Ron Paul breaks record; raises more money in a single day than any republican EVER.

[henschman]

well, it's all over the news today (although usually buried in other headlines)... i told you guys something big was going to happen on the 5th. As I predicted, in one day the good doctor now has more money than he raised in the entire last quarter (ending October 1) -- he now has over $7.3 Million in the bank.

also, i have to retract an previous inaccurate comment I made in another post... last quarter Ron Paul actually came in 3rd in fundraising among Republicans, beating both Fred Thompson and John McCain, who both initially reported a lot more money than they ended up with at final count.

Big Government Republican bootlickers beware! Ron rakes in exponentially more and more cash as the season goes on, as your guys rake in less and less.

ABC News: Who Is Giving Money to Ron Paul?

WHO ARE RON PAUL'S SUPPORTERS?
Republican Raises Stunning $4.3 Million Online in 24 Hours
By Z. BYRON WOLF
Nov. 6, 2007

Mark it down: A landmark moment entered the annals of political fundraising: Nov. 5, 2007.

Ron Paul: Dark Horse Or Real Contender?

Texas Republican Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate who has lagged in the polls but raised as much money as top-tier candidates, passed $4.3 million in online fundraising in 24 hours.

Paul's Haul May Set Online Record

It was a big deal back in 2000 when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised $1 million online in the 24 hours after his upset victory over then-Gov. George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary.

McCain's impressive take was seen as the birth of online fundraising -- a moment when online donors gained considerable respect.

Paul raised just over $5 million in the most recent fundraising quarter, which ended September 30. The campaign has set an official goal of raising $12 million between Oct.1 and the end of 2007.

As of midnight Sunday, Nov. 4, the Paul campaign claimed to have raised $2.77 million.

Monday's drive was coordinated by an independent Web site but received the tacit endorsement of Paul on the stump this week.

He told supporters at a rally in Columbia, S.C., that the mainstream media is more likely to pay attention if he raises more money. And that attention will lead to more mainstream voters hearing his message.

Supporters Remember Nov. 5

It's not unusual for campaigns to attach a slogan to a one-day, one-event or one-week fundraising push.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have dined with donating supporters; Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, encouraged donations for her husband's birthday.

Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., got his hand slapped by Major League Baseball for offering to raffle off World Series tickets to a lucky donor.

But leave it to Ron Paul's devoted legions to win the originality contest this year.

"Remember, Remember, the fifth of November," cries the call for cash.

The catchy slogan comes from a nursery rhyme about Guy Fawkes, the 17th-century crusader for Catholics rights caught in the basement of parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He failed in his mission to blow the place up.

ABC News tracked down Trevor Lyman, the man behind the Web site that coordinated Paul's one-day money bomb on his cell phone in line at a Miami Starbucks, where the whir of the barista making his lunchtime latte could be heard in the background.

Lyman, 37, is not your average political fundraiser.

His day job is running a music promotion Web site, but he spends his free time at the helm of the grassroots Web site that conspired in online chat forums and meetup groups to send a fundraising bomb in support of Paul.

But Lyman, who has never worked for a campaign before -- and still doesn't, technically -- describes himself as "mostly apathetic" when it comes to politics, started supporting Paul back when the congressman was just exploring a presidential run.

He started a Web site devoted to Paul videos, the tagline for which is "Televising the Revolution."

The first video featured when we visited showed surfers how to use holiday lights to create and illuminated "Ron Paul Revolution" yard decoration.

Reach of the 'Revolution'

Lyman launched his most recent site only on Oct. 18, and he is hoping to move back to New Hampshire soon, not to work on the campaign, just because he went to college there and said it would be a better place than Miami to raise a family.

Asked if it is appropriate to invoke a nursery rhyme about a man who tried to blow up parliament in the 17th-century as a fundraising tool, Lyman said, "Some people want to go that way. We're not going in any way violent."

He said the idea sprang up when he saw someone propose a mass one-day online fundraising drive in a Ron Paul meetup group.

The date Nov. 5 corresponded with the movie "V for Vendetta" and the Guy Fawkes rhyme.

"If you look at the pop culture feel-good message of the movie," Lyman said, "the people in the end say we are the deciders. That's the best way to describe it. And this is a country of and by the people."

"The entire notion of Bush saying he is the decider when 70 or 80 percent of the country wants out of the war is ridiculous. He acts like a dictator."

