What is Digg?296 Comments
- Jeffmr1, on 02/24/2008, -25/+260Isn't there a third republican still in the race, with very interesting fund-raising stats?
- GhostyBoy, on 02/24/2008, -28/+179Where's Paul?
- Jeffmr1, on 02/24/2008, -7/+137Kind of funny, i'll admit im a Paul fan, but my comment wasn't meant to be pro Paul in any way. It's just funny that all of you will condone blacking out any serious candidate just because you don't agree with what they or their supporters say. This graphic which shows fund-raising figures should include a candidate when they still have millions of dollars on hand, no debt, and are out raising some of the others candidates which were featured. I don't harbor any illusions that Paul could still win the race, however i'm willing to admit that it's never over until it's over, Lincoln won the nomination with only twenty-two committed delegates. Media blackouts of candidates such as Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel (not that the latter two had nearly as much success as Paul) only serves to endorse the status quo and eliminate ideas construed as "fringe."
- thelastcivilian, on 02/24/2008, -4/+102I don't want to get dugg down for sheer curiosity here, but does anyone know the figures for Ron Paul? I'm not a supporter, but after seeing so many stories make it to the front page about record fundraising, etc., I'd like to know where that money has gone.
- steelersfan7roe, on 02/24/2008, -11/+81Look at the HUGE disparity between the size of donations obama receives. 42% of his donations are from contributions UNDER 500 dollars.
The PEOPLE are the ones behind his campaign. - inactive, on 02/24/2008, -8/+66Ron Paul has more money in hand than all the republican candidates. .......and no debt to boot!
- fuckedupworld, on 02/24/2008, -8/+60Is he a presidential candidate that's currently running? Has he raised more then 2x Huckabee? Should he be on this graph?
Yes. - DjViral, on 02/24/2008, -13/+65hmmm someone's missing. FUUCCKK YOOUU NYTIMES.
- homah, on 02/24/2008, -6/+39What you consider to be a failure, many consider to be a success. Going from under 1% support to near 10% nationally now with very little media coverage is quite an accomplishment. It is unfortunate that being a strict constitutionalist is still a "fringe" idea to most people, such as yourself, but change is coming, albeit gradually.
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -13/+43What the ***** happened to Ron Paul? I guess it's not " Digg Cool" to talk about him any more. So the in crowd like's Obama. Well ***** you too.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/24/2008, -6/+36I agree that those candidates should have gotten more time as well. Kucinich too. But Paul actually beat every Republican candidate in at least one primary, and had a ton of spontaneous support from the grassroots, but you could watch CNN all day long and hear his name once for every hundred times that another candidate was mentioned.
The day he made 6 million and beat every record CNN spent the entire day talking about some lame endorsement that Huckabee got. And the Iowa caucuses with the huge missing slice that could have easily fit Paul's name into it, I suppose that was just "format" right? The examples of the media ignoring Paul are countless, yet as with so many other things you continue to chalk it up to coincidence.
Most Americans don't know who Paul is or what he stands for, and it doesn't help that dudes like you go around spreading unsubstantiated b.s. about him being racist. Pretty much no one believes that except for gullible idiots and those who engage in slander. - understudy, on 02/24/2008, -13/+42You don't ignore him Nick. Your negative comments are all over every Ron Paul story.
There is no 'mathematical impossibility of his getting the nomination.' Granted, his chances of the Republican nomination are slim, but there are a few scenarios (however unlikely) in which he could win the nomination.
In any case, it is also unlikely that Huckabee will receive the nomination and yet his numbers are included on the graph. Therein lies the inconsistency. Furthermore, in matters of fundraising, Paul is most relevant to the pack.
Just print Paul's fundraising numbers! What harm will that do?
_ - SwordofKahless, on 02/24/2008, -15/+42Ron Paul may not have a chance for the Republican nomination but he is still in the race and has raised more money that Huckabee. His message of freedom from government is likely the reason why a Socialist publication like the NY Times does not list him with the big government tax and spend candidates.
