POL: Using Ron Paul Donor Locations to Make a Map of Libertarianism

[albionmoonlight]

Not the best 1-1 analogy, but somewhat interesting to me. Not suprisingly, the movement is strongest in the West and weakest in the South. Though I wonder how much the weak numbers in the South have less to do with libertarianism and more to do with the fact that Paul challenges a current GOP orthodoxy that has been very very good to Dixie over the last decade or so.

http://www.patrickruffini.com/2007/10/15/inside-ron-paul-nation/

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just off-hand, I'd guess that the Libertarian struggle to gain a foothold (if we work from the assumption that this indicates one) probably has more to do with the limited exposure they've had here & what has existed (outside of Neal Boortz) has been largely negative for a lot of likely GOP voters.

What I'm talking about is that a lot of the time, say over the last decade or so, if you happen to run into someone who identified themselves as a "Libertarian" (capital "L" intended), they were more of the type that wikipedia called (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) "Left-Libertarians". They were often either NORML or Green Party members sort of borrowing the label and probably doing some damage to the Ron Paul style Liberts.

You know me well enough (I assume) to know that I do tend to notice this sort of thing & it probably wouldn't seem too unlikely that I would keep a sort of running mental tally of how people self-identify. So when I say that I've never met a single person, not one not ever, on the street who self-identified as a Libertarian that wasn't presenting themselves as a Green-in- Libertarian-clothing I think it sort of illustrates at least part of the problem.

I've almost come to think that the libertarian (small L intended) political philosophy suffers from an inherent lack of organization that's personality driven or something. It's as though (as I've seen with smokers) there's something about the personality type that's drawn to the philosophy that makes them less interested/willing to be coherently organized in order to create an identity that's easy enough to convey to the masses. In turn, that makes it easy for others to co-opt the brand.

Additionally, I'd say at this point you're overestimating how happy a lot of GOP voters (over the past 20 years) in the South are with the GOP orthodoxy. Almost across the board, regardless of which lean (social, fiscal, etc) brought you toward the GOP, I think there's a great deal of "meh" right now & has been for several years. Paul could potentially capitalize on this to gain strength in the South, by highlighting the establishments failures to make headway on key issues for both camps but I'm not seeing anything to this point that makes me believe he has the organization to really get that done.

[JPhillips]

But Paul is a social libertarian and that just won't mix with a lot of the South's voters. He's also barely Southern culturally and that means a lot in my experience.

[Young Drachma]

Paul doesn't excite me nearly as much as he does my other libertarian friends.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But Paul is a social libertarian and that just won't mix with a lot of the South's voters.

Interesting comment, because that's actually my loose perception of him on a number of things. But then I go look at his "official" positions at his campaign website.

-- He's saying the right stuff on immigration.
-- He's saying the right stuff on home schooling.
-- He's saying the right stuff on abortion
(I don't agree with him personally, but he's hitting the GOP core correctly)
-- He's saying the right stuff on the 2nd amendment.
-- He's not strong enough on defining marriage but he seems to be trying to at least split the difference by limited federal judicial interference.

Now, I'm not saying the guy has always voted/acted in accordance with what how he's currently trying to spin himself, but at least he's giving the appearance of trying to get onto pages that most Southern conservatives can live with. But I go back to the problem of him (in the South) being a lot like a tree that falls in the forest with no one around. Even if he says all the right things, it he doesn't say it effectively to enough people, that social liberal perception (fair or not) stuff will kill him.

[Crapshoot]

But Paul is a social libertarian and that just won't mix with a lot of the South's voters. He's also barely Southern culturally and that means a lot in my experience.

No, he's not. He's a border restrictionist, opposed to gay marriage, pro-life - he's a social conservative for all practical purposes.

[Jas_lov]

No, he's not. He's a border restrictionist, opposed to gay marriage, pro-life - he's a social conservative for all practical purposes.

Yes, and he's big on states rights for social issues. One of the comments on the OP's link said this. Wouldn't this appeal more to the south? Sure Paul is a libertarian conservative, but everytime I hear him speak on abortion, or gay marriage, or education he talks about supporting the DoMA, wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the power to the states, getting rid of No Child Left Behind.