And that, said Lyman, is why he supports Paul, who is uncompromising and strict in his support of the Constitution, as literally as possible to the way it is written.

"I like some things about Republican ideals, but it goes back to the Constitution for me," Lyman said, still in line for his coffee. "And those ideals are all about small government, even if the party in recent years has not been," he said.

Apparently, as the online donation meter indicates, others agree.

what? people are tired of Big Government? who would've thunk?

Here's the AP article:
Ron Paul Raises More Than $4.2 Million

Ron Paul Raises More Than $4.2 Million
Nov 6 12:49 AM US/Eastern
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer





MSNBC: Ron Paul Calls In Riding Big Fundraising Wave

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.

Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."

Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.

"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.

The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.

Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.

Paul as of Monday had raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.

Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

the above article is a bit misleading though... to say "Ron Paul supports limited government and low taxes like other Republicans" is like comparing lions to kittens, or saying "turbo buicks are fast like honda civics."

[STAGE 2]

Here's the problem. I read somewhere that the number of people that donated was around 37,000. The dollar figure sounds great, but its better for a candidate to have 1 million people donate one dollar than 100,000 donate $50.

And that leads us to the second problem. Money does not translate to votes. Many a rich candidate has spent millions of dollars only to lose an election. Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, WR Hearst, and countless others have spent personal fortunes only to lose.

Theres a reason why Ron Paul doesn't break 5% in any reputable national poll. He has no chance of winning this election.

[a trail rider]

Ron Paul about as much chance of winning the Presidency as do I. NEWSFLASH: I'm not running!

[henschman]

1. i could care less about the MSM polls. unlike some people, i don't base my support for a candidate on how the wind is blowing, especially in the primary.

2. even if he doesn't win, it is exciting to see the pro-liberty, limited government message get so much support... if nothing else, Ron is doing more to help the message gain momentum than anybody since Reagan.

3. Ron has about as good a chance of winning the presidency as any of the other R's. if he wins the nomination, he will likely win the office. if one of the other guys gets it, a democrat will win.

the big government establishment types will SAY he doesn't have a chance even as support for him multiplies, but you will see them start to resort to more and more desperate measures to try to discredit him as time goes on. just wait and see... it's gonna get pretty ridiculous. the prospect of somebody like him winning the big spot undermines a lot of people's little rackets.

[IEATV8S]

The majority of the money Ron Paul has just raised has been from the EXTREME left, as he is the ONLY candidate that states publically that he would IMMEDIATELY, or as close as possible, remove ALL our troops from Iraq, as well as MOST other foreign nations!

None of the Democrats will now back this plan, as advocated in one of their latest debates, and the ANTI-WAR left looks to Paul as their NEW savior! They are a one topic group, who cares much less about the other problems facing America. If you get an opportunity try looking at rense.com. Jeff Rense is a Libertarian with strong left leanings, and promotes Paul with his news items which he features. With over 1 million hits per month on Rense's site, his site is one of the top 100 hits sites for the entire net!

I truly hope when he does not get the Republican nomination, he becomes a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE!

That would be a shoe-in for ANY of the Republican candidates! Much better then having Ralph Nader running again! IMHO!

[henschman]

Originally Posted by IEATV8S

The majority of the money Ron Paul has just raised has been from the EXTREME left

proof?

and since when is the radical left all about strict constructionalism of the constitution and limited government? that just doesn't make sense. in my experience, the majority of Ron Paul supporters care mostly about the limited government issue, although his foreign policy is also a big one. his supporters are mostly a mix of old school limited government republicans who are pissed about the way the party has been headed and independents/libertarians who see him as somebody that isn't part of the washington culture of corruption/pork/earmarks. i am in several Ron Paul meetups/campus groups, and i have not really met one supporter of his who i would call a "radical leftist." The anti-war thing is a big reason a lot of people support him too, but... and i know this is gonna be a shocker to you, but not all people who are against the Iraq war are fringe moonbat lefties. a pretty significant majority of the country believes that way now. it is especially telling to me that Ron gets more support from the military than any other candidate.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by henschman

3. Ron has about as good a chance of winning the presidency as any of the other R's. if he wins the nomination, he will likely win the office. if one of the other guys gets it, a democrat will win.

How is it, according to you, Ron has as much chance to win the Presidency as any other Republican, but you follow that in the same short paragraph with the comment that he's the only Republican who can win? Are you thinking, or just sayin' ??

