Paul: "we are going to have a lot more money in the bank at the end of the 3Q than...

akalucas

Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
695
It's encouraging to hear him say "we are going to have a lot more money in the bank at the end of the 3Q than we did at the 2Q". I wonder how much more. Im just glad we are hearing it from a reliable source this time.

He said this yesterday in the NH speech

says it at the 1:30 minutes point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1y2hEDsrgc
 
I wonder what He thinks back to when he was bringing in 6500 a day; now it's 6500 an hour. LOL!
 
Reminds me of how a friend who is an economist with the Fed would tell me that the market analysts would try to measure the thickness of Alan Greenspan's briefcase as he headed into Fed Reserve board meetings, and whether he looked upbeat (Alan Greenspan upbeat -- LOL) or not. The markets would respond accordingly.

You guys have me ROFL. Did Ron Paul use hand gestures when he said that? 'Cause that could be an entirely different number. :D
 
:) he was moving his hands up and down about 5 times and had all five fingers open, so i say 5 million.
 
Reminds me of how a friend who is an economist with the Fed would tell me that the market analysts would try to measure the thickness of Alan Greenspan's briefcase as he headed into Fed Reserve board meetings, and whether he looked upbeat (Alan Greenspan upbeat -- LOL) or not. The markets would respond accordingly.

You guys have me ROFL. Did Ron Paul use hand gestures when he said that? 'Cause that could be an entirely different number. :D

that is the stupidest thing ever heard of
 
If you watch the youtube video he is waving his hands up and down and making huge gestures; in addition; he is standing to the side of the podium. I suggest that since he is using both hands with open fingers that it is 10 million. LOL!
 
Am i the only one who finds in hilarious and astounding that Paul says the campaign has been saving monies in the third quarter? :p
Everyone else is borrowing from future funds.
 
The comments on this thread gave me a good chuckle for the day! Thanks everyone!

They remind me of the shirt that says "I'm standing next to stupid".

Now, was he wiggling his fingers when he was waving his hands up and down? That would mean a much bigger number. :D
 
Last edited:
Yeah, what'd he get in Quarter two, 2.5million? So four million in quarter 3 would be a great improvement, and five or more would be absolutely spectacular. Especially since fund raising typical SLOWS during during the summer months.


I think it would be awesome if it turns out everyone made less money on the 3Q than the 2Q and Ron Paul ends up having 2x more than 2Q. Just having the 5 million alone would give him a lot of coverage, but can you imagine if he also was the only candidate that improved upon 2Q numbers and has the full 5 mill cash in hand! You guys think we will beat Thompson's and Mccain's cash in hand numbers?
 
I think it would be awesome if it turns out everyone made less money on the 3Q than the 2Q and Ron Paul ends up having 2x more than 2Q. Just having the 5 million alone would give him a lot of coverage, but can you imagine if he also was the only candidate that improved upon 2Q numbers and has the full 5 mill cash in hand! You guys think we will beat Thompson's and Mccain's cash in hand numbers?

yeah... but what if the media STILL ignores him? STILL calls him a "long shot" while interviewing him? He's polling 4% nationally, but they keep saying it anyway, and then they lie on his poll numbers
 
yeah... but what if the media STILL ignores him? STILL calls him a "long shot" while interviewing him? He's polling 4% nationally, but they keep saying it anyway, and then they lie on his poll numbers

The reason the media put an emphasis on money raised is because money buys VOTES. So they can ignore the fundraising report, the cash on hand, and anything else they'd like, but Ron Paul is going to have money to buy advertising in NH, IA, and elsewhere. Legally, they have to air his commercials if he pays for them. :D
 
I think it would be awesome if it turns out everyone made less money on the 3Q than the 2Q and Ron Paul ends up having 2x more than 2Q. Just having the 5 million alone would give him a lot of coverage, but can you imagine if he also was the only candidate that improved upon 2Q numbers and has the full 5 mill cash in hand! You guys think we will beat Thompson's and Mccain's cash in hand numbers?

That would be awesome!

I think he may beat Romney's cash on hand, if you subtract the loans to Romney's campaign from himself. Last quarter, if you subtracted the $9 million in debts, it would leave a net of $3 million (to Ron's $2.4 million).
 
The reason the media put an emphasis on money raised is because money buys VOTES. So they can ignore the fundraising report, the cash on hand, and anything else they'd like, but Ron Paul is going to have money to buy advertising in NH, IA, and elsewhere. Legally, they have to air his commercials if he pays for them. :D

Yes... and isn't it ironic that hard earned campaign monies end up back in the hands of our mortal enemies. Scurrilous!
 
There's a trick some campaign manager friends used for a gubernatorial candidate who had little cash running against an incumbent: you make a remarkable ad. In this case they had a governor look-alike slopping mud into a bucket and throwing it at average citizens, mudslinging. They paid for it to air just once, and distributed it to all the media who all aired it non gratis as a news item.

Maybe that's a standard trick, and I have no idea if it still works.

My point is that you can get the media to air the ads without paying for them. :-)
 
Back
Top