Ron Paul Raises over $4M in one day

Remember back in January of this year when Mitt Romney raised a cool million dollars in one day?  Ron Paul just pwned him and every other candidate both Republican and Democrat in this race, except Hillary Clinton who raised 9 million in one day.  In a grassroots fired fundraising event over the internet titled “This November 5th” Paul raised around 4 million dollars.

Today, Nov. 5, marks not only Paul’s best fundraising haul in a single day — approximately $3.75 million by 11 p.m. EST — but online observers say it’s also the most money raised by a candidate on the Web in a single day. And the day’s not over yet. “Damn. Wow. Um, that’s pretty awesome,” said a stunned Jerome Armstrong who served as Howard Dean’s online strategist. Armstrong, the founder of the popular blog MyDD, said Dean raised as much as $700,000 in one day toward the end of the primary race. “But not a million,” Armstrong added. “What Paul is doing — or what his supporters are doing — is really impressive.” You can view all the fundraising data here.

I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul.  I am quite frankly scared about his insistence on an 18th Century foreign policy in this global age. It was fine in 1790 to go insular when it took 3 months to get a sailing ship from Europe to here, and the biggest threat you faced was the English in Canada. It is quite different in this interconnected age when one can fly halfway around the globe in under a day. I do however share many of his economic views and his steadfast refusal to support amnesty.  For me though his foreign policy is a non-starter.  But I will not succumb to not taking him seriously.  We must as a party, and events like yesterday’s prove that.

If we don’t watch it Ron Paul could be our nominee.  We in Massachusetts have seen what grassroots organizing can do.  Both in the case of Deval Patrick and in the case of Jim Ogonowski, whose grassroots army almost toppled the Democratic Machine. 

About Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno

  • nomad943

    Your reluctance to even entertain the concept of reviewing our “national “defense” policiy amazes me.
    Why is it that you need to liken any effort to reign in our empire building ambitions to 18th century policy?
    Do you actualy fear using the “is it actualy in our national interest” guideling to oversea adventure?
    Last time I checked virtualy every nation on this earth uses just that policy and everyone seems to be doing just fine … except of course us and our 9 trillion dollar debt and our currency that is devaluing around 2 percent a week.
    Personaly I like the Japanese model of foreign policy. They trade with everyone, profitably by the way, not running up trillions in current account deficits, and they have a standing army of about zero and a military budget that reflects that.
    There are better things that we need to be investing in as a nation than other people’s problems IMO.

  • Please join us this November 5th for the largest one day political donation event in history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each, creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000.

    He actually received 4.2 million from over 37,000 donors.

    I’m unclear on whether Paul actually beat Mitt’s record or not.  The Globe story you link to says “more than a million.”  Another number I’ve seen on message boards is $3.2 million.  And this Washington Post story says $6.5 million.

  • Festus Garvey

    …but they concern his domestic agenda, which I think many here agree with. 

    On another level, this $ gives Paul the resources to definity create a big unknown in the NH Primary–for both the Dems and Reps (I don’t know enough about Iowa politics). 

    With Unenrolled voters being able to vote in eiother primary, they often influence both primaries.  They voted for John McCain instead of Bill Bradley in 2000 and they voted for Paul Tsgonas instead of H.W. Bush in 1992 and Buchcanun (sp) defeated HW.  So, if Paul draws independents in NH, any hope (and prayer) for Obama is gone.  Also, these independents, coupled with the “Live Free and Die” faction of the NHRP Paul will create chaos in the Republican field.  And while Paul’s TV ads are less than glizty, the message is very effective for both the anti-war and small government crowds.

    What do people think?  Who benefits?  My take is Mitt, McCain and Rudy lose independent votes to Paul and Huckabee don’t lose votes (assuming a he does well in Iowa) from the social conserative base.  You could have 5 Rep candidates each potentially getting 18-23 points and it’s anybody’s guess as to who gets what. (Sorry Fred)

    I have to admit, the Republican primary is far more interesting that the Dems race.  The only scenarios for Edwards or Obama are based on a wing-and-a-prayer.  But there really isn’t a bonafide front-runner in this race and we’re nearly 2 months away from the voting!  Awesome.

  • demolisher

    OK first of Ron Paul is not going to win.  Worst thing that could happen is he goes independent (or back to L?) and screws the real nominee.  But where would his votes come from?  Who knows!

    The great thing about it is that we have a libertarian making big moves in the republican party.  This:

    1.  Cements the R’s as the party of libertarians
    2.  By its success, encourages more of the same
    3.  Maybe brings libertarian voters into the R tent in a more formal way

    Personal views aside, I think the magic (domestic) formula for the future of the country is a pretty libertarian one:  get the government out of my livelihood, and also out of my personal life.  I think most people would agree.

    Perhaps in the next go-round we’ll get a really good candidate who simply leans *more* towards libertarianism than the current crop do.  Presidential campaigns are sometimes not about winning, but about moving the ball (or the debate) a bit this way or that.  Any move away from big government is a good one.

    If we could just ditch a few aspects of social conservativism (and maybe do a little better in the middle east while we’re at it) we’d have a chance to put the ancient progressive movement and the empty Democratic party out of its misery once and for all. 

    Can you even imagine if we had a filibuster proof majority in a party with anti wealth redistribution, anti entitlement and anti pork convictions at its core?  And throw in some states rights?

    NOW you’d be talking.