Currently, the odds are in favor of Hillary winning the Democrat spot. If that happens, any Republican is instantly more likely to win. However, Guiliani(sp) is the biggest favorite against her. Personally, I don't much care for either of them and there's simply no chance I will vote for Hillary.

There's no chance I'll vote for Ron Paul either, btw. That is, unless he miraculously does win the Republican spot AND Hillary wins the Democrat spot. In that case, I'd settle for the clear lessor of two evils.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by henschman

proof?

and since when is the radical left all about strict constructionalism of the constitution and limited government? that just doesn't make sense.

Idonno that anyone could prove it just yet. However, there is a large consensus that Ron Paul is getting "D" money in hopes he's the one against Hillary. That would make her bid easier from the looks of it. In other words, they're apparently trying to pad her odds even more.

It makes sense when you think about all the online(or phone, whichever) voting we've seen after the Republican debates. He's basically won them all... But when people who happen to be registered Republicans are asked on the spot, he's been in the rear of the pack each and every time. Figure the odds he'd win an anonomous poll, but miserably lose when those who will actually choose get a word in edgewise. Most states don't allow Rep. to vote in Dem primaries and visa versa. You can't prevent this from happening online.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by henschman

proof?

and since when is the radical left all about strict constructionalism of the constitution and limited government? that just doesn't make sense. in my experience, the majority of Ron Paul supporters care mostly about the limited government issue, although his foreign policy is also a big one. his supporters are mostly a mix of old school limited government republicans who are pissed about the way the party has been headed and independents/libertarians who see him as somebody that isn't part of the washington culture of corruption/pork/earmarks. i am in several Ron Paul meetups/campus groups, and i have not really met one supporter of his who i would call a "radical leftist." The anti-war thing is a big reason a lot of people support him too, but... and i know this is gonna be a shocker to you, but not all people who are against the Iraq war are fringe moonbat lefties. a pretty significant majority of the country believes that way now. it is especially telling to me that Ron gets more support from the military than any other candidate.

Henchman, I have no PROOF, as I ended by putting IMHO!

I've read the articles about the military donating big money to him, yet I see there is NO PROOF of this, just summation from various writers! How would anyone know where the money comes from? It is donated more or less anonymously!

The Anti-War left has one and only one purpose, to get us out of Iraq! There are certainly more then 37,000 hard core believers in the Anti-War movement, and as we saw with their fathers and mothers with the Vietnam war, that was their primary concern. The Christian right concentrates on abortion, and pro life. The war is down on their list, and how many of these Christians have said they could not vote for a Rep that wasn't pro life?

The Anti-War folks were backing on Obama originally to be their man, and have now seen him morph into just another Democratic candidate. Take a look at his polls, since that infamous debate where no Dem would state that an immediate pullout is their view, his fortunes have taken, what a 10+ point hit?

The Anti-War folks have always been pro Democratic, but even that isn't enough to keep them in line when they can hitch their hopes on a man that hasn't changed his original positions! Again IMHO!

[Shane]

Originally Posted by henschman

proof?

I donated

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Shane

I donated

Now if Paul had 37,000+ SHANE'S donate $100 each, easy $4 million!

I know $100 is just chump change to SHANE!

[STAGE 2]

Originally Posted by henschman

1. i could care less about the MSM polls. unlike some people, i don't base my support for a candidate on how the wind is blowing, especially in the primary.

I'm not talking about msm polls. I'm talking about polls run by polling organizations that are both scientific and reputable.

If for nothing else let this set in. There has never been a candidate in modern history to ever win anything who didn't break 5% in the polls.

2. even if he doesn't win, it is exciting to see the pro-liberty, limited government message get so much support... if nothing else, Ron is doing more to help the message gain momentum than anybody since Reagan.

Ah yes, limited government. Such as earmarks for shrimp fishing and some 400 million dollars for other pet projects.

3. Ron has about as good a chance of winning the presidency as any of the other R's. if he wins the nomination, he will likely win the office. if one of the other guys gets it, a democrat will win.

So let me see. You don't celieve me because I cite polls showing Paul doesn't have a chance, but I'm supposed to believe you when you say the other candidates dont have a chance just becasue.

the big government establishment types will SAY he doesn't have a chance even as support for him multiplies, but you will see them start to resort to more and more desperate measures to try to discredit him as time goes on. just wait and see... it's gonna get pretty ridiculous. the prospect of somebody like him winning the big spot undermines a lot of people's little rackets.

