Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

“We’ve all heard about return on investment (ROI) as well as search frequency research” assumes Curtis Dueck in an Epiar Market Research blog post titled Presidential Candidates & ROI: An Unusual Popularity Poll

But what happens when we combine the two to see which of the 2008 US Presidential candidates have the highest levels of public interest (as measured by the number of online searches for each candidate’s name) compared to each campaign’s expenditures? Do we arrive at a rudimentary form of a Presidential campaign ROI?

[Please go to the post and see this graphic!—Romney has out-spent everyone for a return that ranks as pitiful.]

Early estimates indicate that, while Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton share a similar number of daily online searches, the amount of money they have spent differs wildly. Big spenders Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have yet to capture the curiousity of online citizens despite already spending tens of millions of dollars. Alternately, small spenders Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich have disproportionately high levels of public interest compared to their undersized budgets. Perhaps the over-achieving campaigns of Huckabee, Kucinich, and Paul are a good early indicator of identifying this election’s most potent dark horse candidates?

While charting the online searches for a candidate may not be the most important metric for predicting the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election, I sure would not be happy if my campaign showed an imbalanced ROI like Romneyetc., etc.

We have harped upon this string for weeks and weeks. See: Kleefeld: “High Burn Rate Puts Romney Behind Rudy In Cash On Hand”—more evidence of the scarily low ROI Romney gets for his every campaign dollar

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. “Epiar is an Edmonton-based internet market research and search engine optimization company. Please contact us for more information or to commission your own research reports.”


“SPARKS, Nev. – Ron Paul won the GOP presidential straw poll conducted by organizers at the Conservative Leadership Conference held at the Nugget Casino this weekend ‘by a large margin,'” according to an organizer, writes the estimable Chuck Todd based on field notes and text messages from NBC/NJ’s Erin McPike in an msnbc FIRST READ: the day in politics post titled Despite Showing Up In Person, Romney Loses Nev. Straw Poll.

Paul won with 32 percent, McCain came in second with 17 percent, Hunter was third with 15 percent, and “Romney was in the lower numbers because people came out for his event but they just didn’t vote for him,” according to organizer and McCain operative Paul Jackson.

Although many of the Republican presidential teams had surrogates representing them at the conference, Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter were the only candidates to speak at the conference, and the victor himself was not there.

Libertarian sentiment dominated the conference, and a number of attendees expressed disappointment with the Republican Party for not catering to many of their views. Several speakers explained that they were looking to move on, echoing much of the discontent that came out of the meeting of the Council for National Policy in Salt Lake City late last month.

In fact, American Target Advertising Chairman Richard Viguerie, who said he was part of the strategic meetings in Salt Lake City, said Thursday night that even though he has agreed not to support Giuliani, Thompson or McCain, he’s still not close to declaring support for Romney or any other lower tier candidates because they are still actively and seriously courting conservatives. “Why would we stop the flow of flowers and candy?” he said.

Please note that Romney is counted among the “lower tier candidates.”

Almost on cue, Romney said during his speech the next day to the group, “I’m from the Republican wing of the Republican Party,” eliciting a negative response from some rival campaigns and the Democratic National Committee. The DNC jumped and noted that he stole Chairman Howard Dean’s line from the previous election when he told voters he was “from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” before losing to John Kerrymore [emphasis ours]

Even in person Romney fails to persuade or convince. Or should we write, especially in person?—in any case, Romney is taking hits from all sides, and some of those hits have been below the waterline.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

“‘Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make,’ said Adm. Robert J. Natter, former commander in chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and an adviser to Giuliani. ‘Lawyers should not debate while our national security is on the line. In these momentous decisions, we need leadership, not litigation,'” as quoted by the estimable Jake Tapper in an transmission titled
Giuliani Camp Slams Romney Over ‘Lawyers Test’; New York Mayor Takes Aim at Iowa, New Hampshire Front-Runner

Thompson, Paul Get In on the Act

Aides to former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson also challenged the Romney response, telling the National Review’s Byron York after the debate, “When it comes to our nation’s security, it will be our generals that Fred Thompson sits down with first, not our attorneys” more

Geraghty of NRO—probably still smarting over the hilariously mis-executed pasting he took from an angry and inarticulate “friend of Mitt”—reproduces the entire Giuliani press release in a Campaign Spot post titled Giuliani Sees an Echo of Kerry in Romney’s Lawyer Answer

It’s a Republican pile-on, with Romney at the bottom. Or is it?—well, it could be. Question: Will the Romneys take the bait and respond in kind? We predict they will. And if they do, they will pay for their mistake most dearly. For Romney to be seen attacking—yes, attacking—e.g. America’s mayor or 9.11 fame would be damaging in itself. But here is the real problem for the Romneys: Romney’s negatives are too high to go negative without self-destructing.