What Paul says, Paul votes for and that cannot be denied. He's probably the most consistent guy running. I think part of it might be what John said that he doesn't have the organization down there yet. His campaign is unique in that the grassroots are supporting the campaign rather than the other way around. He hasn't been to the South a whole lot and doesn't have a lot of name recognition yet so maybe that plays into it somewhat.

And I agree that Paul can play into the weakness of the other candidates here. Rudy will do well in Florida, but he's a social liberal and that won't play well. Romney has been exposed as supporting liberal views in the past. Thompson should do well down there being that he's from Tennessee, but he doesn't seem to be rallying anybody. McCain is broke. Huckabee should also do well down there, but he only managed to raise $1 million this quarter which was 1/5 of Paul. If you go to Paul's website, he's already raised almost as much as Huckabee did last quarter in 16 days! So that leaves Paul. I said in another thread that he'd be one to watch out for especially in New Hampshire and maybe Nevada too. I read somewhere today that Paul came in 2nd among the GOP in New Hampshire donations only behind Romney.

[Galaxy]

The extreme right-wing Christian conservative base want to run a third-party candidate, which would be foolish.

[Bubba Wheels]

The extreme right-wing Christian conservative base want to run a third-party candidate, which would be foolish.

The left no longer has the problem of 'extreme', as what used to be extreme has now become the liberal main-stream (thanks to the anti-christ George Sorros). So we now have the incredible irony of a socialist, anti-military woman about to become President of the United States while a true conservative constitution-believing Christian doctor and veteran (only one of two veterans even running) is described as 'fringe' and even 'radical.' Amazing.

[ISiddiqui]

I really do enjoy how Bubba likes to characterize things... its like a different planet. I do never get tired of Hillary = socialist stuff though.

Anyway, one of the reasons I assumed that Libertarians don't get play in the South (nor in most other places) is because of their stance on drugs (ie, legalize it all). Is that not a important consideration for conservatives (or most parents, regardless of left or right), JIMG?

[SackAttack]

Saw a Ron Paul bumper sticker on the way home from work.

Literally. It took up the entire bumper.

[Bubba Wheels]

I really do enjoy how Bubba likes to characterize things... its like a different planet. I do never get tired of Hillary = socialist stuff though.

Anyway, one of the reasons I assumed that Libertarians don't get play in the South (nor in most other places) is because of their stance on drugs (ie, legalize it all). Is that not a important consideration for conservatives (or most parents, regardless of left or right), JIMG?

If Hillary-Care isn't socialized medicine, then what is it? Where do I get that one wrong? I'll take the first statement as a complement, though. More and more George Soro's control over the everyday liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Christian media gets exposed. Pucker-up for Soros and his agenda and get a little something extra in your 'Winter-festival" stocking. Not hard to spot the partakers, they all go down the line on every issue like paint-by-numbers...Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Bill Mahr, etc.

[Big Fo]

The extreme right-wing Christian conservative base want to run a third-party candidate, which would be foolish.

I would really like to see this happen but in the end I feel it is unlikely.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anyway, one of the reasons I assumed that Libertarians don't get play in the South (nor in most other places) is because of their stance on drugs (ie, legalize it all). Is that not a important consideration for conservatives (or most parents, regardless of left or right), JIMG?

Oh it would be fucking HUGE ... except that he's conveniently leaving it out of anything he's saying these days (as far as I could tell from his website).

My assumption is that you aren't hearing it (yet) because he's still considered in many circles as more of a fringe candidate than a legitimate one. Not quite Paulsen for President, but not even up to Perot legitimacy yet either. When/if he's ever given a legitimate chance, this will be one of the things that will be used to bury him once & for all. And that will happen even if by proxy
(i.e. you couldn't hypothetically get quite enough of his own words/actions/votes to do it but the Libertarian brush will provide plenty to tar & feather him with).

[cartman]

The only people that seem to give a rat's ass about Soros are the ones who think he is the anti-Christ. And those who think he is are viewed as loonies. And those who are labeled as loonies think everyone else is stuck with their head in the sand because they don't think Soros is the anti-Christ.

