Part Two: I was wrong (sort of), a Paul Supporter was right!

Last week I admitted I was wrong about how much money Paul was going to get for his “tea party” and how much Kucinich was going to bring in on Bill of Rights day. A reader had sent an email asking about some of my assumptions and provided some counter argument to them. In hind sight, I was wrong in my assumptions. I don’t think I was wrong 100%, but I was wrong.

Oh, and my soldier enjoyed his day off, I had promised in my first diary if Paul got more than $5 million I would give him the day off. (he spent it holding a Paul sign down town.)

Last week I estimated that Paul has about 66,000 strong donors who have given this Quarter. I still stand by this number as a very good guess. RonPaulGraphs says they have received over 200,000 donations this quarter (Q), which would mean an average of three donations per person this Q. These donors are getting tapped money wise, another claim I still stand by but not as strongly.

In my first diary I had claimed that another bit of evidence that they are taped out is the amount of daily donations. Paul has recently only been getting $30K a day tops, many days it’s in the low $20K’s. Mr. Paul Supporter (PS) says “Regarding the low daily donation totals, this is free flowing money without any campaign solicitations whatsoever. This is normal daily activity as new people stumble onto the campaign and decide to give right there on the spot, people who are outside of the grassroots network, unsolicited by the official campaign, and unaware of any planned donation drives.”

I would argue that Paul’s daily take is really from his dedicated supporters. This is from people who are giving on a regular basis. This is what I do with Kucinich, each pay day I give. It’s not much, $25 a month, but it’s something. Over the year I’ve been able to give over $200, which is a lot for me. I am very sure Paul supporters are doing the same.

Either way, he makes a very good point: “In their most passive state, no less than $20k
rolls in without them lifting a finger. How does this stack up to any other presidential campaign?”

Wow, I missed that completely. With out doing a thing they get $20K a day. I would expect that the daily take from the “first tier” candidates is greater, but it’s from direct mailings, fund raising programs, etc. This is valid and does speak to the dedication of Paul’s supporters. (darn it, why can’t we get that with Kucinich’s campaign!) Since these are small donations from 2,000 people each day, these might be what to look at for his base support. With no growth in new people, each 2,000 donations handing over $25 each time, it’s about $4.6 million per quarter with out Paul doing anything. (again, why can’t we get this in the Kucinich campaign?)

All it takes is for the 66,000 number I estimated making a bit more than two donations a month of $25 to get the 2,000 donors a day number the graph page shows.

So, even though I don’t want to admit it, the numbers show Paul is going to get more money. Lots more. The other presidential candidates I’m sure bring in more per day than Ron Paul, but that is mostly from direct mail and other fund raising drives. Which means that Paul can count on a base level of support through out the campaign. (assuming the recent news reports on his race relations don't change his fans support.) But it also shows that they don't have money to spare. Out side of the "big" donation days they hand over small amounts. Because they don't have a unified program they are beginning to spiral apart.

Paul supporters are very excited about the fact that they "do their own thing" to support the campaign. Mr. PS even says " Regarding the splintering of the grassroots into sub-factions with their own goals, this has been the way they (the grassroots) have operated from the start. When the campaign attempted to reign them in back in the summer and give them some official direction by hiring a grassroots consultant to go around to all the meetups to get everybody on the same page, the grassroots responded like cockroaches scattering at the flick of a light switch. The running joke is that getting these people under control is tantamount to herding cats, and they wear that resistance to assimilation as a badge of honor. The "chipins" and localized projects have been with the grassroots from the start, although in a less organized fashion using simple paypal/amazon/google fundraising options."

(Please note that it's his words, I'm not comparing anyone to a cockroach.)

This is why the Paul campaign has those scary Neo's and the just out there "9/11 truthers" all over. The campaign has no way to tell them they don't want them because they are afraid that the supporters will "scatter". It surely does Paul no help when you get those four skinheads showing up with their "Vote Paul/White Power" posters and paperwork hand outs, but since he is giving no direction to the fans they all see a reflection of their ideology in what he says and no one lets them know they are not welcomed.

Paul's supporters are showing signs of collapse, the famed blimp failed to bring in 40% of what was pledged. "operation live free or die" only raised $50,000 far short of the hundreds of thousands they hoped for. Paul only was able to get 450 supporters to pledge to donate $25 every Friday, far short of the 10,000 they wanted. The Ron Paul forums is full of chip-in's to help with this and that, and each one has posts criticizing it as a waist of money but that their chip-in is better. There are cracks forming.

