Rand Paul

The Early Presidential Race: It's (Not Always) Money That Matters

Rand Paul Can't Be Counted Out Because You Can't Imagine Him Counting Huge Piles of Campaign Bucks.

|

Sheldon Adelson, the GOP superfixer who brought you President Newt Gingrich, is now deadset on being the man who brings you Not-President Rand Paul, as the New York Times report Matt Welch explained yesterday reveals. Salon yesterday drilled in on the Adelson vs. Paul angle, just a synecdoche in its way for the rest of the GOP field v. Paul.

Politico a few weeks back also ran a story hooked to the idea that there is no way Rand Paul can be in there swinging with the Big Money boys after some of them were unhappy he wore jeans at a Koch summit. (It was a little more complicated.) Some excerpts:

Paul's performance as a missed opportunity for him to significantly broaden his base of megadonor support headed into a presidential election in which the two major party nominees and their allies are expected to spend upward of $1.7 billion apiece.

Big-money support is seen as a key weakness for Paul, much as it was for the presidential campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul….

Supporters argue that Rand Paul, who has opened offices in Silicon Valley and Austin, can overcome that by looking outside the traditional GOP megadonor community

"Mainstream donors were never his primary target. He is bringing in guys from Silicon Valley, from the tech world, who were never comfortable with the Republican Party," [Frayda] Levin [a Paul donor] said, describing Paul's donor base as "transpolitical."

See my April story "Rand Paul: Can the Bucks Start There?" for more of this sort of doubt that the Kentucky senator can rake in the oh-so-necessary presidential bucks.

One thing such talk of the inability of freakish Paul candidates to raise cash is that Rand's father Ron Paul's $35 million in official campaign funding far exceeded that of more "viable" candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, amounting to nearly as much as both of them combined. It is largely believed, and I suspect it will be true, that Ron's results represent a floor from which Rand the presidential candidate will only rise.

Yes, those also-rans Newt and Santorum had more uncoordinated SuperPAC funding, and much of that SuperPAC funding that went ostensibly to Paul was unlikely to have done much good.

But on a presidential level, we actually don't have any particular reason to believe SuperPAC ad efforts are more important than earned media or whether, well, voters just prefer a certain candidate or that certain candidates perceived positions and merits, once they learn about them.

More importantly, for those sure that Rand Paul will never lead the pack because they believe he can't lead in fundraising now, leading in fundraising early is no necessary predictor of future performance.

Ex-Reasoner David Weigel tweeted an important link today, a CNN report from July 2007, helping flesh out most people's vague memory that "Oh yeah, wasn't Rudy Giuliani supposed to be the nominee in '08? Ha, pundits sure got that wrong."

They sure did, and not just based on some media-created "front runner" chatter. Giuliani really was ahead, enormously, even in the currency that the more studiedly cynical insist is more important than chatter or perceived momentum: cash money.

From CNN then:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani brought in $17 million in campaign funds in the past three months, topping his two leading GOP rivals in fund-raising for the quarter, the Giuliani campaign announced Monday.

Receipts also indicate Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential bid may be in trouble.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced he had raised $14 million in the same time period and had lent his campaign an additional $6.5 million of his own money….McCain's campaign announced staff cuts Monday after seeing fundraising skid from $13 million to $11 million in the past three months. A McCain aide told CNN that all but $850,000 of the $11.2 million was in primary donations.

Giuliani's take was nearly $2 million higher than his first-quarter receipts, when he trailed Romney. Giuliani had more than $18 million remaining in the bank by the end of June, campaign manager Michael DuHaime said.

Guiliani was a clear frontrunner. He was a dynamite fundraiser. He had it all. He ended up with nothing, even smashed by no less a hopeless electoral case than Ron Paul.

NEXT: College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women. Here's Why.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’ll get him some of his old man’s money bombs going.

    1. Probably so, but some of the true believers who funded Ron Paul don’t have the same level of trust and dedication for Rand. And some of them have donor fatigue.

  2. Isn’t the conventional wisdom that Rudy made the mistake of keeping all his powder dry until the Fla primary — and then it was too late? Not that I’m complaining!! “President Guiliani”. *shivers*

    1. Tactically, yes. But in the larger picture, he was too anti-gun to have much appeal.

      And considering we are living President Obama, I can’t really think of anyone being President that makes me shiver.

