• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Check out Ron Pauls fundrasing for the next 24 hours

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Paul is attracting thousands of people who have never voted before...They are never included in the polling.

People are drawn to Paul's message when they hear it. He is promising a radical change from the corrupt system we have today in America, and that appeals to millions.
Click to expand...
Dean is attracting thousands of people who have never voted before...They are never included in the polling.

People are drawn to Dean?s message when they hear it. He is promising a radical change from the corrupt system we have today in America, and that appeals to millions.

Sounds like a repeat of 2004 when Howard Dean was the talk of the primaries right up until the first vote was cast and all that ?support? never showed up.
 
One of the National Review guys is saying that his support might be coming from Nader type voters. Anti-war/green party type.

That would explain why he tanks in the Republican polls.

Maybe if they did a poll of ALL candidates without regards to political affiliation he would do better than 3%, but I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Paul is attracting thousands of people who have never voted before...They are never included in the polling.

People are drawn to Paul's message when they hear it. He is promising a radical change from the corrupt system we have today in America, and that appeals to millions.
Click to expand...
Dean is attracting thousands of people who have never voted before...They are never included in the polling.

People are drawn to Dean?s message when they hear it. He is promising a radical change from the corrupt system we have today in America, and that appeals to millions.

Sounds like a repeat of 2004 when Howard Dean was the talk of the primaries right up until the first vote was cast and all that ?support? never showed up.
Click to expand...

How much money did Dean raise to show actual support? I'd say most people willing to dish out an average of $100 to a candidate are pretty likely to show up and translate that financial backing into a vote. And for every 1 that's willing to show monetary support, there's probably 10 to 20 who will vote. I cannot believe that a candidate could successfully raise money without translating that into real numbers at the polls when it counts. Except perhaps the candidates receiving their funds from corporations.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One of the National Review guys is saying that his support might be coming from Nader type voters. Anti-war/green party type.

That would explain why he tanks in the Republican polls.

Maybe if they did a poll of ALL candidates without regards to political affiliation he would do better than 3%, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the Republicans he's running against are faux conservatives, save one or two candidates. Pretty sad. I feel like the republican party of old has lost it's identity. The same can be said of the democrats as well.
 
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
How much money did Dean raise to show actual support? I'd say most people willing to dish out an average of $100 to a candidate are pretty likely to show up and translate that financial backing into a vote. And for every 1 that's willing to show monetary support, there's probably 10 to 20 who will vote. I cannot believe that a candidate could successfully raise money without translating that into real numbers at the polls when it counts. Except perhaps the candidates receiving their funds from corporations.
Click to expand...
Ummm as of September 30 2003, a month prior to this point in the election cycle, Dean LEAD ALL DEMOCRATS in fundraising. At that point he had $25 million, which I believe is FAR more than Paul has raised to this point. By the time it was done Dean raised a total of about $50 million. At one point Dean also led in the national polls.

What was it you were saying about fund raising and national support????
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
How much money did Dean raise to show actual support? I'd say most people willing to dish out an average of $100 to a candidate are pretty likely to show up and translate that financial backing into a vote. And for every 1 that's willing to show monetary support, there's probably 10 to 20 who will vote. I cannot believe that a candidate could successfully raise money without translating that into real numbers at the polls when it counts. Except perhaps the candidates receiving their funds from corporations.
Click to expand...
Ummm as of September 30 2003, a month prior to this point in the election cycle, Dean LEAD ALL DEMOCRATS in fundraising. At that point he had $25 million, which I believe is FAR more than Paul has raised to this point. By the time it was done Dean raised a total of about $50 million. At one point Dean also led in the national polls.

What was it you were saying about fund raising and national support????
Click to expand...

That's why I asked the question. And of the 50 million, how much was actually donated by individuals?
 
You need to Google Howard Dean and educate yourself.

Howard Dean was THE talk of the 2004 primary.
He led in national polls for a bit and lead in Iowa right up till the voting started.
He raised the most money up until the voting started.
He was on the cover of Time or Newsweek.
Republicans were talking about Howard Dean winning and how to face him in the national election.

In short Dean was the real thing right up until voting started. Paul does not even begin to compare to Dean. Paul can only dream of accomplishing what Dean did. Dean came in 3rd in Iowa and it was the end of his campaign, if Paul came in 3rd it would be the biggest upset of year.

Wake up and stop drinking the Kool Aid. 57 days from now the voting starts, 58 days from now Paul will be gone.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You need to Google Howard Dean and educate yourself.