We explore the issue of Romney’s negatives elsewhere:

Here is what we concluded then, and what we still hold to now:

Again, see:

Rasmussen poll: Romney unelectable in general election; polarizing figure; 25% of republicans say they would definately vote against Romney

Allow us to articulate our argument in more familiar terms. It is common wisdom that a candidate whose negatives are high should not go negative. The negative campaigner may bring down her rival or rivals, but not without bringing herself down as well. Does any remember Dick Gephardt’s bitter attacks on Howard Dean and how they backfired on him? Neither do we. But the same was once said about Gephardt as is now said about Romney by Geraghty and others. Gephardt, however, was at least limited by the poverty of his campaign and Gephardt’s own loyalty to the interests of his party.

Romney has high negatives and has clearly gone negative. He has a far smaller-narrower base of support but far, far more resources than Gephardt ever had. And: Romney has far less of a commitment to the success of the GOP than Gephardt, a loyal soldier to the end, had to the DNC.

So: Imagine a Republican Dick Gephardt, on steroids, angry, alienated, estranged, adrift, and with no larger sense of party loyalty to restrain him, a man surrounded by hirelings, contractors, and highly-paid specialists, as opposed to the usual politicos, interest group players, and party insiders that surround other candidates, i.e. people with larger and longer term interests at stake. Now imagine that this hypothetical Republican Gephardt with nothing to lose but everything to gain has both the will and the resources necessary to slime and vilify whatever candidate or candidates he chooses.

This is Willard Milton Romney.

And this is where we are at this historical moment.

These are interesting times for the GOP … more

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

“Ron Paul had a whopping good day in Wonkosphere yesterday, leading all Republican candidates with 30% buzz share amongst conservative bloggers. Much of the discussion was about his Salt Lake City appearance,” writes the estimable Dooley in a Dooley Complex post titled Paul has winning day in Wonkosphere.

Also: data developed by the Gallup people place the underfunded, GOP insurgent Ron Paul (4%) within the margin of error of Willard Milton—“I have so far spent upwards of US$9 million of my own money funding this failing, poorly organized campaign and all I got was this lousy t-shirt”—Romney (7%). See:

GOP Update: McCain Gains While Romney Fades, by Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll, in which the authors detail Romney’s sudden slump to 2nd tier in the national polls

Question: What conclusions do the Romney people draw from these findings and developments? They must have access to at least the same if not far better data. They must be monitoring the same events. They must be poring over the same walking maps, trying to make sense of the same reports from various sources. They had to have seen this all coming—either that or they’re all idiots. Or: could the Romney campaign’s serene non-responsiveness to the news of the world be a spectacular and extreme case of group think?

At the moment we are willing to entertain almost any hypothesis. Does anyone have any idea?

OTOH: there is evidence to suggest that a reeling and punch-drunk Team Romney is painfully aware of their downward spiral. See:

David S. Broder describes the fuhrerbunker-like gloom that hangs over the waterfront headquarters of a besieged Team Romney

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. Disclaimer: However much we may admire his strength of character and tenacity, we have no brief for the estimable Dr. Paul. We are for whoever is against Willard Milton Romney.

“They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. On the other hand, it does not show much honesty, integrity, or conviction,” writes the estimable Jennifer Reynolds of in a post titled After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy

The latest test of this principle is to watch “1st tier” presidential candidate Mitt Romney start to emulate the political philosophy of “2nd tier” candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been in favor of small government since he became a Congressman. He has been in Congress for ten terms or twenty years. (Ron Paul is currently listed with 8 to 1 odds of becoming the next US President)

Throughout that time he has consistently advocated that we strictly adhere to the Constitution of the United States. He has written volumes of information on the topic and may be the most patriotic statesman this country has seen in generations. The mainstream media either ignores or ridicules Dr. Paul and his views, but lucky for us, there are two wonderful sources of finding these volumes of writings. The first is on the Lew Rockwell site. Visit the home page and look for the Ron Paul file in the lower left corner. There you can find many articles written by and about Ron Paul as well as a host of videos. Another source is the Ron Paul Library . For the well versed Ron Paul supporter as well as people new to his positions, I suggest that you look through his work. His writings and statements he has given on the House floor are truly inspiring

