Pay Attention, Dems: Ron Paul Rakes In $3.5M Today
The Republican establishment doesn’t seem to be paying much attention to the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. But, on Guy Fawkes Day, and with Paul raising more than $3.5 million dollars in an online fundraiser in less than 24 hours, perhaps it’s the Democratic Party establishment that should start taking note.
You’ve gotta hand it to Ron Paul supporters - he’s raising some serious online cash that the other GOP presidential wannabes could only dream about tapping into.
The third “Ron Paul Moneybomb” started today at 12:01 AM. As of 9PM, approximately 3.5 million dollars have been raised for the Paul campaign. I don’t really have the desire to go back and compare this to the 2003 / 2004 Howard Dean campaign (widely acknowledged as the first true internet grassroots presidential campaign), but I can’t imagine that even the Deaniacs raised this much money for their candidate in such a short period of time.
Paul’s third quarter fundraising was quite impressive, and it bought the campaign some airtime that only the big boys (and girls) can afford. Reviews of his first TV ads were mixed, but the point is, they were actually able to afford an extensive ad buy. That’s news unto itself.
Still, I’m fairly certain that the big dogs on the GOP porch are thinking, “Yeah, sure, but Lyndon LaRouche has managed to buy quite a bit of TV time over the years…” in his erstwhile Democratic Party presidential campaigns. It goes without saying that LaRouche never made a dent in Democratic presidential politics (and that was even before he went to jail).
This whole Ron Paul phenomena just has a totally different feel to it. It’s still a solid bet that when the GOP caucus and primary results start rolling in, Paul doesn’t stand much of a chance. But here’s where I think it gets interesting - and why Democratic Party presidential contenders need to take serious note of Paul’s campaign.
The Paul campaign is raising a lot of money, but not spending scads and scads of cash. And I’m not completely sure what the rules are, but I believe that if he decided at some point to take an independent shot at the White House (after the Dem and GOP candidates are chosen), he could roll this money over to an independent campaign, as well as mine the network he’s built for more.
An independent run by Ron Paul might be the worst case scenario for the Democratic Party, and the best case scenario for the Republicans. Were that to happen, he’s not going to peel away a substantial block of votes from the GOP candidate, rather, he’s going to pull votes from the Dem. At this moment in time, many progressives are predicting a wide margin victory in 2008 for the Democratic Party, including the presidency. But what if Paul were to end up being the spoiler next year - kind of a well funded Ralph Nader, if you will?
Oy. That’s not a worst case scenario for the Dems. That’s the nightmare scenario.
Update: I want to make it clear - my concern is not that Ron Paul would win as an independent. I don’t believe that Ron Paul has any shot - none - at winning such a race. What he does possess is the ability to peel off enough anti-war Dems as a 3rd party candidate to throw the general election to the Republican.
And I fear Rudy Giuliani much, much more than I fear Ron Paul.
Update II: Glenn Greenwald has written an extremely coherent analysis of the Ron Paul phenomena. (Since Glenn is a constitutional lawyer, and Paul’s candidacy is largely about constitutional issues, I’m not particularly surprised that he weighed in on the Paul campaign.) I agree almost completely with the key points of Greenwald’s essay, and I believe he hits it out of the park with this short paragraph:
Saying something positive about a specific candidate does not mean that one: (a) is voting for that candidate; (b) is encouraging others to support that candidate; (c) believes the candidate espouses every correct view on every issue, (d) sees the candidate as flawless and god-like and the embodiment of political salvation, or (e) hates all the other candidates.
That’s why I’ll continue to write about Congressman Paul’s campaign.
Ok, Paul supporters - open forum - what do you think of today’s fundraiser?
FREEDOM IS POPULAR!
Paul got AP press from this. I think you are wrong about the primaries, esp. NH.
Paul has probably raised more money in 24 hours than Huckabee has raised his entire campaign. This will help further get people out of “Paul can’t win” mode.
I think you are correct in your assumption though, but on a side note, remember that Paul is already the nightmare scenario for the warmongers in the Republican wing of the War Party. Anyway, Paul is running on the Left of almost all of the Democrats minus Kucinich on the war, who Paul has worked with, and as much as I respect him, doesn’t have Paul’s level of support.