Howard Dean was THE talk of the 2004 primary.
He led in national polls for a bit and lead in Iowa right up till the voting started.
He raised the most money up until the voting started.
He was on the cover of Time or Newsweek.
Republicans were talking about Howard Dean winning and how to face him in the national election.

In short Dean was the real thing right up until voting started. Paul does not even begin to compare to Dean. Paul can only dream of accomplishing what Dean did. Dean came in 3rd in Iowa and it was the end of his campaign, if Paul came in 3rd it would be the biggest upset of year.

Wake up and stop drinking the Kool Aid. 57 days from now the voting starts, 58 days from now Paul will be gone.
Click to expand...

You're right, we should support candidates that are more likely to win, not those that hold ideals close to our own.

What a hack :roll:
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You need to Google Howard Dean and educate yourself.

Howard Dean was THE talk of the 2004 primary.
He led in national polls for a bit and lead in Iowa right up till the voting started.
He raised the most money up until the voting started.
He was on the cover of Time or Newsweek.
Republicans were talking about Howard Dean winning and how to face him in the national election.

In short Dean was the real thing right up until voting started. Paul does not even begin to compare to Dean. Paul can only dream of accomplishing what Dean did. Dean came in 3rd in Iowa and it was the end of his campaign, if Paul came in 3rd it would be the biggest upset of year.

Wake up and stop drinking the Kool Aid. 57 days from now the voting starts, 58 days from now Paul will be gone.
Click to expand...

58 days and we'll see. I'm not quiting and I know RP's not quitting any time soon either. The MSM isn't going to chew him up like they did Dean because they're doing everything they can to just completely ignore him. I do see a great deal of similarities between RP's campaign and Dean's and can't help but draw the conclusion that this is not accidental. Something tells me that RP's campaign was modeled after what worked for Dean and they've probably got theories and contingencies for what failed Dean. When it's all said and done, NONE of us here know whether or not RP will have a significant presence in the republican primaries. What I do know is that you dipshits saying that we should just give up because you say so are just as ignorant as you're trying to label those of us that support RP. If you feel comfortable just going along with who the media tells you has a shot, then you will always be a servant of your government rather than the other way around. Until enough people in this country begin to understand and believe that it is THEY who are supposed to determine who runs this country, not the MSM and the banking interests that support them, we will be doomed to many more GWBs. Rudy Hillary is a joke and if you don't see that, then I contend you are the fool who's consumed too much Kool Aid courtesy of The Establishment!
 
I almost wished I'd sent in some money so that when Hillary is done f**king it out of me anyway I can at least say I tried.

If you feel comfortable just going along with who the media tells you has a shot, then you will always be a servant of your government rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...

You are right. Objectively, RP is not a bad candidate at all, but coming from an unpopular (for the crappy politicians) position and being a veritable unknown, the thorn in his side has been the "he doesn't have a chance", so even those who otherwise would have supported him may not do so and rather their vote goes to somebody who has a better chance (but may suck).

Anyway, the stages of democracy are:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

We are at the early part of the 7th stage now.
 
Bamacre poses an interesting question---------------This is why I think it will be very interesting if Paul decides to run as a 3rd party directly against Rudy and Hillary.

Anyone can declare themselves as a candidate for President. And for that matter, every election, a few crackpots will vote for the undeclared candidacy's of characters like Mickey Mouse or Goofy by using a write in vote which is always our right even in an era of electronic voting.

But getting your name on State printed ballots involve following various legitimacy tests and filing early. For Ron Paul, to get his name on as a third party ballot requires action now, by the Republican convention in the summer of 2008, its will be far too late.

In recent American history, George Wallace, H. Ross Perot, Pat Bucannin, and Ralph Nader have been political players only after getting their names on the ballot.

A write in candidacy almost never works.
 
A large number of republicans believe the Iraq war is a mess, and we should bring our troops home asap. They have only one choice in the primaries, Ron Paul. Meanwhile the pro-war group is going to have their vote split between Giuliani, Mccain, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, etc.

This vastly increases Paul's chances of getting the nomination, and it has the neocons scared sh!tless.

Unless the other candidates flip flop 180 degrees on the war and adopt Paul's stance, I don't think any of them have a chance at the nomination. And even if Paul loses the primaries, with 75% of the country against the war, anyone BUT him will be going down in flames in the general election. If the GOP rejects paul, 8 years of Hillary are guaranteed.
 
After Bush I hope America will have woken up.

I look at it this way from what others are saying, maybe Ron Paul isn't the best, BUT one thing I do know, he's the least corruptable.