- Jeffmr1, on 02/24/2008, -4/+30Read what i said, i harbor NO illusions that Paul will win the race, i only admit to myself that a possibility still exists although it is an insignificant possibility. So i hope that you do see that im not "majoring in miracles" (although i've always done well in all of my math classes). You prove my statement in your post, they included Huckabee, who has "no shot at winning" but fail to include somebody who has seriously out-raised him who is still in the race. I also believe that the MSM needs to still feature all candidates running (if edwards or kucinich or thompson or hunter, etc., were running still, i'd abhor the thought of eliminating any of them from political discourse), there are still many states which have not voted or caucused in their primaries and they should know all of the options before them, just as the early states got a "fair shake" at studying some of the "fringe views" from the MSM when they actually gave him a mention every now and then.
- pegothejerk, on 02/24/2008, -2/+25that's a pretty big "other", Hillary.
hmmm.. - phybere, on 02/24/2008, -1/+21If we're really trying to be fair, we should complain that Mike Gravel (D) isn't on the list either. Then again, most people don't even know who he is, but he's still in the race.
- understudy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+21There's this common misconception among people who suck at English to label something 'impossible' when they mean to say 'improbable.'
Something with an 'infinitesimal probability of happening' IS possible by definition. It is not, however probable.
Orson Scott Card once said "You can't rule out the impossible, because you never know which of your assumptions about what was possible might turn out to be false."
_ - sahaskatta, on 02/24/2008, -1/+19i believe his total raised money is around $28 million, so he should most definitely be on that list.
- GuacamoleSan, on 02/24/2008, -0/+18I think the most powerful piece of information here is the graph showing the size of the donations....Hillary's donations were mostly $2,300+ (53%), (meaning Hillary's donations were large donations from a few wealthy friends), and Obama's donations were mostly below $500 (42%), meaning that many more people donated to Obama, probably normal people wanting to chip in, even though it was a small amount the sheer number of the donations added up..democracy in action!
- smartguy911, on 02/24/2008, -1/+17i think nytimes likes it when it's only 4. it makes the job of the graphic designer a little easier. less work for them. Also, it will make mccain look really bad since Paul has the most cash on hand and received majority of his money from $100-$500 group.
- Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+15Why don't you just ban corporate donations outright? How is it good that you have corporations donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to both parties during elections? Should that be allowed? Canada banned corporate donations ages ago and our political system has been better ever since.
- metalmilitia430, on 02/24/2008, -13/+27The "Ron Paul Revolution" has just began.
- Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+14After seeing these numbers I begin to understand and resent Canadian campaign finance laws. In Canada, a candidate could never legally blow so much money on a campaign (corporate donations are BANNED). As a result, there is very little money available salary wise in politics here. On the other hand, these laws keep candidates and the overall political system free from lobbyist influence (seriously it really does)
Campaign finance laws = Bad for party hacks/lobbyists, good for the people. - inactive, on 02/24/2008, -2/+16Buried for continued censorship of Republican candidate Ron Paul. I will not support this type of behavior.
- Stephen1424, on 02/24/2008, -6/+19But Where's Paul ????
- understudy, on 02/24/2008, -7/+20He may lose the nomination, but he galvanized a nationwide movement.
That's quite an accomplishment for someone who was written off from day one.
_ - phybere, on 02/24/2008, -6/+19Where's Gravel?
- Sh0cker, on 02/24/2008, -3/+15Lets use common sense
It's because his supporters (myself included) want him to be in the race, it is that simple.
Can you understand that little bit? Or does it HAVE to be more complicated than that? - Niacin, on 02/24/2008, -1/+13Except he isn't using those contributions for his Congressional election because that is AGAINST THE LAW. That's the first sign you're an ignorant twit. Furthermore, the Department of Education and CIA are two institutions that have garnered so much disgust for the United States simply by functioning as intended. Students aren't learning anything other than how to pass exams (or having their teachers fudge the scores to help the school), and the CIA is performing coups and instilling US-friendly puppet leaders in countries across the globe, pissing off the citizenry. Whom do you think created Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?
