Paul Campaign Flat Broke...How Can This Be?

reply to post by seabag


It is evident that enthusiasm for Paul's chances toward the nomination has declined. Paul supporters however will continue supporting him, the fanatical ones will continue throwing money behind his campaign. All Paul has t do is last until June and then through to the convention, and if you're just 'lasting' through the elections, you don't need as much money as somebody racing to clinch the nomination, like Santorum or Romney.

Paul's got an estimated 60 delegates at the moment, if he comes out with 100 delegates or more by the convention and there still isn't a nominee, the GOP higher ups will have to pay attention to him.... this is what Paul is hoping for. Although I doubt there will be a convention, Romney may just slap Santorum too far back after Illinios.

reply to post by seabag


I'm sure some of us are aware that Ron Paul just recently received his first (and only) donation from a billionaire, where as the other candidates receive monies from multiple billionaires. So Paul's donations mostly stem from average people, although some do have $$, and service members from the armed forces.

I also hear Santorum is running out of cash, or was it Romney (which is hard to believe but he's spending like no tomorrow)?

Lets find other articles about RP and his monies

Ron Paul's Cash Crunch

www.slate.com...

Is Ron Paul's presidential campaign running low on money? All signs point to "yes." The campaign isn't bottoming out, and it's not taking on debt. But it's not the cash-rich Mule* that tromped through all of 2008's primaries.

Ron Paul’s Campaign Raised $3.3 Million in February

abcnews.go.com...

Ron Paul’s inability to win a single state through this election season is now affecting his ability to raise money.

February fundraising figures show Paul raised about $3.3 million for the month, less than the $4.5 million in January and beginning March with $1.6 million on hand.

The Texas congressman’s campaign filed the report with the Federal Election Commission tonight, four days before the March 20 deadline.

Paul had been a prolific fundraiser. By the end of January he had raised $31 million, placing his second to Mitt Romney among his GOP rivals.

The bulk of the money coming from small-dollar donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group dedicated to tracking money in U.S. politics.

Paul’s campaign does not have “bundlers,” people assigned to raise large amounts of money for the campaign.

Politico reported earlier this month that Endorse Liberty, one of the large Super PAC’s supporting Paul was reassessing its heavy financial support.

Endorse Liberty has tried to use online advertisements to broaden Paul’s appeal. But the Super PAC too is running thin on available cash. Through January, it reported less than $61,000 on hand.

Its clear Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination because they system is rigged and clearly against him. That said, even though RP supporters were hoping for a RP 2012 I'm sure they all knew he wasn't going to win or even be able to compete against Obama. That's fine because RP has changed minds and the future is looking bright

Related articles,
For Ron Paul, winning isn't everything

Paul hesitant to back Romney if he wins nomination

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Swills
Gotta love haters who make things up.

Gotta love people who can't gauge hyperbolic satire from a post.

Have a word with yourself.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Snookie, really, that's the best you can do? The only huge thing about her is her weight! Zoinks! The point is, compared to the other candidates RP owns the internet (and Snookie). If I have to explain that then you and your anti RP friends here are disillusion or living under a rock.

edit on 17-3-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

Why are you getting so defensive? My point is that a huge internet following means nothing.

It never ceases to amaze me how the RP cult takes everything so personally

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Swills
Gotta love haters who make things up.

Gotta love people who can't gauge hyperbolic satire from a post.

Have a word with yourself.

Hyperbole? Absolutely. Satire? , whatever you say

Keep working on it.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Read the post that I was responding too then you will understand why I was talking about the internet and his following.

Defensive? No, having a discussion? Yes.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Read the post that I was responding too then you will understand why I was talking about the internet and his following.

Defensive? No, having a discussion? Yes.

I read it. Yes, you are defensive.

reply to post by Swills


LOL.

Satire isn't one dimensional; there are many facets to it.

I am mocking the claims - made by the acolytes of the Ron Paul cult - that he's somehow popular, just because many sycophants vote en masse in inconsequential online polls, and also populate his somewhat disturbing rallies.

I am merely highlighting the absurdity of the Paulbots' bizarre hero-worshiping, by suggesting that they are being paid to behave in this manner.

Did I really need to spell it out for you ?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


First of all, just because you see it as that doesn't mean it is. Second, if I want to get defensive when someone makes a lame attack against my favorite candidate I have every right, unless it got out of hand and name calling was the outcome, but I was defending attacks against Ron Paul, not being defensive.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


A great example of satire is the Daily Show. The only thing you had in common with satire is your obvious sarcasm (see that 2nd short paragraph from your post in question). So keep working on it, it'll happen one day I'm sure.

: trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

And Mods, sorry about these off topic convos, but it happens when people get defensive Lulz

If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation really wanted to help the world, they would donate at least a billion to a Ron Paul SuperPAC.

reply to post by MrWendal

Let me see if I understand your premise correctly... 

So because Politico said it, that makes it 100% accurate? 

That is funny to me. The bias of the MSM has been very clear and apparent to anyone with eyes who has paid any attention at all to the coverage.

It doesn't matter that politico is the source I used because the numbers they're using are the numbers the Paul camp provided in their financial disclosure reports. 

reply to post by knightsofcydonia

if he doesnt win, it is only because the american sheeple were not ready for his ideas.

You're right about that!! Americans aren't ready for his ideas. Especially legalizing drugs and closing all of the bases we have overseas and weakening our ability to defend ourselves. There aren't enough people drinking the RP Kool aid to go for that BS. Some of us recognize the need to be able to project force. It doesn't take a neocon to understand that those bases serve as a deterrent. 

It seems like only a small niche of people who are open minded enough to shed their beliefs and look at the world from a new perspective. Which is what allows us to see things for what they are and think for ourselves.

'Open minded' and 'new perspective' is code for progressive policies. No thanks!!

People always use the same arguments against Ron Paul.
"One man won't fix the country." is the big one, and it's true for all of the candidates.

Of course one man won't fix the country, but out of the 5 candidates (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Obama) it seems like Paul is the only one who is going to actually TRY to fix the country.

If your country is going bankrupt and hemorrhaging money, you'd think you would put the guy in charge who not only shows a sincere interest in fixing the country, but also PREDICTED all of the bad things that have happened to your country. It just seems like common sense to me.

People write him off anyway though for one reason or another, and all the reasons he's written off for usually seem to go against common sense.

So... sure, he won't "fix" the country. None of the candidates will. I don't see how he's worse than the other options though.

Cheers

Originally posted by tooo many pills
If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation really wanted to help the world, they would donate at least a billion to a Ron Paul SuperPAC.

I do not see them donating to a guy who wants to sell the national parks to developers and get rid of student loans. That is pretty much the opposite of what they would donate to.