Just a thought: Ron Paul has shown he can raise enough money to be in the second tier, and even though he’s probably not going to raise much more than that, that cash plus the free media from his bounce could lead to some nuttiness. As we know, New Hampshire’s primaries have a ton of independents, it has a history of going in favor of quirky characters (Pat Buchanan) and Paul’s nutty anti-tax positions jibe with a lot of the New Hampshire state of mind.
What happens when the 9/11 Truth “movement’s” candidate comes in second in New Hampshire - for the Republican nomination?
Hoo boy.
Don’t underestimate Ron Paul as a spoiler. He’s energizing the Libertarian faithful in a big way. As a centrist, I find him compelling. And as a pure anti-war candidate (excluding all other positions), he’s the best of the field.
I find myself in some confusion in 2007 really liking a Republican. Last time that happened was for McCain in an open primary in California.
So sue me, I like passionate smart people. I still hope Obama’s the one, but we’re still /so/ early in the process. I know everyone’s talking like the election is around the corner, but it’s really not.
That’s how I see it anyway. Keep up the good blogging Oliver! Longtime reader, seldom commenter.
The Paul campaign has set a public goal of $12 million for the 4th quarter, more than any of the Republicans raised 3rd quarter. They have a track record of under-promising so my guess is they will exceed that goal.
Oliver,
I think Ron Paul has certainly raised enough to be considered top tier. If you look at cash on hand for the primaries, it’s like this:
Giuliani $10.5 mil
Romney $9 mil (BUT he would only have $500K if he hadn’t given himself an $8.5 mil “loan” this quarter — so he has the money to spend, but it’s important to differentiate that much of it did NOT come from donors and so the $9 mil figure cannot be used to gauge interest in his campaign)
Thompson $7 mil
Paul $5.3 mil
McCain $3.6 mil
Huckabee $600K
The only metric Paul isn’t “top tier” in is the “scientific” polls, but these are skewed against him in several ways, for example Rasmussen polls since August has been asking respondents to choose between Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, and “other”. Only after the respondent presses “other” is he told that Ron Paul et al. are also choices.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rasmussen_Polls_Rigged_against_Ron_Paul_unbelievable
So yes, I think it’s quite clear that Paul is top-tier, especially when you also take into account his huge number of meetup group members (over 50,000 activists, self-funding and self-organizing and very enthusiastic) and his excellent record in straw polls, the best of any candidate:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Ron Paul showing up to a major debate of a slimmed-down field (the total washouts gone, like Tancredo, Brownback and Hunter) would put our eternal war on the front burner of the Republican debate. I’m actually more optimistic about it being there since the media don’t give a shit what Democrats think, and least of all Dennis Kucinich, and that it forces the right-wing Wurlitzer to go apeshit on the war. Anything that brings the Iraq War into the forefront is a good thing.
BTW Oliver, you question whether Ron Paul’s supporters are going to be able to raise more than $5.1 million next quarter. Well, if you go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com you’ll see they are setting a goal for Q4 of $12 million *in online donations alone*, not counting mail-ins and fundraisers.
I would not bet against in supporters in achieving this.
Hey, anything that sucks money away from the Republic party candidates that have a chance to win is alright with me. 9/11 truthers go!!!!11!
Ron Paul has ‘nutty’ anti-tax ideas? I mean who in their right mind likes to give up 50% of their income to some organization that is doing all sorts of things they don’t agree with? And then under threat of violence to boot? What gives the government the right to take money from you violently?
I think the NUT is the one who writes this blog. I mean look at his photo.
Huh?
First of all, if you’re paying 50% of your income in taxes, you’re doing it wrong.
Second, the worst the government can do to you is put you in jail, and that’s after you’re given ample opportunity to pay your back taxes. That’s not to say jail is a good thing or even justifiable but it’s certainly not “violent.”
And no, you’re not going to agree with everything the govt does. I don’t agree with the war but I still have to pay my taxes.
megamoze,
The state you are in is called “learned helplessness.”
Don’t be a sheep, be a human being. Reclaim your rights to direct your own life.
I don’t pay half my income to taxes, so I’m doing something better than you are. Don’t blame the govt because you’re bad at money management.
And if you consider jail “violence” then you, sir, are the one who needs to reclaim your life from whatever paranoid delusional haze you’re living in. Maybe you’d prefer Gitmo. According to your brethren on the right, it’s practically a paradise for the inmates there, and you don’t even need to be charged with anything to go.
And free health care to boot!
I would never vote for a C.F.R. member, and almost all the candidates are C.F.R.
I consider C.F.R. at best to be a danger to our sovereignity and traitors at worst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
If dragging someone off to jail is not a form of violence and violent restraint, what is it? Gitmo is just a more extreme example.
After state, local, and federal taxes are taken into consideration and combined with other governemnt requirements/revenue sources(license fees, catalytic converters, parking stickers, corporate taxes that get passed on as inflation)it is currently estimated that the share of GDP that goes into government coffers is very close to 50 percent and at the highest level ever. Just because you don’t pay it all in a single check, doesn’t mean you are not paying for it.
Food for thought.