I guess those people forget that Soros was one of the the key allies Reagan used in the fight against Communism. More than a few people credit Soros as much as Lech Walesa in the success of Solidarity in Poland. But I guess once he funds a Democratic viewpoint, he becomes the "anti-Christ".

[JonInMiddleGA]

But I guess once he funds a Democratic viewpoint, he becomes the "anti-Christ".

What the hell else would anyone need?

[JPhillips]

No, he's not. He's a border restrictionist, opposed to gay marriage, pro-life - he's a social conservative for all practical purposes.

He's also for drug legalization, cutting funding for "faith based" programs, not in favor of the marriage amendment, and not nearly vocal enough in regards to opposition to abortion. He's way too lib for the strong Bush supporters, many located in the South.

I think the bigger problem, though, is that he isn't seen as Southern. No region is as resistant to voting for people outside their region as the South. He may be from Texas, but I doubt to many Southerners see him as "one of us."

[JPhillips]

The left no longer has the problem of 'extreme', as what used to be extreme has now become the liberal main-stream (thanks to the anti-christ George Sorros). So we now have the incredible irony of a socialist, anti-military woman about to become President of the United States while a true conservative constitution-believing Christian doctor and veteran (only one of two veterans even running) is described as 'fringe' and even 'radical.' Amazing.

Bubba: Go read some history. The current Democratic party is as far right as it's been since before FDR. Also, Hillary is almost certainly more moderate than any other Dem candidate.

And Paul is fringe. He's polling at about 3% nationally, is far behind the leaders in fundraising, and holds extreme views about the Federal Reserve and the gold standard. You have every right to like him, but don't fool yourself into believing he'd be the frontrunner if only Soros would have a stroke.

[Buccaneer]

Cool. We get the "left is middle and everything else is far, far right" card. :)

[Crapshoot]

Bubba: Go read some history. The current Democratic party is as far right as it's been since before FDR. Also, Hillary is almost certainly more moderate than any other Dem candidate.

And Paul is fringe. He's polling at about 3% nationally, is far behind the leaders in fundraising, and holds extreme views about the Federal Reserve and the gold standard. You have every right to like him, but don't fool yourself into believing he'd be the frontrunner if only Soros would have a stroke.

Cmon - you know better than to try and debate logic with Bubba. I don't like Hilary, and don't want to see her as president (I'm leaning towards Guliani) but I've developed a grudging admiration for her - she's the most grown up of the Democratic candidates IMO, with the possible exception of Joe Biden.

[Buccaneer]

Go read some history.

I do and as recently as 50 years ago, what is conservatism now would be slight left of center then.

[Crapshoot]

Bubba: Go read some history. The current Democratic party is as far right as it's been since before FDR. Also, Hillary is almost certainly more moderate than any other Dem candidate.

And Paul is fringe. He's polling at about 3% nationally, is far behind the leaders in fundraising, and holds extreme views about the Federal Reserve and the gold standard. You have every right to like him, but don't fool yourself into believing he'd be the frontrunner if only Soros would have a stroke.

Cool. We get the "left is middle and everything else is far, far right" card. :)

What are you talking about? Hillary is pretty damn close to centrist - hell, Guliani might be closer in other ways, but to argue she's far left is absurd.

[Buccaneer]

Where did I mention Hillary or that anyone is far left? JPhillips is just moving the center to a convenient spot.

[JPhillips]

Cool. We get the "left is middle and everything else is far, far right" card. :)

So you think the current Dems are farther left than in the past? I'm not making value judgements, but it's just a fact that the Democratic party is closer to the middle than it's been in fifty years. Can you imagine any prominent Dem arguing for an LBJ or FDR domestic agenda? Hell even Truman was farther left domestically.

[JPhillips]

I do and as recently as 50 years ago, what is conservatism now would be slight left of center then.

And I didn't mention conservatives.

[Buccaneer]

So you think the current Dems are farther left than in the past? I'm not making value judgements, but it's just a fact that the Democratic party is closer to the middle than it's been in fifty years. Can you imagine any prominent Dem arguing for an LBJ or FDR domestic agenda? Hell even Truman was farther left domestically.