I dont need to discredit him. He does that all on his own. His foreign policy is ridiculous. He wants to dismantle the CIA at the most crucial time in history. He voted to allow suits against gun manufacturers because of the acts of 3rd parties.

Ron Paul is a guy who has some good points, but he's not presidential material. He came in 3rd or 4th in the straw poll in his own state. He had a failed senate campaign.

If he cant get elected to the senate, or win his own state, how do you expect him to win a national election.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by IEATV8S

Now if Paul had 37,000+ SHANE'S donate $100 each, easy $4 million!

I know $100 is just chump change to SHANE!

Just hedging my bets, man, hedging my bets. If Paul wins the Republican nomination then the Democratic Nominee can't possibly lose. That is, until the Democratic Nominee drops the ball, which realistically will probably happen. In that case we're stuck with Ron Paul, which really wouldn't be that bad as I see it.

[savage6]

On earmarks,

Its kind of like, in an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn't be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. "I don't want them [the government] to take it," he says, "but if they do take it, I'd just as soon help my constituents get it back." --if they paid taxes and didnt get anything back, then they would basically be funding programs for other districts.

[STAGE 2]

Originally Posted by savage6

On earmarks,

Its kind of like, in an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn't be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. "I don't want them [the government] to take it," he says, "but if they do take it, I'd just as soon help my constituents get it back." --if they paid taxes and didnt get anything back, then they would basically be funding programs for other districts.

So if people are dealing drugs in my neighborhood, and the police can't stop it, I should start dealing too because I can donate the proceeds to charity.

If Paul was the principled constitutionalist he says he is, he wouldn't be participating in this junk. What business does the federal government have in shrimp research? It doesn't and he knows it.

[henschman]

stage, though he inserts earmarks, he always votes against the actual appropriations bills. do any of your guys? you can nitpick, but NOBODY in the national government has a more consistent constitutional record than Ron Paul, and I challenge you to show me someone that does.

Originally Posted by a trail rider

How is it, according to you, Ron has as much chance to win the Presidency as any other Republican, but you follow that in the same short paragraph with the comment that he's the only Republican who can win? Are you thinking, or just sayin' ??

read what i typed -- i think if he were to be nominated, he would most likely win. All the libertarians (the largest 3rd party in the country) would vote for him -- they've already said if he wins the nomination, they're not going to run anyone against him. just that is enough of a minority to shift the balance in a close race. also, all the hardcore anti-war people you keep bringing up will vote for him, and of course all the repubs will vote for him because who else do they have? lots of people that traditionally vote independent would probably vote for him as well. He would get the republican vote, the independent vote, and the pissed-off democrat vote. now if one of the big-government repubs gets nominated, it will be 2006 all over again... lots of the base will stay home. these guys are simply not inspiring their base, and that should be obvious to you. if that weren't the case, how could somebody like Ron Paul out-fundraise them? in addition, the democrats have a significant margin on them in fundraising. it should be obvious that the excitement just isn't there with these guys. i have yet to see one giulianni, romney, or thompson yard sign, bumper sticker, or grassroots rally. i've seen plenty for hillary, barack, and ron. republicans, and america in general, is tired of the same old bull****.

the data on contributions from the military comes from the Federal Election Comission, who publishes the info on donors to all campaigns. When you donate to a campaign, you have to give your employer and occupation among other things (which you probably wouldn't know if you hadn't donated to a campaign). the figures are tabulated by looking at all the people who indicated that they were employed by a branch of the military. the article i quoted in the other thread is reputable (Houston Chronicle I believe).

I'll finish responding to the rest of this after my classes -- i gotta go get ready to represent in Constitutional Law!!!

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by henschman

the data on contributions from the military comes from the Federal Election Comission, who publishes the info on donors to all campaigns. When you donate to a campaign, you have to give your employer and occupation among other things (which you probably wouldn't know if you hadn't donated to a campaign). the figures are tabulated by looking at all the people who indicated that they were employed by a branch of the military. the article i quoted in the other thread is reputable (Houston Chronicle I believe).

