This weekend I had the privilege to take my family to hear Dr Ron Paul speak at the Republican Convention in Ontario, Ca. It was my impression by the responses and Q&A that many in the room had never heard the man. But the continuous ovations throughout the speech (which covered a grand range of topics) showed a healthy support for him and his ideas. There was a dissenter or two in the room (how dare a republican oppose the war) and he did a good job of fielding the questions. But the overall response to him was resounding approval.
Earlier in this blog a commenter stated that Ron Paul's age, appearance and voice would pose a negative effect on his campaign. Well sir, his campaign and his following seemed incredibly strong and growing (the people we met there were eager and active in spreading the news of Ron Paul and his candidacy). He stood firm on the ideas of a constitutionaly limited government. He reinforced his belief in an economic market based upon competition and a gold/silver standard. He renounced our empirical policing of the world since WW2. He upheld personal responsibility in education. He voiced his support in the pursuit of Al Quaida (he even suggested a hired army might be better suited than our own military) but continued his opposition to our invasion of Iraq (since Congress still hasn't declared war). He supported guns in cockpits to defend our citizens. And he received ovations throughout.
I would say that anyone who thinks Ron Paul can't win because he's old, or has a "raspy" voice hasn't seen Ron Paul. It's true that he has an uphill battle ahead of him. The media continues to ignore him (yet they continue to follow Fred Thompson, who as of yet isn't running). His political adversaries disregard him. The Republican Party tries to keep him hidden. Yet with no help from media or his party, his campaign is growing strongly.
That's why we are here. We must be his media. We must push him into the forums of the public until all Americans have seen him and heard him. "Ron Paul won't be able to finance his campaign" is heard often. The assumption there is that he can't win as a grass roots candidate. That we can't build him up enough with the Internet, and word of mouth to outperform the multi-million dollar ad-campaigns. We must prove them wrong. And if what I saw this weekend is an indicator, our chances are more than fair.
Ron Paul doesn't need us to defend him, he does that quite well on his own. He only needs to have his voice heard. Than America can decide if he's worthy of our vote.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Overtime for Ron Paul
So far, this is the only comment I have seen recently (dated April 7, 2007) concerning Ron Paul's campaign funds:
His campaign is plugged into the Internet and well on its way to raising its first million.
The link to the article is here.
I am not sure if this is including the $500,000 that had been mentioned about a month ago.
A hundred here, a twenty there. A few tens and a few fifties. It all adds up. Pledge petitions are being proposed and this will help even more. I think, though, we are overlooking another possible avenue of funding: overtime.
As a grassroots movement, we certainly have plenty of people who will volunteer their free time to promote Ron Paul and spread the news of liberty. But some of that free time can be used for overtime at their place of work.
Let's say with 5000 people, each person works just 1 hour of overtime a week. If we take a lowball average of $8 an hour, then half that because of government rape (er, I mean overtaxation), then we arrive at 5000 x $4 = $20,000 a week of extra funding.
Now lets look at a more optimistic, yet a realistic possibility in number crunching.
With 10000 people working about 2 hours of overtime at a higher average of $10 an hour: 10000 x (0.5 x $10) = $50,000 a week of extra funding.
If you notice, I didn't calculate time and half for the OT, but I did this to show that even with just regular pay, money does accumulate quickly.
Play the numbers and see what a little bit of overtime can do for fundraising. Fifteen thousand people, maybe 50,000 or more, with only 1 to 2 hours of overtime a week, and maybe with a higher average wage, the campaign would certainly see a quick growth in funding.
So, to all those great people who are volunteering their free time to promote Ron Paul, don't forget to convert some of that free time to overtime!
His campaign is plugged into the Internet and well on its way to raising its first million.
The link to the article is here.
I am not sure if this is including the $500,000 that had been mentioned about a month ago.
A hundred here, a twenty there. A few tens and a few fifties. It all adds up. Pledge petitions are being proposed and this will help even more. I think, though, we are overlooking another possible avenue of funding: overtime.
As a grassroots movement, we certainly have plenty of people who will volunteer their free time to promote Ron Paul and spread the news of liberty. But some of that free time can be used for overtime at their place of work.
Let's say with 5000 people, each person works just 1 hour of overtime a week. If we take a lowball average of $8 an hour, then half that because of government rape (er, I mean overtaxation), then we arrive at 5000 x $4 = $20,000 a week of extra funding.
Now lets look at a more optimistic, yet a realistic possibility in number crunching.