Apparently, others are now finding Ron Paul’s writing inspiring too. Of late, a nod to Constitutional policy has been found in sound bites from the other candidates. One can attribute this to the surprising support that Ron Paul has seemed to garner. Surprising, that is, to all of the Neo-cons who were sure their pro-war nation building tactics would surely gather the most supporters. Not at all surprising to the rest of us who know the country is ready for Dr. Paul. As Ron Paul’s popularity continues to rise, the other candidates have tried to ridicule him or ignore him. Now, seeing the amazing support Dr. Paul is generating, some candidates are trying to be him.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Mitt Romney gave responses that were not just taken from a page out of Ron Paul’s book, but seemed to be taken right out of the good doctor’s mouth. Mr. “I will double Guantanamo Bay” has now decided that States have rights and perhaps we ought to consider ceding them more authority over certain issues such as education and abortion. Both of these are positions that Ron Paul has been stating for years (not surprising to those of us who have read the U.S. Constitution), yet Mr. Romney seems to have had a sudden epiphany as I have heretofore not seen nor heard him state these position. On January 30, 2006, over a year ago Dr. Paul wrote: “. . . the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. . . .Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy?” Today, August 22, 2007, Mr. Romney remarked: that states should “fashion their own laws with regard to abortion. That’s what I think the next step should be.” I wonder where he got that ideamore

We wonder too.

Please note: We have no brief for the estimable Ron Paul. We are for whoever is against Willard Milton Romney.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. Here is a YouTube video of what purports to be Romney’s lack-wit Illinois campaign chair, State Senator Samuel something-or-other Rutherford, forcibly taking a Ron Paul sign from a Ron Paul supporter. Apparently Team Romney behave like jerks and thugs when F2F too, and not just online.

We had thought that perhaps the anonymity of the medium emboldened the Romneys and their flaks.

But, no, apparently not.

Apparently the Romneys are quite comfortable with this sort of behavior.

“I got a thought-provoking e-mail along similar lines (one of dozens like it I’ve had on that Paul column) from Ben Novak, who lists himself as ‘founder of the Americans in Europe for Ron Paul Meet-up Group in Bratislava, Republic of Slovakia.’ Blimey,” writes John Derbyshire of NRO’s The Corner in a post titled Is 2008 The New 1964?

Well, here’s what Ben says. “Mr Derbyshire—-Recently you wrote an eloquent article titled the ‘Ron Paul Temptation ,’ about how tempted you were to support him. However, you concluded by fighting off the temptation, writing that ‘[Ron Paul’s] candidacy belongs in the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, such sweet dreams.’ A Ron Paul candidacy does inspire sweet dreams. But, rather than writing Ron Paul off for that reason, I suggest that there are a multitude of reasons why you—and a lot of other Americans—should follow your dream … more

We concur. We develop a similar theme here: the conservative interregnum

Disclaimer: We have no brief for Ron Paul. We are for whomover opposes Willard Milton Romney.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. Also see:

Powered by ScribeFire.

“He’s raised as much money in Florida as any other Republican candidate. He’s visited Florida more than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. Heck, Romney even has former Republican Party Chair Al Cardenas on his side, as well as many folks connected to Jeb Bush. But Mitt Romney is not showing well in the polls there,” writes Steven Reynolds in the progressive All Spin Zone.

The Boston Herald, in an article written from Melbourne, FL, speculates, but not with much in the way of conclusions. Still, they do note that the transplanted New Yorker vote, which is especially strong in south Florida, is going all Rudy Giuliani’s way. Hmm. That still doesn’t explain why Mitt Romeny is having such troubles … more

Remember our guiding principle: audi alteram partem, i.e. consider every source. “Progressive” or not, Reynold’s consistent account compels a fair hearing.

For more on this theme:

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

“GOP candidate Ron Paul latest news shows that in a Matt Drudge (Drudge Report) initiated poll of which GOP presidential hopeful won the debate in Iowa, the leader with [a commanding and decisive] 45% of the vote was, Ron Paul,” as reported by the estimable Steve Pope, a name we have come to know and trust … more

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Powered by ScribeFire.