Just a question here. If the FEC does that, how was it possible for HSU to get all those "dishwashers" to donate thousands of dollars to Hillary for YEARS? You know, the "dishwashers" that they either couldn't find, or when interviewed said they had no idea about any donation? Could those supposed MILITARY votes be PHONY as well? You can put down anything on your donation as to where you live and your occupation, I would think, and who would ever check it? I still don't know how HSU was found out, can you enlighten me?

[STAGE 2]

Originally Posted by henschman

stage, though he inserts earmarks, he always votes against the actual appropriations bills. do any of your guys? you can nitpick, but NOBODY in the national government has a more consistent constitutional record than Ron Paul, and I challenge you to show me someone that does.

You don't get it. Paul claims to be Mr. Constitution. Its clearly unconstitutional for the federal government to fund shrimp research. Whether Paul voted for the bill is irrelevant. The point is that he's requesting tainted funds. Hes being part of the problem and not part of the solution. A principled man would vote against the bill and then NOT request money for an unconstitutional purpose via earmarks.

Whether any of the other guys do it is irrelevant. None of the other people are holding themselves out to be the "only constitutionalist". Furthermore pointing out other people who do unconstitutional things does not absolve someone else from doing unconstitutional things.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by henschman

read what i typed -- i think if he were to be nominated, he would most likely win.

That's precisely what I was addressing. You seem confident that Ron Paul has the same chance of winning as any Republican, but then again, no you don't. You clearly said you think he has the same chance as them, but then you said his odds are better. You said that if Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, he will likely win the office. You also said that if another Republican gets that nomination, that Republican would NOT win! And you didn't even bother to say "likely" in that part. You just blatently said they'll lose. I believe I read what you typed just fine.

all the hardcore anti-war people you keep bringing up will vote for him,

Where'd that come from? I don't even see one mention of that on my part in this thread.

And Idonno how many Presidential elections you've taken part in(doubt it's any at all), but I should tell you, 2006 was NOT a presidential yr, so that base wasn't expected to show up. In 2004, if you can remember, they showed up in droves... To the tune of more than 60 million. That said, 2008 won't likely be like 2006.

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by henschman

stage, though he inserts earmarks, he always votes against the actual appropriations bills.

So he inserts earmarks into bills he knows are going to pass and then... nudge, nudge... wink, wink... votes against them? And you think that puts him above the others who at least have the intellectual honesty to sign off on their own pork?

Wow.

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by The Blob

So he inserts earmarks into bills he knows are going to pass and then... nudge, nudge... wink, wink... votes against them? And you think that puts him above the others who at least have the intellectual honesty to sign off on their own pork?

Wow.

I mean no offense by this, but frankly, I just don't think he "gets it" at all, YET! I think he will, and probably soon, but not today.

[PCS74]

Giuliani is 100% liberal. Most likely he will get the Republican nomination. I will stay home before I vote for him. Only way I am going to the polls is if Ron Paul runs. I disagree with over half of what RP thinks, but he is the only outwardly pro 2A candidate and I still agree with him more than any of the other candidates. I especially hate his WoT position, but my personal defense and liberties trump everything else.

It's funny really, this election is being looked at by many as the most important in the history of the US, but we have what are IMO the worst candidates in our history. WTF man?

[STAGE 2]

Originally Posted by PCS74

Giuliani is 100% liberal. Most likely he will get the Republican nomination. I will stay home before I vote for him. Only way I am going to the polls is if Ron Paul runs. I disagree with over half of what RP thinks, but he is the only outwardly pro 2A candidate and I still agree with him more than any of the other candidates. I especially hate his WoT position, but my personal defense and liberties trump everything else.

It's funny really, this election is being looked at by many as the most important in the history of the US, but we have what are IMO the worst candidates in our history. WTF man?

While I agree with you that the 2A is possibly the most important right we have, there is still plenty of time before we start voting from the roof tops. Till then you need to ask yourself, do you want a huge increase in taxes, do you want appointed judges who believe that its perfectly acceptable to take private property under ED only to give it to another private individual? Do you want people who have nothing but disdain for the military and are willing to grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists who have never set foot on our soil?

These are the things that are being fought over. Guliani is far from any conservatives ideal. However he is a republican and a republican who is aware of how important the conservative base is to winnelections and getting things done.

If for nothing else, it will be beneficial to have a republican in the whitehouse since the congress is held by democrats.

The only thing staying home will do is ensure we spin further into the bowl.