With 10000 people working about 2 hours of overtime at a higher average of $10 an hour: 10000 x (0.5 x $10) = $50,000 a week of extra funding.
If you notice, I didn't calculate time and half for the OT, but I did this to show that even with just regular pay, money does accumulate quickly.
Play the numbers and see what a little bit of overtime can do for fundraising. Fifteen thousand people, maybe 50,000 or more, with only 1 to 2 hours of overtime a week, and maybe with a higher average wage, the campaign would certainly see a quick growth in funding.
So, to all those great people who are volunteering their free time to promote Ron Paul, don't forget to convert some of that free time to overtime!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Funded by Pareto's Principle
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of the causes.
An article I read a few weeks back, just before Ron Paul announced his bid for the presidency, said that if Ron Paul was to compete monetarily against the likes of Hillary, Barack, McCain and Giuliani, he would have to raise about $50 million. In other articles, $20 million would make other people take notice. Implied is that Ron Paul does not have the clout to compete, let alone make other people take notice.
As the grassroots movement continues to swell, Ron Paul no longer needs $20 million to make other people notice him. Already, he has been interviewed on CNN and Fox, the latter being prompted by hundreds of emails. An even greater step of notoriety will be his appearance tonight on Bill Maher's HBO show, Real Time with Bill Maher. Being so vastly different from the Republican clones, I wouldn't be all too surprised if Maher and his liberal following find favor with Constitutionalist Ron Paul. That would certainly raise the eyebrows of many. And let's not forget Nancy Reagan's personal invitation to Ron Paul to a presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library on May 3rd. Talk about being put out on the spotlight!
But would it be enough? Would there be enough people to help Ron Paul monetarily compete with the rest? Let's hypothesize for a moment.
When Ron Paul ran for president under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988, he received about 400,000 votes. Using Pareto's Principle, let's say 20% of the voters funded his campaign. That's 80,000 people. Let's say 20% of those were generous and, on the average, funded $100. 16,000 people X $100 = $1.16 million.
But let's break this down further. Twenty percent of 16,000 is 3,200. These would be people who were quite generous and, on the average, gave about $1000. 3,200 people X $1000 = $3.2 million. 16,000 - 3,200 = 12,800 of those who gave $100. 12,800 X $100 = $1.28 million.
Going back to the 80,000 who actually gave funds. 80,000 - 16,000 = 64,000 of those who gave, let's say, on average, $10 to the campaign. 64,000 X $10 = $640,000.
Let's tally it up. $3.2 million + $1.28 million + $640,000 = $5.12 million dollars. Ron Paul certainly falls short of the $50 million to "compete", but there is a law that can and will tip the balance in his favor: Murphy's Law.
In the current state of our government, it would seem Murphy's Law is the rule of law: Iraq, the economy, government encroachment of our liberties. Murphy's Law makes the powers-that-be all that more incompetent, and that is an incredible advantage that Ron Paul has. He is not perfect, and certainly no one is, but he far outshines all others like a freshly minted gold coin.
It will be this stark political contrast that Ron Paul offers that will negate Pareto's Principle. His political career and voting record will back his integrity. People are tired of the same old rhetoric from career politicians who promise gold and deliver mud. In their zeal to see a change in the government, I wouldn't be surprised to see more than 50% of them help fund his campaign. In their revolt of the Establishment, they'll give generously before it loses too much value to be worth the paper it is written on.
And as Ron Paul gains more exposure through his grassroots movement, the mainstream media will continue to buckle and will have to give him more news coverage. It's already started and it will continue on. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul becomes "viral" on the internet. He had 400,000 people vote for him in 1988, but this time around, I think he'll be getting millions.
So what do I think this will look like monetarily? Just through the grassroots movement alone and without campaigning hard, he's already raised $500,000. That's 1 percent of the $50 million, and that's not even trying. And considering Ross Perot received 19 million of the popular vote, Ron Paul could easily get a quarter of that. So to calculate:
5 million x 20% = 1 million
1 million x 20% = 200,000
200,000 x 20% = 40,000
40,000 x $1000 = $40 million
160,000 x $100 = $11.6 million
800,000 x $10 = $8 million
Grand total = $59.6 million
And that, my friends, is a very conservative number.
An article I read a few weeks back, just before Ron Paul announced his bid for the presidency, said that if Ron Paul was to compete monetarily against the likes of Hillary, Barack, McCain and Giuliani, he would have to raise about $50 million. In other articles, $20 million would make other people take notice. Implied is that Ron Paul does not have the clout to compete, let alone make other people take notice.