Maybe most people just don't see the corruption in our country, even after having a clown like Bush in office...

Maybe many Americans don't see the truths that have played out over the past 4 years, or they don't want to see, don't care to see, or are to afraid to see.

So what do we take, someone with better abilities and more likely to be corrupted again, that will keep eroding away at our Constitution and Democrat way of living, or pick someone with lesser abilities, but will stand more for truth and American preservation?

Don't people realize at the rate we are going, we are heading towards a state of no Constitution.

What's the point of having a so called great leader if it's going to lead to more destruction of the Constitution of the United States?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjOwoIydTDI

I hadn't seen that video yet.

This guy is a star. Even on issues like the Rosa Parks thing where you could seemingly just vote yes he sticks to his beliefs and his morality tells him no. I don't think there is a devious bone in his body and I defend the fact that I think he is completely transparent and 100% honest in his voice and has no other interests in gaining political power other than to help make the US a better place.

But from a marketing standpoint I see his flaw. People look as his voting record and his views, and see it as bad (because it stirs things up a lot, would create a lot of change which people tend to shy away from) but they don't look deeper into his logic behind these things.

The Rosa Parks medal for example. He would gladly give her one and pay for it out of his pocket, but just doesn't feel it's responsible for him to agree to it and have it paid for by taxpayers.

This guy is way smarter than most give him credit for. He actually has a sophisticated view and backs everything up with logic and historical facts.


But with that said, I'm also going to say that I don't think he'll get the nomination. For a while I thought he had a chance but I see it a bit clearer now. It comes down to change and intelligence. Americans (and everybody in the world for that matter) fear it, and are more able to swallow slow negative change, than drastic positive change. Even though most of what he proposes wouldn't get passed in congress (like getting rid of the fed, irs, etc), people still fear the possibility of these things without looking at the the logic behind his views. And the reason most cant look at the logic behind his views is because a lot of it is way beyond the average persons scope. He has studied Austrian economics, and is an extremely intelligent individual. Intelligent policies need to be understood by interlligent people for them to make sense and the fact is that on average, the population is not smart enough to get what he's saying.
 
Originally posted by: jdoggg12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjOwoIydTDI

I hadn't seen that video yet.

This guy is a star. Even on issues like the Rosa Parks thing where you could seemingly just vote yes he sticks to his beliefs and his morality tells him no. I don't think there is a devious bone in his body and I defend the fact that I think he is completely transparent and 100% honest in his voice and has no other interests in gaining political power other than to help make the US a better place.

But from a marketing standpoint I see his flaw. People look as his voting record and his views, and see it as bad (because it stirs things up a lot, would create a lot of change which people tend to shy away from) but they don't look deeper into his logic behind these things.

The Rosa Parks medal for example. He would gladly give her one and pay for it out of his pocket, but just doesn't feel it's responsible for him to agree to it and have it paid for by taxpayers.

This guy is way smarter than most give him credit for. He actually has a sophisticated view and backs everything up with logic and historical facts.


But with that said, I'm also going to say that I don't think he'll get the nomination. For a while I thought he had a chance but I see it a bit clearer now. It comes down to change and intelligence. Americans (and everybody in the world for that matter) fear it, and are more able to swallow slow negative change, than drastic positive change. Even though most of what he proposes wouldn't get passed in congress (like getting rid of the fed, irs, etc), people still fear the possibility of these things without looking at the the logic behind his views. And the reason most cant look at the logic behind his views is because a lot of it is way beyond the average persons scope. He has studied Austrian economics, and is an extremely intelligent individual. Intelligent policies need to be understood by interlligent people for them to make sense and the fact is that on average, the population is not smart enough to get what he's saying.
Click to expand...

Wolf really tried to set Paul up in that interview with all his "No" votes but Paul came through very nicely. They work hard to make him sound radical yet he always somehow comes through clear & concise.
 
Originally posted by: jdoggg12

The Rosa Parks medal for example. He would gladly give her one and pay for it out of his pocket, but just doesn't feel it's responsible for him to agree to it and have it paid for by taxpayers.
Click to expand...

You do know that it isn't funded by taxpayers right?

SEC. 5. FUNDING.

(a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS- There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act.

(b) PROCEEDS OF SALE- Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

Wait, lets see where the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund comes from...

The United States Mint?s Public Enterprise Fund is financed by the sale of circulating coins to the Federal Reserve and the sale of numismatic and bullion coins and other products to customers worldwide.

Ooops.

Guess things haven't changed from the ol' Ron Paul Survival Report then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top