To use the herding cats metaphor, Paul attracted a lot of cats all at one time by putting out fresh food. To be honest, hearing a Republican talk about ending the war, repealing the Patriot act, getting out of NAFT/GATT was really fresh. I went right to his web page, but it was not up yet. I kept my eye out and even though I supported Kucinich, I was still looking. I gave Paul more look as he talked about defending the Constitution. Just as hungry cats will all flock to one spot when you put out food, after that food is gone they stop flocking.

I saw that the food was not that much and did not stay. Others are seeing the food as the best they ever got and want more. But since they are not starving they want their ideas to be the main one. Since there is no strong boss cat they are beginning to run about pushing this and that shinny object. And like a heard of cats, will fraction and splinter.

If the campaign was getting some dogs or leaders, they might keep them all together for the elections. Because the "cats" are starting to do their own thing it's weakening the "Paul message".  (See posts to on line articles never letters to the editor which contradict each other, Paul wants to go to a gold standard, Paul wants to keep the current system but add a second gold system, or Paul wants to pull all the troops out of Iraq and the rest of the world vs Paul wants to make the US strong militarily like it was against the Soviets - which had troops stationed mostly where they are now.)  Each supporter is preaching the message they want to hear. Paul goes along with this by not reigning in his supporters back to the main message.

It would be like Coke letting every vending machine operator, convince store or supermarket do their own advertising. How effective would that be? You would get 66,000 different messages about Coke. That is what makes Paul so hard to understand. He has 66,000 different messages. Each messenger is projecting what they think he stands for. People see their self in him and most people like who they are. Because they like themselves they don't hesitate to give him money.

This won't last. Paul's fans are trying to put their limited funds into a lot of different things that don't appeal to the voters Paul needs to make it past New Hampshire. His lack of growth in the polls, hovering between 4 and 10% (before the recent racial questions came out), is a direct reflection of his lack of traction in the main block of voters. They have other choices. The gold dollar, anti-CFR/UN, free gun's voter only has Paul. The voter worried about the stability of Social Security has five to six other Republicans to look at on top of the seven Democratic candidates. I've heard it called "the Long Tail" in my Econ 102 class.

You can see that as they get closer to Iowa and New Hampshire the Paul supporters are talking how coming in fourth or fifth in Iowa and in the top four in NH will let Paul surge into Feb 5's Super-Duper Tuesday. Finishing fifth out of five is not good. He will have the cash to go on to Super Tuesday, more than some of the others, but if he does not do well in the first few, watch those cats start fighting over who is to blame for supporting the wrong message. $9 million is not much to spend on 15 states. (assumes that he spends half of the $18 million he raised this Q on Iowa and NH.)

•  tip jar

  I hope this one is a bit better organized. I wrote this on Staff Duty at 0300 over three days. mmm sleep.

  by DrillSgtK on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:18:03 PM PDT

•  I was kinda, sorta, almost, a little bit, nearly,

  quite probably wrong once about something or another that one time I'm sorry to say but big enough to admit.

  Yes there was that one time.

  by Dave the Wave on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:43:42 PM PDT

•  Good points

  I like this diary.

  It's amazing to see how many of his supporters actually don't understand some of his very basic believes and what the outcome of some of his policies would be.

  It still surprises me how many people support a 19th century demagogue though.

  by iliketodrum on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:45:27 PM PDT

  •  I used to have a roommate

    who was doing field work for one of the big liberal 527s. Ron Paul supporter to the hilt. Him and Kucinich. Same deal... zomg he's opposed to the war! Uhm, hello? There's lots of Democrats who'd end the war, why do you need a Republican to do it?

    Effin' crazy. His supporters are all a bunch of people who want something or other that is currently illegal to be legal. Pot, mostly.

    She quit the campaign, calling them a "bunch of liberal fascists". Meanwhile, she hung out with one of the local loony-lefty Democrats who supported Kucinich as well and called anyone Jewish or who supported Israel at any level a "Zionist".

    There's a reason I don't support Kucinich, by the by, and it's because I've met more than my share of anti-Semitic Kucinich supporters. Many of his people are quixotic, many are unreasonable, and most, if not all, will not join the Democratic Party except to vote in its primaries. These people, as far as I'm concerned, can die in a fire. Anyone who says "the two parties are the same!" after 2000 needs to be shot.

    by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

    •  Don't want to open the can of worms

      but are you sure these people are anti-Semitic rather than just pro-Third-World anybody (therefore pro-Palestinian)? I have never met a Kucinich person who was anti-Jewish...I think a lot of them are Jewish. "Quixotic" and "unreasonable" are the signature qualities of Kucinich-supporters. However, if they are willing to vote for the Democratic nominee in November (however unwillingly), it's worth putting up with their babbling. (If they're not, screw 'em.)

      by Alice in Florida on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:25:11 PM PDT

      •  Anyone that

        refers to a Jew as "Zionist", regardless of their level of support for Israel, is anti-Semitic as far as I'm concerned, or at least display a complete and utter lack of understanding of what the hell a Zionist is.