As the grassroots movement continues to swell, Ron Paul no longer needs $20 million to make other people notice him. Already, he has been interviewed on CNN and Fox, the latter being prompted by hundreds of emails. An even greater step of notoriety will be his appearance tonight on Bill Maher's HBO show, Real Time with Bill Maher. Being so vastly different from the Republican clones, I wouldn't be all too surprised if Maher and his liberal following find favor with Constitutionalist Ron Paul. That would certainly raise the eyebrows of many. And let's not forget Nancy Reagan's personal invitation to Ron Paul to a presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library on May 3rd. Talk about being put out on the spotlight!
But would it be enough? Would there be enough people to help Ron Paul monetarily compete with the rest? Let's hypothesize for a moment.
When Ron Paul ran for president under the banner of the Libertarian Party in 1988, he received about 400,000 votes. Using Pareto's Principle, let's say 20% of the voters funded his campaign. That's 80,000 people. Let's say 20% of those were generous and, on the average, funded $100. 16,000 people X $100 = $1.16 million.
But let's break this down further. Twenty percent of 16,000 is 3,200. These would be people who were quite generous and, on the average, gave about $1000. 3,200 people X $1000 = $3.2 million. 16,000 - 3,200 = 12,800 of those who gave $100. 12,800 X $100 = $1.28 million.
Going back to the 80,000 who actually gave funds. 80,000 - 16,000 = 64,000 of those who gave, let's say, on average, $10 to the campaign. 64,000 X $10 = $640,000.
Let's tally it up. $3.2 million + $1.28 million + $640,000 = $5.12 million dollars. Ron Paul certainly falls short of the $50 million to "compete", but there is a law that can and will tip the balance in his favor: Murphy's Law.
In the current state of our government, it would seem Murphy's Law is the rule of law: Iraq, the economy, government encroachment of our liberties. Murphy's Law makes the powers-that-be all that more incompetent, and that is an incredible advantage that Ron Paul has. He is not perfect, and certainly no one is, but he far outshines all others like a freshly minted gold coin.
It will be this stark political contrast that Ron Paul offers that will negate Pareto's Principle. His political career and voting record will back his integrity. People are tired of the same old rhetoric from career politicians who promise gold and deliver mud. In their zeal to see a change in the government, I wouldn't be surprised to see more than 50% of them help fund his campaign. In their revolt of the Establishment, they'll give generously before it loses too much value to be worth the paper it is written on.
And as Ron Paul gains more exposure through his grassroots movement, the mainstream media will continue to buckle and will have to give him more news coverage. It's already started and it will continue on. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul becomes "viral" on the internet. He had 400,000 people vote for him in 1988, but this time around, I think he'll be getting millions.
So what do I think this will look like monetarily? Just through the grassroots movement alone and without campaigning hard, he's already raised $500,000. That's 1 percent of the $50 million, and that's not even trying. And considering Ross Perot received 19 million of the popular vote, Ron Paul could easily get a quarter of that. So to calculate:
5 million x 20% = 1 million
1 million x 20% = 200,000
200,000 x 20% = 40,000
40,000 x $1000 = $40 million
160,000 x $100 = $11.6 million
800,000 x $10 = $8 million
Grand total = $59.6 million
And that, my friends, is a very conservative number.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Welcome to Ron Paulitics!
Hi and welcome to Ron Paulitics! In an effort to help campaign, this blog was created to promote Congressman Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency. We are but one of many grassroots upstarts that will endeavor to educate, discuss and debate as to why Ron Paul is suited to be the next president of the United States.
Topics will vary, including libertarianism, the free market, and the Constitution, all being the foundation of Ron Paul’s political views. And as Christians, we will also provide commentary on these subjects from a Christian point of view.
Everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, is welcome to participate. All we ask is to respect one another and put forth sound arguments. I am sure we will have some vigorous debate, but the aim for such discussions is to gain understanding, not to demean a person’s character.
It is our hope that this blog will give you a better insight into Ron Paul and his views, and that you will see that he is the best candidate for the presidency!
Topics will vary, including libertarianism, the free market, and the Constitution, all being the foundation of Ron Paul’s political views. And as Christians, we will also provide commentary on these subjects from a Christian point of view.
Everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, is welcome to participate. All we ask is to respect one another and put forth sound arguments. I am sure we will have some vigorous debate, but the aim for such discussions is to gain understanding, not to demean a person’s character.
It is our hope that this blog will give you a better insight into Ron Paul and his views, and that you will see that he is the best candidate for the presidency!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)