We get both parties arguing for agendas that are far more socialistic than LBJ. I'll give you FDR and the New Deal legislations. The problem now is that Great Society-type legislation have become the norm, less hyped, more hidden and unfortunately, more costly. No one, left or right, is arguing for less, always more, whether for health, military, security, subsidies, entitlements, etc.

[Big Fo]

From the link:

"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."

Although the sampling method surely isn't the best, I did find that part interesting.

[larrymcg421]

Not sure how anyone could claim that a party that once nominated Mondale and Dukakis and is now run by the Clinton's could be considered moving to the left.

[Buccaneer]

Not sure how anyone could claim that a party that once nominated Mondale and Dukakis and is now run by the Clinton's could be considered moving to the left.

Don't forget McGovern. A lot, I believe, changed during the Vietnam era.

[JPhillips]

Vietnam and civil rights.

[Buccaneer]

Both were part of the Vietnam era.

[JPhillips]

Agreed. Just pointing out that it wasn't just the war that caused a shift in American politics.

[clintl]

It is beyond question that the Democratic Party moved to the right during the Clinton Administration and has stayed there. And that the Republican Party has also moved to the right during the Reagan Administration and stayed there.

[Galaxy]

I would really like to see this happen but in the end I feel it is unlikely.

Bubba took my statement out of complete context. My point was it would be foolish in the sense that it spilt the votes.

Personally, I'm wobble down the middle with liberal social lean and a financial, low-tax (small government) conservative lean.

[ISiddiqui]

It is beyond question that the Democratic Party moved to the right during the Clinton Administration and has stayed there. And that the Republican Party has also moved to the right during the Reagan Administration and stayed there.

Agreed... but I think Bucc is just looking at it in the whole "size of government" aspect, which is one way of looking at things, but most of the rest of us tend to look at social issues and the progressiveness of the tax code in determining the left/right spectrum.

Its a matter of describing the terms in different concepts... which is why a more in depth 2 axis (or more, for that matter... the progressivity of the tax code and size of government get lumped into "fiscal issues", but they don't really march lockstep with each other) look at things is helpful.

Anyway, Hillary is a DLC type. She's following the Bill Clinton / Blair "Third Way" model, between hands off capitalism and government run socialism, a mix of market and interventionalist policies. Definately not a far left politician. The other amusing thing is lumping her in with "anti-Christian" in any way, considering that she is probably the most religious of any major candidate in the race, BY FAR (she is a very devout Methodist).

[Bubba Wheels]

The only people that seem to give a rat's ass about Soros are the ones who think he is the anti-Christ. And those who think he is are viewed as loonies. And those who are labeled as loonies think everyone else is stuck with their head in the sand because they don't think Soros is the anti-Christ.

I guess those people forget that Soros was one of the the key allies Reagan used in the fight against Communism. More than a few people credit Soros as much as Lech Walesa in the success of Solidarity in Poland. But I guess once he funds a Democratic viewpoint, he becomes the "anti-Christ".

Well, the obvious answer to this one is that Bin Laden helped us in fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. Things change.

Soro's is probably just one (a big one) of many that suddenly see an opportunity as never before to funnel massive amounts of cash into the U.S. political process and mass media in an effort to shape the U.S. for their own nefarious purposes. Guess what? Its working. And its called Socialism.

[Bubba Wheels]

What are you talking about? Hillary is pretty damn close to centrist - hell, Guliani might be closer in other ways, but to argue she's far left is absurd.

Hillary is blowing centrist 'smoke' for the gullible to win the general election. Then we'll get the socialist stuff. We can clearly see here how its working on some.

Please don't mention primaries, Hillary is already running her general election campaign...with her lead now many pundits are stating this.

[Bubba Wheels]

It is beyond question that the Democratic Party moved to the right during the Clinton Administration and has stayed there. And that the Republican Party has also moved to the right during the Reagan Administration and stayed there.

Wrong. All myth. Clinton ran as a 'new democrat centrist' and then attempted to push the country sharply left (with Hillary's help) before being stopped by the 'contract with America' newly elected GOPers. If the country went centrist under Clinton it was despite, not because of him. Case in point, Clinton was dead-set against welfare reform until the GOP congress pushed it on him, he signed reluctantly and then when it worked took all credit for it. Numerous other examples.