        And they certainly aren't Jewish if they're throwing around the Zionist epithet. A friend of mine, who is Jewish, wanted to rip the heads off a couple Kucinich supporters after they referred to him as Zionist.

        That is what I made sure to make sure the anti-Semitic references came before the "many, most, and all" sections. They are a vocal minority, but I haven't seen as many in any other camp but Paul's.

        (and this, mind you, is coming from someone who actually knows someone who is a Zionist, and they're damn proud of that fact.)

        by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:06:54 PM PDT

        •  Ignorance.

          Your post is ignorant.  I happen to be Jewish, yet I am completely against Zionism.  Zionism is far from an anti-semitic term, unless you recognize the truth, which is that Palestinians are a semitic people, so in that regard, it would be.  But certainly not anti-Jewish:

          Zionism (noun):  
          A movement for the reestablishment, the development and the protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.  It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Hertzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

          In other words, any Jew who supports the state of Israel is a Zionist.  As for your "jewish friend" who is offended by the "epithet", he is an ignorant Jew.  The government of Israel considers itself a Zionist government, Israel is a Zionist country and anyone who supports Israel is a Zionist.  My father, for instance.
          Personally, I disagree with Zionism.  I don't believe that diasporated Jews such as myself should have some "right of return" to live on stolen land.  I also don't believe in ghetto-izing an indigenous people based on an ownership claim as dubious as "the bible old testament".
          However, the fact remains, Zionist is not an insult, and is actually considered a point of pride to Israel, as it's existence is based on the notion of Zionism.
          There, now you won't be so ignorant when you speak of Jewish people.

          by Mannabass on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:22:45 PM PDT

          •  It certainly is to some

            and many of my Jewish friends respond the same way: Zionism is against everything a Jewish person should stand for. It mostly involves a feeling of superiority and a God-ordained right to possess a piece of Middle Eastern land. And to hell with those who used to live on it.

            So of the Jewish people I know, yeah, they must despise Israel, and be completely ignorant- because they view Zionism as racism against Palestinians and to be completely against what a Jewish person should stand for. Perhaps this is why I derived "anti-Semitic", because they view it as completely contrary to the faith.

            That, and the one person I know who calls themself a "proud Zionist", they think the state of Israel should enter Palestine (or what would be Palestine, anyway) and butcher the Arabs to the last man. I'm sorry, perhaps my "ignorance" has been created by my experiences with those of the Jewish persuasion who I have encountered in my life.

            There, now you won't be so ignorant when you speak to people who might not understand a term the way you do. You can reeducate without calling people "ignorant", you know.

            by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:39:01 PM PDT

            •  I apologize for hurling insults...

              I just get frustrated with the lack of understanding judaism gets, such as this:

              It mostly involves a feeling of superiority

              That has nothing to do with the definition of Zionism.  If you believe Israel has a right to exist on Palestinian land, you are a Zionist.
              There are some misconceptions about Judaism that are mostly held by Jews, which is sad, and I work to clear them up.

              1. Zionism is not an insult, it's a geopolitical point of view.

              2. Anti-Semitic is a misunderstood word and should be eliminated from our vocabulary or used correctly.  The Palestinians are a Semitic peoples, so unless Israel can be called anti-semitic, we should just retire the phrase.

              3. The "right of return" is bogus, as only around 10% of Jews actually trace back to Palestine.  90% genetically trace back to Russia and the Ukraine, where there were lots of conversions to Judaism from way, way back.

              And most important:

              4. It should never be misconstrued as a contradiction when a Jew says they are pro-Jewish, anti-Israel.

              Again, I apologize and next time I will try to make my point without insulting namecalling.

              by Mannabass on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:14:10 PM PDT

              •  Quite alright

                I'm perfectly happy being put in my place when I'm using incorrect information.

                Apology accepted. :)

                by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:34:14 PM PDT

    •  It's been pretty well established..

      on this site that a person can be opposed to specific Israeli policies without being an "anti-semite."

      That said, this statement should be on a bumpersticker:

      "Anyone who says 'the two parties are the same!' after 2000 needs to be shot."

      by rhetoricus on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

      •  Oh, absolutely

        I'm rather critical of many of Israel's policies myself and I'm no anti-Semite. I'm referring to when someone refers to the "Zionists trying to destroy Palestine", etc. Uneducated, or anti-Semitic.