But I imagine by that time the bombs will have already started dropping on Iran, so who knows what the political environment will be like at that time. This event in Pakistan should further help wake people up regarding our foreign and domestic policy, as it serves as a nice blueprint for BushCo. but I imagine most people are clueless and don’t see what is really going on there right now, and in the states of other allies in the War on Terror, Martial Law. It seems to me that Martial Law is a good, albeit morally bankrupt, way to maximize war profits.
it is my understanding that this money can be only for the primaries.
you discount Paul’s chances in the GOP primaries without warrent. being the anti-establishment candidate in a crowded field leaves him very well placed. particularly now that the legacy media are getting on board. expect him to start hitting double digits in the national polls right after thanksgiving.
but if say for some reason an independent run happens, then yes, Democrats will be in trouble. Republicans will be in trouble just as much though. whether on the GOP ticket or independently, this campaign promises to crush the two party system.
I used to always quip, ‘you can’t fight city hall, ya gotta blow it up.’ this november fifth was a good start, figuratively speaking.
This whole “left/right” language is really not working for me lately- especially when it comes to analysis of Ron Paul.
Anti-war does not equal left-wing.
Left (for me anyway) is more of a economic/social orientation.
There are left wing warmongers and right wing pacifists.
Current U.S. vocabulary for political orientation is complete nonsense.
I could go on- but I don’t want to insult any of Paul’s supporters (or Hillary’s for that matter).
Be sure to research Paul’s actual beliefs and alliances - before you jump on the bandwagon! You could be projecting.
(And please consider the consequences of supporting third party candidates who can’t win.)
I’ve made it clear in many postings, snow-moon, that I am not a Paul supporter, though I do find the phenomena and political dynamic that’s driving his candidacy fascinating, in a Ross Perot kind of way.
I’m so pleased with Paul’s results today. I hope he can figure out away to maximize the talent in his community when he spends it.
The Dems probably should be worried. After watching what the Federal Goverment has been able to do over the last seven years and watching the impotence of Dems or Republicans to provide checks to this administration, I’ve been driven from the Liberal ranks. States Right’s and a limited Federal Government have become my post important issues.
But isn’t “limited federal government” (or the neocon Norquestian desire to drown government in a bathtub) at the root of why Katrina turned into the disaster that it became?
From what I know of Katrina, it was mostly incompetent government. When we have all of our eggs in one basket and the Decider of that basket decides that cronyism is the surest security you’re going to have problems. When you put Dick Cheney in charge of Oregon Rivers and Ecology, you’re going to have problems. When you have the Federal Government run it’s environmental standards through Exxon, you’re going to have problems. Right now we have the Federal Government fighting California on increased auto emmisions. How does a big strong Federal Government take care of us better again?
Sure, maybe we just need the right people in office. Well, from the Dem side there seems to be little ability or desire to place checks on this administration. They may be trying to wait it out until ‘08 as a safer time, but they’ve lost my trust in their ability to do their jobs today, which is to provide the required checks and balances on an out of control executive. I won’t be supporting them in ‘08.
We would have to have decades of competent progressive leadership to overcome the damage of the last seven years. I see limited positives and almost unlimited negative potential… just think what Giuliani would be like? Still married to the idea of big government?
This isn’t a joke. Ron Paul is running for the GOP nomination for president and the money he raised today is for that purpose.
Guiliani and Hillary are equally dangerous to this country for very different reasons. If it comes down to a choice of two bad options, I’ll vote for Rudy. Here’s why. The opposition to Hillary’s policies will be so far spread along the ideological spectrum that no one will ever be able to corral them into a unified front. A united opposition to Guiliani will be much easier to achieve. Frankly, I don’t think Guiliani can win, for a reason that may sound sexist but will surely rear its ugly head next year. This is a man who, while mayor of NY, ditched his wife and let HER stay in the mayor’s mansion. Sure it would be a rotten thing to kick your spouse to the curb and oust them from your home, and in normal circumstances, I’d be right along with you. But when you are the mayor of the capital of the world, that mansion in YOUR home. And Rudy looks cowardly for abandoning it. Don’t think for one second that Hillary’s PR people won’t float this, among other inconvenient facts, to demonstrate Guiliani’s weakness to other men.
D.
Note to Richard Blair: I never mistook you for a Paul supporter. I should have been clear.
I was responding to the line in Chris S’s post (and many others I’ve seen on other sites.)
“Paul is running on the Left of almost all of the Democrats minus Kucinich on the war.”
I don’t believe that Paul is Left on anything at all. And I don’t think his supporters seem to be aware of this fact.
He was against the war.
So was Pat Buchanan.
Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Every four years it’s the same damn thing. “You big meanies are stealing our votes! Give us back our votes that you’re stealing from us! Waaaaaaaaaah!”