Across the web, Ron Paul supporters routinely dismiss poll after poll that indicate the Texas Congressman draws his support from a tiny percentage of the electorate. "Look at his fundraising numbers," they say. "The Ron Paul Revolution is sweeping the nation. The polls aren't designed to tap his support."
There's no question that Mr. Paul's supporters are intensely loyal, but is there any reason to believe they're more numerous than the polls suggest? Some simple arithmetic suggests not.
Assume, for example, that the potential universe of voters (and non-voter contributors such as teenage boys sitting in their parents' basements) numbers about 140 million people. Now assume that no more than 8% of the potential contributors actually support Dr. Paul. That, by the way, is a generous estimate given the national polls.
If that estimate is correct, Representative Paul has a potential "market" of slightly over 11 million contributors. Now, assume that no more than 5% of those supporters contribute to his campaign. If so, that's a tremendously successful fundraising effort, amounting to 560,000 people. (Successfully tapping even 1% of a candidate's supporters for contributions is usually considered a very successful effort.)
Is that a realistic number? Considering the emphasis the Paul campaign and his supporters have placed on fundraising, the expressed intensity of the Paulistas toward their candidate, and their efforts to create "meetup" groups and internet-based networks, it seems not at all unlikely.
Next, assume that the average contribution is $50. Considering that antecdotal evidence suggests that many of the most committed Paulistas claim to have already maxed out their allowed contributions of $2300, assuming a $50 average seems reasonable.
So, how many dollars does the model suggest Rep Paul could raise with a small, highly intense, relatively affluent constituency? Answer: $28 million; a figure somewhat higher than Rep Paul has actually raised throughout the campaign to this point.
Now, there's no guarantee that these assumed numbers are correct. Perhaps Rep Paul's potential support is 10% of the electorate, rather than 8%. Perhaps he can successfully solicit contributions from 10% of his supporters rather than 5%. And perhaps the average contribution is $25, not $50.
It doesn't matter. Play with the assumptions in any number of ways and the results are the same. To raise campaign funds that equal or surpass what Rep Paul has actually raised, a broad base of support, far beyond what has been demonstrated in poll after poll, simply isn't necessary.
All that's required is to assmume that Rep Paul has been uniquely able to tap contributions from his supporters. That makes his campaign unique, but it doesn't make it a "revolution."