        And yes, the bumper sticker comment is coming from a 2000 safe state Nader voter.

        by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:17:36 PM PDT

        •  The whole point of Zionism

          is to create a Jewish nation on all Palestinian land.  "Destroy Palestine" is hyperbole, but what do you call it when you "settle" land that already has indigenous people living on it?

          by Mannabass on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:24:50 PM PDT

          •  Some people call it ...

            America :)  Ask the Native Americans about it.

            I like your point about Zionism.  Isn't it interesting how words tend to take on "offensive" connotations after they are used inappropriately for long enough.  It tends to add to the confusion when trying to have a civil conversation.

            See also the term "liberal."  I have never considered it a put down, but others sure do.

            by jokertim777 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:56:28 PM PDT

            •  Yes.

              The history of our country is tragic indeed.  At least we got the Constitution and Bill of Rights out of it.  However, that in no way excuses the theft of this land from her people.
              Thanks, I think Zionist, anti-semitic and liberal are all misunderstood words and should be used correctly or not at all.

              by Mannabass on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:16:53 PM PDT

            •  "America" was named after Amerigo Vespucci

              the Italian cartographer and early New World explorer, 1454 - 1512.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Amerigo, from the Latin "Americus", meaning "work power"

              This has been another literacy moment brought to you by a non Hallmark™ source.

              by AmericanRiverCanyon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:14:53 PM PDT

•  The reason Ron Paul supporter contribute more

  than Kucinich supporters is probably that Ron Paul supporters believe in money, and Kucinich supporters generally don't. They find money distasteful, they don't like the influence of money in politics...a sentiment many Democrats share, but what separates Kucinich supporters from other Dems is that they are unwilling to compromise with the existing political reality for the sake of winning.

  by Alice in Florida on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:28:42 PM PDT

  •  Maybe, or maybe they believe that their $$$

    Maybe they believe that their $$$ better spent by them in their own districts as in kind contributions - e.g. donating the labor, the ink and the paper to print out and distribute the Kucinich position paper PDFs or paying to attend functions at in local Democratic establishments to lobby elected officials and party leaders on passing Kucinich's current legislative agenda... like impeaching Cheney!

    by ImpeccableLiberalCredentials on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:03:25 PM PDT

•  recent news reports on his race relations???

  You call kos digging up a 15 year old article a recent news report?

  by Jim Riggs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:41:23 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    With all due respect to Kos, it is just recycled trash.  Pure smear tactic at its dirtiest.  This accusation has been answered, and answered, and answered to death.

    I'd much rather see an intelligent discussion of policy over an argument over who's the bigger racist any day (not implying that anyone is in anyway a racist whatsoever).

    But hey, if politics weren't so dirty, we might actually get more than 50% of elidgable voters to turn out.  Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

    Maybe I should do an article on how dirty political tricks accomplish more voter suppression than any other technique used today.

    by jokertim777 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:03:42 PM PDT

  •  wrote this well before kos

    posted his stuff. I was thinking about Paul's Meet the Press visit where he said he  felt the civil rights act was bad, or the CNN report that quoted Paul as saying the civil war should not have been because the "slaves would have been freed eventually" or the New York Times media report about a white power leader who has met with Paul many times when he attended the Taft club (which is run by people who the Southern Poverty Law Center list as known racists) or the willing acceptance of money from hate group leaders or voting against honoring Rosa Parks.

    All that in the last four days.

    I find all these things a weak ties, but boy they do add up. Then that posting from a newsletter that Paul "wrote" but did not write? It just does not look good for him even if the allegations are unfounded it's hard to over look all these things.

    by DrillSgtK on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:15:07 PM PDT

    •  Doesn't look good for him?

      What? He's now going to get five percent of the vote instead of maybe seven? I have a feeling that these seemingly coordinated attacks have less to do with him attracting votes as the do with him attracting internet money.

      I watched his MTP appearance. The point he made that stuck with me is the fact that we're the only country in the world who had to have a civil war in order abolish slavery. The lessons he took from the civil war he applied his war policy in our time. It's too bad that more politicians didn't do the same.

      :)

      by Jim Riggs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:58:24 PM PDT

•  Why all this attention to Ron Paul from

  Freepers, LittleGreenFootballs ans Kos etc. if he is only single digits in the polls? He's not going anywhere. If he gets any traction, his racist past will be exposed to everyone. And I think Russert (one of the best interviewers in the business) went easy on Paul.

  by lanceman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:59:49 PM PDT