Most Of Rand's INDIVIDUAL Donations Came From Out-Of-State (Good Job Everybody!)

[Sola_Fide]

When we work together, we are a political and social force the media still can't understand...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/12/1922987/most-of-rand-pauls-individual.html

Paul, the son of former presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, ranks second behind U.S. Rep.-elect Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, in individual contributions raised out of state, according to an analysis of federal campaign data by the Center for Responsive Politics.

During his campaign, Paul relied heavily on his father's donor base and well-organized Internet"money bombs" to rake in more than $1.4 million in individual contributions — 69 percent of which was raised outside the Bluegrass State as of mid-October. Overall, Paul raised more than $6.7 million in his campaign to defeat Democrat Jack Conway, Kentucky's attorney general. Conway raised more than $4.9 million.

The familial connection also helped catapult Rand Paul into the national media spotlight.

"Rand Paul's father has a very loyal following. That somewhat was transferred over to his son," said Donald Gross, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky. "It's safe to say if he didn't have that last name and family connection he wouldn't be Senator."

 

[malkusm]

"It's safe to say if he didn't have that last name and family connection he wouldn't be Senator."

Yep, I've been saying this for a while. There's a reason everyone got behind Rand, and a reason that he polled well enough early to be considered a viable candidate. It's not like Peter Schiff, Clint Didier, and others were bad candidates....

 

[LibertyEagle]

Most Of Rand's Donations Came From Out-Of-State (Good Job Everybody!)

It didn't really say that, did it? It said 69% of 1.4 million came from out-of-state. The article didn't list where the other 5.3 million came from.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It didn't really say that, did it? It said 69% of 1.4 million came from out-of-state. The article didn't list where the other 5.3 million came from.

You're right LE. Most of the individual donors came from out of state

 

[sailingaway]

Yep, I've been saying this for a while. There's a reason everyone got behind Rand, and a reason that he polled well enough early to be considered a viable candidate. It's not like Peter Schiff, Clint Didier, and others were bad candidates....

You're suggesting it is irrelevant that he grew up listening to Ron Paul? Because I think that's highly relevant, and if Ron had raised Didier (whom I like a lot, by the way) we'd have gotten behind him more solidly too. Schiff I personally just don't see the same way, but BJ and Didier, I really regret from this election.

 

[angelatc]

It didn't really say that, did it? It said 69% of 1.4 million came from out-of-state. The article didn't list where the other 5.3 million came from.

I noticed that too.

 

[Sola_Fide]

By the way, this was used as a talking point against Rand in the campaign, but I just think it is a credit to the grass rroots revolution.

 

[malkusm]

You're suggesting it is irrelevant that he grew up listening to Ron Paul? Because I think that's highly relevant, and if Ron had raised Didier (whom I like a lot, by the way) we'd have gotten behind him more solidly too. Schiff I personally just don't see the same way, but BJ and Didier, I really regret from this election.

Hmm? I think I'm saying the opposite of this.

 

[angelatc]

By the way, this was used as a talking point against Rand in the campaign, but I just think it is a credit to the grass roots revolution.

They've never been interested in these numbers until the small donors started sending checks directly to candidates. If we were funneling money to the RNC, the RSCC, etc etc, they wouldn't even bother mentioning it.

 

[sailingaway]

Hmm? I think I'm saying the opposite of this.

Sorry, I read what you said wrong. I thought you were suggesting it was somehow unfair that people were more able to make a leap of faith with Rand.

 

[malkusm]

Sorry, I read what you said wrong. I thought you were suggesting it was somehow unfair that people were more able to make a leap of faith with Rand.

Ha, no worries, happens to the best of us.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

We did it despite the fact that some in the general forums hated on Rand and trolled this sub-forum

I honestly can't believe we won. I never imagined we'd be so successful when we first started out

We kicked Grayson's ass in the primary. I mean, I almost felt bad for the guy. ALMOST

Then double digits over Conman. That made it even sweeter

A+ team! Especially those of you out on the ground

 

[Matt Collins]

I bet Rand had more individual donations from KY than did Conway.

 

[steined]

Well they don't know where ALL the money came from. All they know is the source of the ITEMIZED donations (aggregate > 200). Of course there is nary a mention of that.

 

[sailingaway]

I bet Rand had more individual donations from KY than did Conway.

I'm sure of it. Conway had special interests on board earlier because he is AG. Rand had actual, spontaneous grass roots.

 

[Promontorium]

Yep, I've been saying this for a while. There's a reason everyone got behind Rand, and a reason that he polled well enough early to be considered a viable candidate. It's not like Peter Schiff, Clint Didier, and others were bad candidates....

If Rand had live and ran in Connecticut instead of Schiff, he would have lost. If Schiff had lived and ran in Kentucky instead of Rand, he might have won.

All money did was give people a chance to be noticed. I think enough recent elections have shown elections can't be outright bought. We gave Schiff and Kokesh plenty of money, and the people heard and rejected them. They might have done better elsewhere. But even the best candidate won't turn commies into libertarians.

 

[malkusm]

If Rand had live and ran in Connecticut instead of Schiff, he would have lost. If Schiff had lived and ran in Kentucky instead of Rand, he might have won.

All money did was give people a chance to be noticed. I think enough recent elections have shown elections can't be outright bought. We gave Schiff and Kokesh plenty of money, and the people heard and rejected them. They might have done better elsewhere. But even the best candidate won't turn commies into libertarians.

This is true too, location has a lot to do with it. We need to run the right people in the right races....haven't quite nailed down that second part yet.

 

[Eric21ND]

If Rand had live and ran in Connecticut instead of Schiff, he would have lost. If Schiff had lived and ran in Kentucky instead of Rand, he might have won.

All money did was give people a chance to be noticed. I think enough recent elections have shown elections can't be outright bought. We gave Schiff and Kokesh plenty of money, and the people heard and rejected them. They might have done better elsewhere. But even the best candidate won't turn commies into libertarians.

I actually don't think many peole heard Schiff. He got out of the gate too late and was wishy-washy with his intentions on running. Meanwhile Rand transversed the entire state of KY and logged like 70,000 miles on his SUV. I didn't care for Schiff's lacksidasical approach to campaigning.

 

[sailingaway]

This is true too, location has a lot to do with it. We need to run the right people in the right races....haven't quite nailed down that second part yet.

We don't even have enough of the first part yet.

 

[thomas-in-ky]

If Schiff had lived and ran in Kentucky instead of Rand, he might have won.

Probably not. But I agree with your basic premise that a combination of things (beyond funding) must come together to enable a winning campaign. They include: Good candidate, name recognition, timing, open and like-minded constituency.

I actually don't think many peole heard Schiff. He got out of the gate too late and was wishy-washy with his intentions on running. Meanwhile Rand transversed the entire state of KY and logged like 70,000 miles on his SUV. I didn't care for Schiff's lacksidasical approach to campaigning.

^^^this too!