White Male Entrepreneurs who want grazing rights on BLM land at, well, "government prices" and "educated" dumbfucks.
Inside Ron Paul Nation
by Patrick Ruffini :: October 15th, 2007 10:23 pm
Ron Paul’s supporters have provided a measure of radical transparency into his fundraising that would make most political operatives suffer heart failure. Going well beyond the now-passe end-of-quarter fundraising “bat,” the Paul campaign has set a public goal of $12 million raised for the quarter, posting their current total live on the homepage and including the names and hometowns of donors. If a donation comes in while you’re on the site, you’ll see it update live.
As if this weren’t bold enough, RonPaulGraphs.com has taken it a step further. Using the live data feed that powers the graphic, the site publishes an impressive array of analytics including a minute-by-minute view of donations and projected totals for the month and quarter.
But that’s not all.
The script also captures the name and hometown information for most online donors. A quick analysis of this data gives us the most revealing look yet at
who Ron Paul’s donors actually are.
First off, I took the state-by-state breakdown of donors and plugged into an Excel sheet, using it to produce donor-per-capita numbers for each state. Using this data, I created this map.
This really is a Western movement, with some of the Northeast thrown in. Basically, these are the places where you would expect libertarians to be strong. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a data set this good about the state-by-state strength of libertarianism. And the data gets more reliable every day .
The Paul movement is weakest in the Deep South and the Ohio River Valley. Ohio (and surprisingly New York) are Paul’s weakest big states.
The differences are also fairly dramatic. One is 4 times more likely to be a Ron Paul donor in Nevada than in Mississippi. And more than twice as likely in blue Washington state than in blue New York. Alaska and Hawaii, which are not on the map, would also be colored the darkest shade of red.
Oh, and by the way, on the names…
Though not exhaustive, I did go through the last 200 names. A whopping 83% of donors were men, 14.5% were women, and 2.5% I couldn’t determine from the name.
[My Add: How many of those 83% are White Men ya' think?]
Ron Paul Takes Campaign on the Road
by Robert Smith
Listen Now [50 sec] add to playlist
Morning Edition, November 8, 2007 · Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a maverick Republican, set a one-day Internet fundraising record after raking in $4.3 million. Many consider his presidential hopes a long shot but Paul is taking his Web-fueled campaign on the road.
Paul’s third-quarter financial disclosure report is sprinkled with supporters whose self-descriptions of their occupations are unusual, to say the least. Wade Talkington of Panama City, Fla., who donated $1,000 to Paul, lists his occupation as “tax slave to the Federal Govt.” Erik Hovden of Olalla, Wash., is the “Head slacker in Chg” at Simpson LLC, and housewife Pamela Schuberg of Moorpark, Calif., a $2,300 donor, lists her employer as “our children.”
Donald Cowles lists himself as self-employed and his occupation as simply “Capitalist.” On the opposite end, David Cameron of San Jose, Calif., lists his employer as “Looking for Work” and his job as “Unemployed.” Still, Cameron has given a total of $1,900 to the campaign.
Griswold Draz of Wellfleet, Mass., a $500 donor, is a self-described “curmudgeon,” and Andrew Maul of Pittsburgh, Pa., is a “Citizen Fighting Tyranny.” Others are more coy. James Harper of Vancouver, Wash., a $600 donor, offered “guess? Wink ” as his occupation.
Starchild, a San Francisco-based escort and exotic dancer who ended up on Paul’s list as “Star Child,” contributed $300.
Ron Paul's Donor Problem
The Lone Star Times has found an embarrassing donation in the Ron Paul records. The new husband of David Duke’s ex-wife Chloe and a supremacist in his own right gave $500 to Paul’s campaign, which reignited a past controversy of an earlier Paul campaign. It also calls into question just how much responsibility a candidate has for its donors.