During the first three quarters of 2007, Paul reported more itemized contributions (donations exceeding $200) than Fred Thompson in 28 states. [52] [53] [54] [55] (Thompson did not report any contributions in the first two quarters.) Thompson reported less than 1 percent more than Paul in Kansas and Oklahoma. Forty-seven percent of Paul's total contributions in the first three quarters was from donations not exceeding $200 and therefore was not included in the state totals. [56] Thirty-two percent of Thompson's total contributions was not included in the state totals. [57] With donations of $200 or less included, it can be estimated that Thompson received more contributions than Paul in only the District of Columbia and 18 states. Paul probably received more contributions than Thompson in 32 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_Campaign#Fourth_quarter_2007
2007-12-10 10:21:54 · 12 answers · asked by Eric Inri 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Fred never really had a chance
2007-12-10 10:40:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I am with you on this one. Thompson sounded good. But he is too late in the game. And little money. I loved the way he went after Huckabee. And what he said was factual. I would like to see a Romney/Thompson ticket. Ron Paul-there is a guy who needs to get his head out of the sand. We share this planet with 100s of other countries. Being friends and helping each other is a way to keep peace. When he says that the reason there are wars in the middle east is because we are there and we interfere, he lost me. He sounded like an idiot. Talk about clueless. The middle east hate each other with or without us. And having a presence there is in our long term best interest.
2016-04-08 06:45:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fred definitely does not have any less of a chance than Paul. Ron Paul could receive more donations in all fifty states than all candidates combined and it still isn't going to be able to buy him the votes he is going to need.
I find it curious that Paul is being compared to someone almost as low as himself in the polls.
2007-12-10 10:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
I'm not sure this shows the unelectability of Fred Thompson as much as the electibility of Ron Paul.
2007-12-10 10:24:49 · answer #4 · answered by Elutherian 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Thompson has no chance...but that's not to suggest Paul has one either. Seriously, Ron Paul is unelectable beyond Congress.
2007-12-10 11:10:40 · answer #5 · answered by Salsa Shark 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Both Fred Thompson and Ron Paul are irrelevant, neither has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
The only difference is Thompson doesn't want to win, he is just killing time during the writers strike :)
2007-12-10 10:27:51 · answer #6 · answered by QBeing 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋
The question SHOULD be: Does Ron Paul have a chance at winning regardless? The answer: Not a chance!
2007-12-10 10:24:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
All you loon Ron Paul supporters are nuts Paul wil NEVER win the nomination no matter how many crazy bloggers there are.
2007-12-10 10:27:47 · answer #8 · answered by Gman 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I don't think Fred has a chance. However, for all you Fred fans here is a a little light on your efforts. Hugo Chavez has now endorsed Fred. That should help a little.
2007-12-10 10:32:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
I am understandably curious: what does one have to do with the other?
Cheers.
2007-12-10 10:39:31 · answer #10 · answered by blueevent47 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