[PCS74]

Originally Posted by STAGE 2

While I agree with you that the 2A is possibly the most important right we have, there is still plenty of time before we start voting from the roof tops. Till then you need to ask yourself, do you want a huge increase in taxes, do you want appointed judges who believe that its perfectly acceptable to take private property under ED only to give it to another private individual? Do you want people who have nothing but disdain for the military and are willing to grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists who have never set foot on our soil?

These are the things that are being fought over. Guliani is far from any conservatives ideal. However he is a republican and a republican who is aware of how important the conservative base is to winnelections and getting things done.

If for nothing else, it will be beneficial to have a republican in the whitehouse since the congress is held by democrats.

The only thing staying home will do is ensure we spin further into the bowl.

I agree entirely, but I've just reached the "I don't give a %&$#" point. I started voting in 1993, so I haven't been voting for a long time, but I can not remember an instance where I was choosing a "good" candidate for a job. From the very beginning I have always voted "the lesser of two evils" and I'm just officially tired of it.


It doesn't come down to "I don't like their views so I don't like them" either. I really just feel they are all way out of touch with America and American's. Kind of like that straight from school new boss you get at work who just doesn't have a clue how things really need to be done. Maybe I am naive, I don't know, but all the answers seem so simple I feel we just need someone in charge who will make the waves required to change the status quo way of doing things and do what needs to be done. A little intelligence, determination, honor and integrity is all I ask for, but I haven't seen any of these qualities in any any candidate for any office ever since I have been able to vote.

Maybe something will change by election time.


Chris S

[a trail rider]

There was an election in 93? J/K

You aren't alone in the category, but it isn't something to pass on just because. Voting is an important right and not voting is like purposely giving up that right.

When we're to a point of "the lesser," we suddenly realize how bad our politics has gotten. I see it as you do in that our candidates have not been very good since you began voting. Of course, I'm proud of Bush for being strong in the face of all the useless banter, rhetoric, etc. and the fact he has held up under such pressure. I wouldn't want his job. Still, when it's time to pick a new head of state, you should take the time to vote for SOMEONE just because you can. Of course, it should be thought out first.

And while we may not see any "good" candidate, at least we see the bad ones and know some of those we DON'T want in power. Sometimes a vote against those people is helpful to everyone.

Personally, I'd really enjoy seeing someone like most of us get a chance. I mean, NOT a career politician. Someone old enough to have experienced life, know right from wrong, and have the good sense and mental/physical strength to ACT on those experiences and that knowledge. And someone who actually takes advice into account to the degree that person listens to the general public unless he/she sees something inherently dangerous which must be acted on swiftly.

The perenial problem for "We the People" is the lack of money to get our own thoughts out to the general public, thus not gaining enough support to be one of the dogs in the fight.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by a trail rider

That's precisely what I was addressing. You seem confident that Ron Paul has the same chance of winning as any Republican, but then again, no you don't. You clearly said you think he has the same chance as them, but then you said his odds are better. You said that if Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, he will likely win the office. You also said that if another Republican gets that nomination, that Republican would NOT win! And you didn't even bother to say "likely" in that part. You just blatently said they'll lose. I believe I read what you typed just fine.

ok, let me break it down... ron doesn't have a very good chance in the primary, but he has a really good chance in the general election if he gets that far. the big-name republicans have a better chance in the primary, but i really doubt they can win the general election. therefore, their chances of winning the presidency are approximately equal.

PCS and i are not the only ones who are fed up with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. almost every other republican i talk to feels the same way... i suspect you have met a lot of these people, too.

let me ask you this... how do you ever expect to change anything in this country for the better if you always vote for someone even though you disagree with them? how does this motivate your party to change if they can rely on people's straight-ticket votes no matter what they do (as long as they aren't any worse than the democrats)? this just results in our country declining slightly slower than it would under the other guys. i'm saying it would be better in the long run for our grand ol party to take a big hit for a while so it can get its values straight, and then come back strong to turn this country around and actually undo some of the damage that has been done over the past century or so.

a lot of republicans have already got it... i suspect you guys will too eventually, but it may take a couple more election cycles to convince you.

oh, on the subject of who Ron Paul's supporters are, i found a good article:
MND: News and Commentary Since 2001 » Ron Paul Report: Who Supports Him and Why is November 5th Important?