But the clincher is how incredibly dense you are as to the powers of a president. Until the neo-cons usurped our Constitution, the President was Commander in Chief and could veto laws passed by Congress. Outside of that his influence was purely diplomatic, be it between the various senators and representatives or to foreign nations seeking council. - exomniac, on 02/24/2008, -7/+19Amen, brother.
- phybere, on 02/24/2008, -2/+13Oh my god, the young will become educated! Think of the consequences!
- Zarxrax, on 02/24/2008, -2/+13http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N ...
Ron Paul has raised over 32 million dollars as of January 31. He has over 6 million still on hand.
What his supporters grasp, but the non-supporters don't grasp, is that this is NOT just a presidential race. This is a revolution, as the supporters have called it since the beginnings. Win or lose, we are not going to just "go away" after this race is over. We are here to fight. We are here to stay. - CorboMan, on 02/24/2008, -2/+13Yea no ron paul numbers? Gotta love ron paul being purposely left out of the numbers, i havent seen so much propaganda in a election year then this, instead of people running off actual fact people get chuck norris and other celebrities to endorse them....like these have americas best interest in mind
DUGG DOWN - thyblindedbeast, on 02/24/2008, -2/+12Can I Please have our country back!? Go RP
- coinman987, on 02/24/2008, -2/+12Both parties both the democrats (left) and republicans (right) I repeat both parties are two wings of the same bird, both spend "like teenagers with credit cards". Only difference democrats tax and spend republicans spend and spend even more.
- Coven, on 02/24/2008, -4/+14Yeah. Lets see some individual donor numbers.
- misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -0/+10I agree. Put him and Paul on there...
- Cleaner44, on 02/24/2008, -5/+15Strange, I thought I was very clear. Let's me make it VERY simple for you kid, you are a cheapo.
People that gave to Ron Paul do not want their money back, they want their country back. Give sometime and you might find you like it. - gypsi, on 02/24/2008, -0/+9pantsuits
- makenshin, on 02/24/2008, -0/+9http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P ... - Ron Paul
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P ... - John McCain
trying it again... hopefully works this time - Aleman360, on 02/24/2008, -0/+9It's very telling that 53% of Hillary's money came from donors giving the maximum. That tells us who the establishment wants.
- cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -2/+11Look, we're sorry your guy lost. But just because we don't approve of him does not give you the right to say ***** like "I hope you're not an American for my sake" and referring to us as "uninformed morons with their heads up their asses with only their ears sticking out so they can hear O'Reilly's next blaspheme."
In the world of grownups and adults, a certain modicum of respect is paid to other individuals, whether or not they support your choice for President. So, tell you what: Let it go and leave it be or suck it up and piss off, *****. - ncairns, on 02/24/2008, -13/+21First - that wouldn't have changed anything.
Second - the country 'isn't ready' for 19th-century ideology?
Third - yep. - Neoanarchist, on 02/24/2008, -6/+14Onetimer obviously considers the founding fathers to have harbored "fringe" ideas. Onetime, your ignorance is absolutely depressing and I hope you're not an American for my sake. I don't want uninformed morons with their heads up their asses with only their ears sticking out so they can hear O'Reilly's next blaspheme, voting in my election. Unfortunately, I'd assume that about 50% of voters are just that. Considering the 2004 elections; what a disgrace.
- fatlip, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9judging by all your comments... you're a *****
- scattass, on 02/24/2008, -3/+11Obama is going to to tell them lobbyist and big business to take a hike in the government! Just look at his great contributions!
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250 - amishjim, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9Ron Paul says what?
- andykt, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9The Huckabee campaign was reportedly broke only a few weeks ago, with his staff working without pay. Yet, he's worthy of a mention in this run-down of what everybody's spent, but Ron Paul isn't? Fairly standard, I suppose.
- cap11235, on 02/24/2008, -2/+10That's because he's not spending it on anything.
- thefirstenemy, on 02/24/2008, -2/+9http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/onemil ...
So far, 962,412 people have donated to Obama's campaign. -
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is