Ron Paul is the only one that stands out so far - but I don't think he has a chance of getting elected.
Far too intelligent for the majority of Americans.
2007-09-04 02:45:02 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Ron Paul might surprise you.
Mitt Romney's campaign only had 35 percent more cash than Ron Paul after subtracting debts on 06/30/2007.
Romney's contributions from individuals dropped by a third from the first quarter to the second quarter.
Paul's contributions almost quadrupled from Q1 to Q2.
On July 15th, the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him:
3rd in total receipts for the quarter
4th in total receipts to date
3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."
Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel) want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see Why the US Military Loves Ron Paul).
Why, indeed – President Paul would bring them home now.
2007-09-04 10:01:39 · answer #1 · answered by Eric Inri 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He will now be assured of a win in Alaska! Hooha! How many military and veterans will want a 44 year old Commander in Chief...much less one that could become pregnant while in office? She is a strong pro-life Catholic who has had only 5 children. McCain is not well so any Veep of his would have to be ready to step into his job immediately. Independent women voters have a higher percentage of pro-choice stances than Republican ones. This will certainly be an issue for them. Most Americans live in urban areas and know that her experience as a mayer in a tiny Alaskan village doesn't prepare her for much. Everybody hunts in Alaska, but not down here. I can't see that as being that much of a plus. One and a half years as Governor of a state that has few people isn't much better. She also was against listing the polar bear as an endangered species! Jeez Louise! Obama had more experience than she does BEFORE he was a Senator. Although she was a heartbeat away from winning the Miss Alaska Pageant, I hardly think that any voter will count that as a big plus except for a few old geezers.
2016-05-21 01:05:40 · answer #2 · answered by edythe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul.
2007-09-04 05:59:58 · answer #3 · answered by Mike4Liberty 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fred Thompson with Ron Paul as VP would be a great ticket in my opinion.
2007-09-04 03:03:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm an Independent voter and I support Sen. Clinton for President.
2007-09-04 06:50:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fred Thompson is wooing the independents from what I hear.
2007-09-04 02:50:02 · answer #6 · answered by mustagme 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the one closest to a moderate...whomever that might be
2007-09-04 02:50:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