It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Paul Campaign Flat Broke...How Can This Be?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:06 AM

Originally posted by seabag
Sounds like all of your military strategy was acquired playing medieval role playing games!

That's not where I acquired my military strategy at all. Clever guess though.

Originally posted by seabag
You’re right! You’re no general.

I know. I'm the one who said it.

Originally posted by seabag
The reason we haven’t been attacked is because of our presence overseas.

Provide proof.

Originally posted by seabag
Stop drinking the RP isolationist Kool Aid and getting your military strategy from World of Warcraft and this might make sense.

I don't drink Kool Aid and I have never played World of Warcraft. -2 points for assuming these things.


posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by eLPresidente
You actually think there are organized veterans groups out there that passionately support the other GOP candidates?

You mean like the Vets for Romney Facebook Group? There's smaller veterans groups for the other Republican candidates and undoubtedly lots of individuals who support them. Heck, there's probably military people who support some of the candidates who only qualified to run in one state.

There also seems to be some state based veterans organizations that support Romney and I'm sure you could find equal for other candidates.

In any case (returning to the topic) it appears that Ron Paul's ads aren't very effective if he's outspent a lot of the other candidates and is still coming up with only 10% of the vote.

I remember reading about his mass mailing of a five page letter to everyone in Georgia (I think it was) and thinking that there was a waste of money. Few stop to read five page letters these days (particularly from politicians)

Looking at Ron Paul's expenditures is interesting. 1/3 of all expenses is "administrative" -- the highest percentage of any of the Republican candidates His campaign expenses are the smallest percentage of any candidate's -- other candidates seem to put about 1/4th of their contributions into campaign expenses.

Romney spends about 1/4th of contributions on administration

Santorum also spends about 1/4th on administration

Newt actually spends the smallest percentage on administration

It's interesting that although Paul touts smaller government, he has the biggest percentage of administrative costs. The lack of campaign spending (he doesn't show up as many places as the others do) undoubtedly contributes heavily to his low ranking in the news and in the polls. In order to make the news, a politician has to show up to a new city and speechify or meet people. Paul's got the least active campaign schedule of all.

Historically, that's been a losing strategy. The winners are the ones who make appearances -- incite curiosity and give others opportunities to bring their friends out to see the politician in person.

I think his finances reflect poor strategy. If he spent the money for administration on campaigning instead and spent his campaigning costs on administration, he'd undoubtedly be doing better -- as a glance at the stats of the others show.

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by seabag

"RP DOESN’T have that much support" ?

meh, wrong.

..& you cite politico, thats funny. a hard-core political operative running a news organization leaves little room for objective "journalism" i.e. foxnewschannel

Originally posted by rstregooski google search stats -

edit on 24-3-2012 by stereoarchitecture because: (no reason given)

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in