      1. Do you people actually feel that things are (relatively) horrible under Obama, as in can name specific things he did to you, or is it just all completely tribal?

        1. Sold us to the health insurance industry, for one. Drone-killed at least two American citizens without any sort of due process. Rescinded his promise to hold telecoms accountable for spying on their customers at the behest of the government. Had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the position of allowing the state-based legalization of marijuana. Gone after more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

          I hated Bush, but Obama is Bush on steroids and bath salts.

          1. You shouldn’t leave out todays offering of providing to each and every American a Soviet quality Internet.

          2. The criticisms are all fair enough, but the comparison to Bush loses me. Obama didn’t do anything remotely as evil as start the Iraq War or the torture program, the evil of both compounded by sheer ineptitude. And while the near-collapse of the economy can’t be laid entirely at Bush’s feet, it did come nearly 8 years into his presidency.

            1. He continued it. Lied about it. Started war with other nations. Exacerbated the economic woes with continued and increased bailouts. DOJ led prosecutions of journalists…. hmmm.. so basically everything bad bush did and then some.

              1. Bush exploited 9/11 to start a war with a country that had nothing to do with it, and in the process destabilized much of the Middle East. It was at the very least the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, and may turn out much worse. Any president inheriting that shitstorm deserves better than the half-conscious constant reflexive hatred Obama gets from the people who voted for that other disastrous dumbshit.

                1. BUSH BAD !!! OBAMMA BETTER !!!

                2. You hate Bush…we get it….very few here miss him at all.

                  That said he hardly benefits by comparison. 8 trillion more down the shitter…..royally fucked up healthcare (can’t wait to see that auger in in a couple of years)…expanded the surveillance state…it goes on.

                  Obama is a horror…comparing the two is like comparing Stalin to Hitler!

              2. You’re full of shit. Obama REVERSED all the bailouts! AIG, Citi, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, et al have all turned a big profit after they fully repaid plus interest.

                Name one journalist that has been prosecuted. The economy has added over 10 million private sector jobs since 2009. GDP is solid, exports doubled, deficit cut in half, inflation tamed, dolalr strong, markets at record highs, and so on.

                You are crazy.

                1. Don’t feed it cake.

                2. BUSH BAD !! OBAMMA BETTER !!!

                3. No more than 8% of that comment makes any sense.

                4. Re: Peter Caca,

                  Obama REVERSED all the bailouts!

                  No, he did not.

                  AIG, Citi, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, et al have all turned a big profit after they fully repaid plus interest.

                  That’s actually not true. That’s an accounting trick.

                  And paying back the money does NOT translate to “Obama reversed all bailouts!”

                  Name one journalist that has been prosecuted.

                  The DOJ wanted to indict news reporter James Rosen for being a “co-conspirator” in the leaking of classified information. The accusation was bogus and quickly dropped after a media outcry.

                  The DOJ was also keeping AP reporters under surveillance, going against legal procedure.

            2. Bush was bad too. Not too many Bush fans here.

            3. The worst thing Obama did was to misrepresent himself as a reformer keenly interested in restoral of the rule of law. Once in office, his refusal to hold anyone in the Bush administration accountable for their crimes, as well as continuing and expanding those areas of existing governmental criminality is what has essentially “mainstreamed” this ideology, and spread the contagion to the other side of the D/R duopoly, converting something “controversial” (and patently illegal) into a worldview shared by a substantial majority of Americans of both current major political persuasions.

              1. I wish you would stop making good points. All I really wanted to do was to see if I could make John say something racist.

                1. I wish you would stop making good points. All I really wanted to do was to see if I could make John say something racist.

                  But to you guys, merely criticizing President Ward Heeler is racist.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Do you people actually feel that things are (relatively) horrible under Obama, as in can name specific things he did to you, or is it just all completely tribal?

          Things are not relatively horrible. They are decidedly horrid. The only good thing about Obama’s regime is that the nightmare will end after 8 years instead of 15 like Roosevelt’s.

          1. But absolutely nothing about your life has changed for the negative, right?

      2. Giuliani was a law and order neocon, but had no appeal to the socons that are critical for early primary success.

    2. Pretty sure he only ran for president to increase his speaking fee.

  3. And Phil Graham was supposed to win in 1996. You need voters. The money just is a means to that end. But it won’t help you if you are not attractive to them in the first place.

