excludes a long list of people, including:

* People who did not vote in the last election.
* New voters (in some cases, pollsters limit the age group to people over 21, but this is rare).
* People who have recently switched parties.
* People who do not own a land-line (including people who exclusively use a cell phone).
* Non-Republicans who intend to vote Republican (this is true in states such as Washington where there is no political party registration and the primaries are open).


Paul seems to be drawing a lot of support from a lot of registered independents and libertarians, who would not be included in their polls.

[Ralonzo]

I think a candidate should want my vote more than my dollars...

and if he's smart, he'd realized I really only have one of those to give

You only have one dollar?

Damn, man, collect some cans and take them to Tops.

[Green Lantern]

Do you know if there is anyway in the FEC records to check?

Think there must be since there are groups out there in the country who monitor donations and report abuses.