How come Ron Paul doesn't have more contributors? Are libertarians poor?

Thorgrim · 07-17-2007, 10:52 PM

Look at the energy Obama is getting online, he's got MILLIONS online from people giving $20, $40...

What's so special about him that people want to give him that money RIGHT NOW? Really I don't see it

Ron Paul got media publicity via the first GOP debate, then he had his intial money success, beating McCain

Why isn't the money flooding in...I see the posts on DIAC, I know libertarians across the internet are all worked up...why aren't they throwing so much money at him he wouldn't know what to do, he could make this the turning point that both parties go "wow, we need to take a serious look at libertarians, they get voters and money"

NH is an extremely libertarian state, that is his one big spot, and it could be the biggest chance libertarians get in the next 50 years...and what, where's the money?

He should have $50 million, easy...all these libertarians on the internet have these stories about how they became successful without the government, either they are all lies, or they are true and libertarians are cheap about their money and unreliable voters

Either way, if Ron Paul can't make either a top-3 finish in NH or be one of the top 3 in fundraising by then...I don't see why anyone should take libertarians seriously as a voting bloc (not as a philosophy)

Dumpy Dooby · 07-17-2007, 11:33 PM

Well as a libertarian, I can assure you that I hate the guy. Maybe other libertarians just feel the same way as me.

motivez · 07-18-2007, 03:42 AM

It's interesting that Obama has so many MORE small donor's than any other candidate honestly.. I would have honestly thought Edwards would lead the pack with his populist message.. but I guess Obama's charm

As far as why Ron Paul doesn't have more, I'd guess that his campaign is still getting going and gaining momentum, but do you have any numbers on how many donors he has?

I disagree that Ron Paul will determine the success / failure of the "libertarian voting bloc", because he's running as a Republican (despite an overwhelmingly libertarian philosophy), meaning there are many people who would have to change their political party officially in order to vote in the primaries (depending on state I guess, I don't know NH or whatever laws about that)

I think the libertarian philosophy is something that's both new and old at the same time, in that it's something most Americans are just now becoming acquainted with.. voting blocs aren't built over night.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 04:22 AM

I didn't say it meant the end of L, i'm just saying people are going to treat libertarians like they treat 18 year old voters...a little "oh yeah...here's a website for you" and then walk away...while Ohio moderates who lean towards the democrats or republicans depending on the weather are going to get all the attention

motivez · 07-18-2007, 05:03 AM

Well, I think it's hard for any philosophy seen as a "third party" to break in, especially when Democrats and Republicans alike actively seek to block them from televised debates debates (where most voters really start to learn about the candidates), from being on the voting ballot, etc..

I'm sure libertarians vote, what use would it be for them to take all sorts of principled stands on various issues and then not work to participate in elections?

But, I don't have any statistics to back that up. Maybe someone else does.

motivez · 07-18-2007, 08:38 AM

Here's something interesting:

Military support for Paul

So we now know that, measured in terms of financial support, Ron Paul, the one GOP candidate who actually backs individual liberty against government power, is now ahead of Huckabee, Brownback, Thompson (Tommy) and Tancredo. He’s the alternative to the Big Three. But guess who are among his strongest supporters? The U.S. military. Paul has a staggering 52.53 percent of all military contributions.

www.kansascity.com | 07/17/2007 | BLOG BITS: Military support for Ron Paul; ‘Crush on Obama’ girl returns; food versus fuel debate

I wonder if his campaign will latch on to that news and try to build some momentum off of it? I can think of about a dozen different slogans with "support the troops" that he could use to fundraise.

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2007, 09:15 AM

Holy shit, over 50% contributions from the military?! That is fucking insane.

thomez · 07-18-2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Holy shit, over 50% contributions from the military?! That is fucking insane.

old news

A new Ron Paul Thread

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

old news

A new Ron Paul Thread

Ohhh, it's just 50% of the Republican contributions from the military. I thought it was 50% of to total.

Now, what % of military contributions go to dems, and what % to repubs?

lew · 07-18-2007, 12:08 PM

Thorgrim hates Paul so much

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Thorgrim hates Paul so much

You kidding, I was loving watching him in the GOP debate, it was so refreshing to hear a candidate on national television talk about how our foreign policy lead to our current situation...hinting at our military support for Israel and other international (what i would consider) mistakes

It was the best I've felt politically in months, I must have watched him say that 10x when it was released on crooksandliars

kinggovernor · 07-18-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Ohhh, it's just 50% of the Republican contributions from the military. I thought it was 50% of to total.

Now, what % of military contributions go to dems, and what % to repubs?

probably 80-20 republican to democrat

DosEquis · 07-19-2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

probably 80-20 republican to democrat

until they get out

Thorgrim · 07-19-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

until they get out

I was going to OCS a few years ago, considering anyway, thank god I changed my mind...people retired 10+ years were told they had to serve, a ton of them quit their jobs to go to iraq and then they were told to go home...

Not to mention the duty extensions...I think I'd be more of a soldier in Iraq who is an American rather than an American soldier

kinggovernor · 07-22-2007, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

until they get out

its funny, I think most of the generais population is more liberal when they are younger and get more conservative as they age. Veterans seems to be the opposite, most members are conservatives but the older veterans that I see are about 50-50 conservative liberal.

DosEquis · 07-23-2007, 03:36 PM

If i were libertarian i'd have trouble dealing with the voice in the back of my head that kept telling me that my donation is essentially wasted on 1-2% of the popular vote.

Perhaps thats how a lot of them feel, just not publically.

Thorgrim · 07-23-2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If i were libertarian i'd have trouble dealing with the voice in the back of my head that kept telling me that my donation is essentially wasted on 1-2% of the popular vote.

Perhaps thats how a lot of them feel, just not publically.

Then they're never going to be anything more than a party a lot smaller than the American Communists used to be and a movement that sticks around forever but never gets anywhere like Ross Perot's party

DosEquis · 07-23-2007, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Then they're never going to be anything more than a party a lot smaller than the American Communists used to be and a movement that sticks around forever but never gets anywhere like Ross Perot's party

They need to start on local levels in states where there are a lot of "constitutional" republicans and independents would be apt to vote for them. They need city council positions, state legislator positions, maybe some congressmen, and other smaller offices filled first. If there were 50 congressional libertarians their voice would be much, much louder. To me it seems they are trying to jump from zero to president, and they have no real history of governing. The trust has not been established that their ideas will work.

Just my opinion.

Thorgrim · 07-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They need to start on local levels in states where there are a lot of "constitutional" republicans and independents would be apt to vote for them. They need city council positions, state legislator positions, maybe some congressmen, and other smaller offices filled first. If there were 50 congressional libertarians their voice would be much, much louder. To me it seems they are trying to jump from zero to president, and they have no real history of governing. The trust has not been established that their ideas will work.

Just my opinion.

They've tried that, many times, they've gotten libertarians in state houses before (remember there are thousands of seats) but they always get voted out...as of 2004 and 2006 they have lost every single elections at the state level (and obviously the national level)

They do have a few dogcatchers in some local communities that identify themselves as libertarians, often after they are elected and their "actions" going completely un-noticed by the community