Ron Paul: #2 in New Hampshire

David Weigel | April 19, 2007

Just talked to Ron Paul 2008 press secretary Jesse Benton to confirm that the libertarian congressman raised the second-biggest sum of money from GOP donors in New Hampshire. The campaign raised $16,950 with a large pool of donors; less than 10 of them gave more than $200.

Mitt Romney (who has a house in the state) easily topped Paul with more than $100,000. But Rudy Giuliani and McCain lagged around $4000 behind the congressman.

"We're just getting our campaign operations moving up there," Benton said. "Ron's only been there once. So the sky's the limit there in support and excitement."

Worth pointing out: Paul's still fighting the margin of error in New Hampshire polls.

Comments

MC|4.19.07 @ 4:53PM|#

The problem is these days you need to be a name brand candidate, someone who has been on the front page for years (Obama) if not decades (Clinton/Giuliani/McCain).

Otherwise, regardless of your views you are in the same league as the extremely marginal candidates. RP is a pretty marginal candidate but I think his voice resonates with Americans more than some of the other contenders, such as Kucinich. He's just not as loud and obnoxious.

|4.19.07 @ 4:54PM|#

I just hope he can stay in the race and keep preaching his message. That's worth something.

MC|4.19.07 @ 4:56PM|#

He was on Bill Maher's show the other week, first time I had seen him on TV. Wasn't the most supportive environment, especially when Maher asked him why he thinks we shouldn't have had a Civil War. He did seem to impress people with some of his views on more current events though.

|4.19.07 @ 5:00PM|#

Not bad, but even if Paul raised the most in NH by primary time, it would be irrelevant with the new mega primaries. Anyone think that the combined abysmal ratings of Congress and the Presidency have something to do with the parties agreeing to move up all primaries to squash any support a true maverick candidate might receive?

|4.19.07 @ 5:01PM|#

By the way, The Politico had another article on Dr. Paul yesterday, which makes 2 in 2 days. I think they might like him.

|4.19.07 @ 5:14PM|#

The number is meaningless, and you're grasping at straws. I would like Ron Paul to win the NH primary and go on to become President, but how much he raises in New Hampshire is irrelevant.

No one needs or is required to raise money in the same state he or she is going to spend it, or spend it in the same state in which it was raised. Were it any different, New Hampshire would likely CANCEL its primary instead of jealously guarding its first-in-the-nation status. From a commercial standpoint, what matters is getting candidates to raise money in the other 49 states and spend it in NH.

|4.19.07 @ 5:42PM|#

Hey, I welcome any good news, or even well intentioned news, for Ron Paul 2008.

Keep up the good fight Ron! We're pulling for ya!

|4.19.07 @ 6:07PM|#

I did #2 in New Hampshire once, on the way to Maine.

Michael Hampton|4.19.07 @ 6:13PM|#

I would note that almost all of that $16,950 was collected at a single fundraising event.

I've personally contributed $100 and will contribute more as finances permit.

|4.19.07 @ 6:27PM|#

This money was raised mainly at ONE SINGLE HOUSE PARTY where there were 182 respondents. I know the woman who organized it singlehandedly. So you see the sky IS the limit.

Where was the press on this?

stephen the goldberger|4.19.07 @ 6:50PM|#

once the moderates begin paying attention as it's still a bit too early, he'll begin to be minimized.

but at the very least I hope this means he cannot be ignored.

|4.19.07 @ 7:22PM|#

I'd just like to see him air his views on a broader scale, like the debates.

BabyJesus|4.19.07 @ 7:38PM|#

BREAKING NEWS! Baby Jesus now in 1st place in New Hampshire!

LarryA|4.19.07 @ 7:40PM|#

The problem is these days you need to be a name brand candidate, someone who has been on the front page for years (Obama) if not decades (Clinton/Giuliani/McCain).

Hillary has been around, but I don't remember Bill being a big national name before he started running.

And Jimmy Carter?

|4.20.07 @ 12:45AM|#

Hillary has been around, but I don't remember Bill being a big national name before he started running.

And Jimmy Carter?

They didn't have McCain-Feingold to deal with.

|4.20.07 @ 1:10AM|#

Go, Mitt, Go!!!

Guy Montag|4.20.07 @ 2:25AM|#

In other news: Reason's favorite surrender monkey, Ron Paul, is on Reason's least favorite FOX show, Red Eye, as I type.

|4.20.07 @ 8:23PM|#

Most people forget that nearly 50% of Americans did not vote in the last Presidential election. That's a big group.

IMO, these are largely the people who don't buy into the so-called name recognition candidates who are shoved down our throats and are obviously handled as they sound byte their way to the Office of the Payback.

I certainly don't expect the main stream press to say anything good about Ron Paul until they simply HAVE to.

My biggest disappointment is to hear so many Americans repeat the defeatist mantra that we are powerless and that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance.

That's just nonsense. To those who think Ron Paul has to place highly in the propaganda machine's polls, or be seen during every other commercial break on the networks to win the election, I say shame on your lazy behinds...get off your duff and make good things happen.

If we remain nothing more than pundits for the establishment's omnipotence over us, then yes, we're doomed to decades more of sitting on the sidelines, watching the circus of the stars.

No one and nothing can stop the will of enough Americans who have had enough and want the right man to be elected President...no one and nothing...period.

Americans are the most inventive, the most productive, the most free thinking, the most determined and the most united people the world has ever known, in my opinion.

The only question is...have we had enough?

MIPS|4.21.07 @ 2:00AM|#

I'm working on a fund raiser for Ron Paul in California.

Cathy|4.23.07 @ 5:16PM|#

Some thoughts:
1. Brand name may not be a plus, if it has been associated with scandal.
2. Ron Paul may not have been "on the front page" a lot, but he has been going to bat for our freedoms for decades. His record vouches for that.
3. I agree with Dave's sentiments! Ron can become a serious (better known) candidate if we make it happen.

|4.27.07 @ 1:45PM|#

I'm pretty excited about Dr. Paul's chances in NH. It's a state packed with libertarian-leaning people.

Even before the the fairly-well-known Free State Project began it's mission in New Hampshire, it was already a very independent and liberty-demanding group of people.

Ron Paul could become VERY popular up there with the right campaign.

Kent Snyder has been really doing a great job; it's hard to find a balance between giving it your best shot and making sure you're not blowing your wad.

Five more fundraisers like this and Paul could be doing pretty darn well...

I'm justa poor 22-year-old with two kids, but I gave him what I could swing...I REALLY encourage everyone else to do the same.

I also agree that money isn't everything, but I still think it's important.

Denis Goddard|4.27.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Ron Paul got treated like a rock star when he spoke at the NH Liberty Forum back in February:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9011609111379204433

When other candidates come to speak, they find groups of Ron Paul supporters at the event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GP_TxOI3Ig

Chad is right, the influence of the Free State Project is kicking NH libertarians into high gear.