    This is why Jeb Bush’s campaign isn’t going to amount to anything but a bunch of wasted money.

    1. Ditto for Christie.

      1. So it looks like a Bush/Christie ticket for the elephants.

  4. I say Walker/Paul or Walker/Cruz 2016. Walker because he has real experience governing, and has shown he can stand up the unions and the left even in a purple state, and because there’s apparently no dirt on him (or Democrats would have found and used it by now). Then Paul for the libertarian/Tea Party wing, and as more of an attack dog, or perhaps Cruz (admittedly less attractive to libertarians, but attractive to Tea Party types), setting them up as potential presidential candidates in the future.

    I am just leery of another inexperienced Senator becoming president, even if I agree with him much of the time.

    1. I think Walker could be a formidable candidate. I have my doubts that Paul would take a VP nod (but maybe), and to be honest, I think Cruz would drag down Walker. The VP candidate would be more of a lightning rod than the P candidate, and Walker would not want that.

    2. Maybe Walker/Martinez. Latin, female…that would be a strong ticket, I think.

      1. Yeah but remember when Republicans put a female or minority on the ticket it’s just “cynically pandering”, not like when the Dems do it…

        1. Geraldine Ferraro was desperate pandering.

          1. On the other hand, her chocolates and cars are pretty good.

    3. I think Paul could do more to advance liberty by staying in the Senate vs. becoming the VP. VP is a pretty meaningless position anymore, and I would think that Paul would realize that and stay put as opposed to accepting what is at this point a purely ceremonial position.

    4. Walker has real experience governing? A bunch of cows don’t count.

  5. Come on, Brian.

    No one ever said a well funded but flawed candidate will ultimately survive. Trump could have had plenty of funds available to him, but nothing would have helped him.

    But who survived last time? Mitt Romney..’nuff said about being well funded. Is it Rand’s goal to fare just as well as his father? I don’t think so.

    It does my heart good that money will ultimately be the factor that eliminates the Libertarian choice (even though there are many issues I would agree with Rand Paul on). After all, you thought Citizens United was just the cat’s meow. Its your bed…have fun. Money is speech!

    1. Yeah, because money means everything. That is why Hillary won the nomination.

    2. And one other thing, go fuck yourself Joe, you fascist little midget. Took me a while but your smug faux political analysis gave you away.

      1. AT least mine was correct. You should check your facts…when Obama and Clinton both were in the race at the same time, he had more donations than she did. In fact, by February of 2008, Obama set a record of $55M for the month, thus forcing Clinton’s campaign to go into debt.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..aign,_2008

        But facts…you wouldn’t know them if they bit on your…

        1. Fuck off Joe, you coward.

          1. Eat shit, John. This is not one of your Team Red circle jerks.

            1. You can eat shit too ButliKKKer. This is not one of you team blue circle jerks either.

    3. Jackoffinass. Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange. Buying advertising is not buying speech. Buying speech is called bribery, which is fraud. Fraud is something authoritarian, little shit stains like you, are very familiar with.

    4. Re: Jackass Ass,

      No one ever said a well funded but flawed candidate will ultimately survive.

      Obama’s case notwithstanding.

      You know, the guy who wrote two books – himself.

      It does my heart good that money will ultimately be the factor that eliminates the Libertarian choice

      The libertarian choice is to have no one for president. That is destined to be eliminated all the time as long as voters are all like you: the result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem Dat Teeches Kidz To Red and Wrait. So you are not saying anything interesting or new. You’re boring.

  6. We all know that Paul is secretly getting paid in Bison bucks.

    1. I thought it was Liberty Dollars?

  7. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

    1. Hey Shriek….you fancy yourself a financial mastermind….you might want to check this out!

    2. Send some of it Rand’s way. He may need it.

  8. after some of them were unhappy he wore jeans at a Koch summit. (It was a little more complicated.)

    Maybe he could do that Howard Dean rolled-up-sleeves thing to give him that hard-working union boss kind of vibe.

  9. lol, BS. Money is ALL that matters in US politics. Best Politics money can buy lol.

    http://www.GoAnon.tk

  10. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……

    http://www.wixjob.com

  11. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……

    http://www.wixjob.com

  12. I just got paid usd6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over usd 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,,,,,
    http://www.work-mill.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.