[PCS74]

Originally Posted by a trail rider

There was an election in 93? J/K

er, eligible to vote since...

[IEATV8S]

I hate to break it to you Paul fans, even though I think he's a good man and probably the most honest of all the candidates, but he has NO CHANCE in the primaries and NONE AT ALL if he was nominated!

National Polls have shown him consistently at the bottom:

WH2008: Republicans

The following is the national polls about Dem/Rep projected match ups

WH2008: General

As you can see in the General Election with Rudy and Hillary the polling is Hillary 46%, Rudy 45% CURRENTLY!

They don't have ANY poll on Ron Paul against Hillary!

Get over it guys, look to another candidate, it's a lost cause!!!!

[henschman]

i think i've already been over why i put more stock in things like straw polls and grassroots fundraising when it comes to the primaries than i do random phone polls, especially when it comes to Ron Paul, but i'll go over it again...

first off, people that have been polled have reported that they were given the choice of giuliani, romney, mccain, thompson, huckabee, and "other." only if you chose "other" would they give you the option of Ron Paul.

second, the polls of republican primary voters call people who voted in the last presidential primary (2004), which, if you remember, only included George W. Bush, being that he was the incumbent. Only 6.6% of republicans voted in this primary, and you can bet that they were all hardcore Bush loyalists... the type of people who would not support someone like Ron Paul. USATODAY.com - Voter turnout low for presidential primaries

you also have to realize that a lot of people are registering republican just to vote for Ron Paul, so polls of people previously registered republican wouldn't show them. given the low % of party members that actually vote in primaries, this group of newcomers to the party could make a huge difference.

there is also the fact that Ron Paul supporters tend to be young and/or technologically-savvy, which means that many don't have landline phones. most of the people i know that still do are seniors.

the only kind of people that vote in primaries are hardcore supporters of their candidates, and the voter turnout is low. that's why i put a lot of stock in whoever is inspiring the most excitement and the biggest grassroots following. if somebody doesn't know too much about the candidates or isn't sure, they usually stay home. you can bet every ron paul supporter will be at the polls on primary day -- you can't say that for the other guys. plus, the pro-war vote will be split 5 ways. you know, this is exactly what the election looked like in 1979... nobody thought reagan had a chance, but he ran a hardcore grassroots campaign based on the forgotten ideal of limited government, and ended up coming out ahead in the end.

Get over it guys, look to another candidate, it's a lost cause!!!!

that kind of attitude is not going to get us anywhere as a nation. anyway, there is simply no other candidate to look to! it's either Big Government or Ron Paul.

[IEATV8S]

I understand your thinking on this, but when does reality hit in for you?

After 3, 6, 10 state primaries, and if Paul hasn't been picked up by the general populace, do you change your candidate to the better of 2 evil tactics, or do you NOT vote?

For me it's vote for the better, not voting is a VOTE for the worst as far as I'm concerned!

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by henschman

ok, let me break it down... ron doesn't have a very good chance in the primary, but he has a really good chance in the general election if he gets that far. the big-name republicans have a better chance in the primary, but i really doubt they can win the general election. therefore, their chances of winning the presidency are approximately equal.

Flatly incorrect. Seriously, you've got it wrong. NO Republican candidate is going to win the presidency if he fails to win the next nomination. Knowing that, the chances are not at all equal, unless based on your apparent theory. Elections don't happen theoretically. Ron's chance of winning is lowest of all Republican candidates according to those who are Republicans and have been asked at the end of each debate, in person and on camera. They are a better example than any other type of poll you'll read about. Your opinion doesn't mean a thing without Ron Paul becoming President of the United States of America and that just isn't at all likely. I think you're more hopeful than confident anyway.

PCS and i are not the only ones who are fed up with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. almost every other republican i talk to feels the same way... i suspect you have met a lot of these people, too.

Couldn't tell you that... I haven't asked anyone if they're a Republican or Democrat. I have asked what they support though, and so far... Maybe it's just my conservative area, but they're not in favor of the governmental Democrats beyond local officeholders. Ontop of that, I travel the country and talk to people at restaraunts and truck stops, etc. When these political things show up on the various TV's, the talk quickly follows. You may be shocked at the reponses I hear. No need to share them here/now.

let me ask you this... how do you ever expect to change anything in this country for the better if you always vote for someone even though you disagree with them?

