Ron Paul surpasses $8 Million in donations!

I heard the same argument for Howard Dean in 2004, not only did he raise a lot of money on the internet he was the front runner in the polls also and He didn't win. Internet support doesn’t translate into votes in the voting both.

 

It's not pure internet support. Not at the 5,000 man rally in Philadelphia or the packed rooms he normally speaks to around the country.

The internet isn't where the support is, it's where the support organizes. Huge difference. Check out

http://techpresident.com/scrape_plot/meetup_supporter

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/
Almost 14,000 events

 

Exactly
The middle section can and will win the presidency, it is there that I think RP could take it. Especially in a state like WI.

 

Howard did not get the viral marketing Ron Paul is getting... and Hillary i believe is the front runner in the pollls which shows how useful they are.

 

Well...

$18,262,981.81 As of 4:57 PM ET

 

We'll show them in Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

As your election thing drags out for around 10 months and ours is pretty simple (usually a month) is there a kind of guide to caucus' and how important the first two are? (not a wiki link though.)

 

Traditionally, candidates needed to perform well in early caucuses/primaries in order to aid fundraising for campaigning in later states. The RP campaign, however, has a better combination of money and infrastructure (ie. supporters) in place to last through most of the states no matter how he performs in the early states (and I think he is going to do very well in the early states with open voting).

Guerilla, nice call on the $20mil for the quarter prediction a month ago.

 

Thanks. I try not to make predictions, I was just trying to be really optimistic.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on issues, and getting poll numbers up and public support up rather than focusing on making money?

Seems to me that the RP camp is all about raising cash, not fixing issues..

 

You need $$ in order to get your stances out on the issues when the media wont give you equal time

It's also not the 'RP' camp who does these money bombs.

 

Equal time as compared to who?

No, but the RP camp seems to spend more time talking about how much money RP supposedly raised, rather than what RP stands for, or will do to make things better..

You have to admit, there is more talk about RP raising money than anything else, at least here anyway...

 

Equal time compared to the other candidates. Even in the debates I have watched he gets less questions than people below him in the polls.

They talk about money raised as it helps show his true backing, unlike polls that only show 'likely' republican voters from the last election cycles.

You don't think if Huck set records his supporters wouldn't talk about it?

 

Polls only matter to them when it's about Bush's national support, which ironically is much higher than RP's 5% national support.

When it's their guy, something is wrong with the polls. When it's someone else, the polls are just fine

 

You do get the difference from 'do you think the president is doing a good job' by US citizens compared to 'who will you vote for' by likely republican voters, do you not?

They are totally different, and you using them together shows the lack luster argument you have.

 

Understood.. But that is kinda the way it goes when you are not as popular.. Who is lower in the polls than RP? Just curious.. Typically if I see him listed on a Poll he is bringing up the rear..

So you admit it is purely meant for hype?

I guess, but then again, I don't think he needs the hype at this point..

 

I've never seen a group of "adults" so excited about such meager accomplishments. Jerry Lewis is really good at raising money, perhaps we should vote for him?

 

Nah, he'd never make it.. The media would bring up that "fag" comment, and he would be sunk!!!

 

but we all know that money does not equal votes...unless you are like LBJ and buy them.

 

Uh... Are you seriously comparing raising money for disabled children to raising money in support of a presidential candidate?

The anti-Paul arguments in this thread seem to be completely devoid of logic.

The money bombs are meant to do many things. Among them:

#1 Raise money for Ron Paul's campaign so that he can afford to stay in the race for the long term, regardless of the results of the early primaries.

#2 So that Paul can buy advertising time on the MSM which is largely ignoring his campaign. We know that for Paul to really rise among the masses who still get their news from TV and radio he needs to be seen and heard there.

#3 As a demonstration of the massive amount of strong support that Ron Paul has from citizens (not lobbyists) While other candidates may have people who will tell a telephone pollster they are supporting them, they do not have the kind of support that brings in massive donations from citizens. In other words, their support is soft. Paul's is very strong. This is particularly important in the primaries because of low voter turn out. This is one of the reasons why I think the polls are inaccurate in showing Paul's potential in the primaries. (other reasons being he has been systematically removed from some polls and the people being polls are only a small % of his supporters.)

#4 This goes with #3 really, but specifically as a way of gaining attention in the MSM. This may be what has been referred to as "hype." And I suppose that's a reasonable definition of it. The idea being if people see such large amounts of money being raised by a candidate they are more likely to take him seriously as someone who can really win. We have been conditioned by the MSM to believe that only certain MSM approved candidates are "electable."