People like me, Independents, don't vote in Primaries in most states. We are stuck, therefore, with choosing the lesser of two evils unless we can honestly say we're behind a specific candidate. Since the 1990's, that's left few options. I did support H. Ross Perot though! But we're back to my earlier comment that I'd rather see a "regular" citizen who's never held public office. The other side of that problem is knowing some well known politician from the opposing side will be nominated. We need two "unknowns" to run, but that won't happen, particularly on the Democratic side because they've been taken over by the left wing, which will not support someone they don't believe will support their liberal viewpoint. It isn't likely on either side, but that side is unquestionable.

a lot of republicans have already got it... i suspect you guys will too eventually, but it may take a couple more election cycles to convince you.

A few more election cycles may happen... when some of us have expired.

this is exactly what the election looked like in 1979... nobody thought reagan had a chance, but he ran a hardcore grassroots campaign based on the forgotten ideal of limited government, and ended up coming out ahead in the end.

As if you remember a thing about 1979... Reagan won by landslide because he had MASSIVE support beyond the media. Until 2004, he easily got the most votes of any elected official in our history(second term). Anyway, 1979 looked little, if at all, like today. Things were very different, except in the way our typical politician saw America. Reagan wasn't typical. The only two candidates I've seen at all like him since he was President are Huckabee and Thompson and they aren't all that close.

Where'd you hear that nobody thought Reagan had a chance, btw? Nothing could be further from the truth. Reagan, you may have read, was a candidate in 1976. He was also the former 2 term Governer of California. He beat Carter in 1980 by well over 8 million votes. He also won the electoral votes by nearly 450. He won 44 states. All this happened because America saw the incumbent President as weak and/or ineffective. In his following election, he carried even more, winning 49 of 50 states. This time, he won 525 electoral votes and carried a who pping 58% of the popular vote. Over 45 million Americans voted for him that time.

Btw, when you noted only 6.6% of Republicans voted in the 2004 Primary... Since the incumbent was the only one expected to reach the ballot, that's expected.

If many are registering simply to vote for Ron in the primary... Good luck seeing any impact. There are already millions who won't vote for him and I'm certain that number easily trumps the number of newly registering voters.

there is also the fact that Ron Paul supporters tend to be young and/or technologically-savvy, which means that many don't have landline phones. most of the people i know that still do are seniors.

Yeah well... Somehow I figure most of your friends aren't even considering owning their own home yet, financially speaking. Thus, their lack of landlines only makes sense.

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by a trail rider

I did support H. Ross Perot though!

If I had supported H. Ross Perot I would never admit it in public. And I would still be kicking myself in the ass knowing it is my fault the country had to endure 8 years of Bill... and now Hillary.

Potentially 16 years of those two idiots because some misguided idealism got in the way of clear, rational thought.

OH, THE SHAME!



(Are you listening Henschman?)

[The Blob]

Originally Posted by STAGE 2

While I agree with you that the 2A is possibly the most important right we have...

You've got to be kidding. I don't know what all the rights are but the most important sure as hell isn't that one.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... those are rights, aren't they? I'm too lazy to look it up to make sure... but I think they are.

So OK, here's your choice... I give you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... or I let you own a gun.

Gee... I'd have to think long and hard about that one...

Every Iraqi family gets to have one full auto AK-47. Fat load of good thats doing them, eh?

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by The Blob

If I had supported H. Ross Perot I would never admit it in public. And I would still be kicking myself in the ass knowing it is my fault the country had to endure 8 years of Bill... and now Hillary.

Potentially 16 years of those two idiots because some misguided idealism got in the way of clear, rational thought.

OH, THE SHAME!



(Are you listening Henschman?)

You're right, but I was as hopeful as he is at one time! Besides, Perot really was/is brilliant as opposed to Bill being a brilliant politician... But alas, the bandwagon was far too small for the band!

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by The Blob

You've got to be kidding. I don't know what all the rights are but the most important sure as hell isn't that one.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... those are rights, aren't they? I'm too lazy to look it up to make sure... but I think they are.

So OK, here's your choice... I give you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... or I let you own a gun.

Gee... I'd have to think long and hard about that one...

Every Iraqi family gets to have one full auto AK-47. Fat load of good thats doing them, eh?

And there are far more guns in America than Iraq... Here's the thing though. We have all the rights you listed. The 2nd Amendment is a big reason WHY the rest still exist!