Republicans have been going left for a long time now. The current President Bush is about as conservative as George Clooney is. Ditto the GOP Senate.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think Bubba has any clue what socialism really is (Hint, France isn't a socialist country either, as evidenced by their market economy dominated by the private sector and big businesses).

And I wasn't aware that Hillary has been blowing "centrist 'smoke'" to win the general election for over 10 years. And yes, Bill is and was a centrist Democrat. Perhaps you forget how he pushed his party to accept NAFTA as soon as he stepped into office.

In the end the question becomes whether those on the right think that Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, the two Republican female Senators from Maine, are socialist or not. Because I don't see that huge of a difference between them and Hillary Clinton (though there are differences, they aren't so large).

[Bubba Wheels]

I don't think Bubba has any clue what socialism really is (Hint, France isn't a socialist country either, as evidenced by their market economy dominated by the private sector and big businesses).

And I wasn't aware that Hillary has been blowing "centrist 'smoke'" to win the general election for over 10 years. And yes, Bill is and was a centrist Democrat. Perhaps you forget how he pushed his party to accept NAFTA as soon as he stepped into office.

NAFTA, like CAFTA, is an agreement between the coporate elites and their political allies in the U.S. and its trading partners to create government protected monopolies and screw over the middle class. With Bill and Hillary both up to their eyeballs in international lobbying money, like from Dubai, this is no surprise.

How did you get '10 years' out of what I said? Hillary, the avowed socialist, has gotten away with becoming suddenly 'centrist' for this campaign because she has refused to answer hard questions and the liberal media has let her get away with it.

Socialism is nothing more than the government regulating industry to create government protected monopolies that allow it, the government, to pick winners and losers in the economy (as opposed to the free market place) and to thereby profit those in power by doing so. See Sen. Feinstein's government awarded contracts to her husband as an example. There may be a more precise dictionary definition of socialism, but this is the thrust of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... a centrist Democrat.

That phrase brings several things to mind, once the laughter stops at least.

The most prominent being that "a centrist Democrat" is not the same as being "a centrist".

That aside though (more to a point that came up earlier either in this thread or another) I would strongly argue that it's the center that's moved toward the left not that the left has moved toward the center.

I find that disappointing, dismaying, and generally disgusting, but it's a reality that I'd be willing to stipulate to no matter how much I despise seeing it happen.

[ISiddiqui]

NAFTA and CAFTA are both, far more friendly to free trade that previous tariff regimes. Flawed though they may be, they advance the cause of free trade. Btw, you do realize that George Herbert Walker Bush did a lot of work in creating NAFTA, right?

I got 10 years based on Hillary Clinton's history, especially as a DLC democrat. She's never been an "avowed socialist", so stop lying. And her record has been one of a Third Way politician in the tradition of her husband, Bill, and Tony Blair.

Socialism is government control of the means of production. Regulation is simply part of the mixed capitalist system of the modern Western state. A complete free market doesn't work (market failure does exist). IMO, complete socialism doesn't work either. Scandinavian economic models come closest to socialism among Western industrialized countries and the Senator isn't even close to there.

[ISiddiqui]

That aside though (more to a point that came up earlier either in this thread or another) I would strongly argue that it's the center that's moved toward the left not that the left has moved toward the center.

I'd ONLY argue that has happened in the last two years. But during the Reagan years, I'd contend the center moved to the right, so much so, that a big free trade Democrat like Bill Clinton won the Democratic nomination.

[Crapshoot]

That phrase brings several things to mind, once the laughter stops at least.

The most prominent being that "a centrist Democrat" is not the same as being "a centrist".

That aside though (more to a point that came up earlier either in this thread or another) I would strongly argue that it's the center that's moved toward the left not that the left has moved toward the center.

I find that disappointing, dismaying, and generally disgusting, but it's a reality that I'd be willing to stipulate to no matter how much I despise seeing it happen.

What time period? 30 years ago, income tax rates were significantly higher, the idea of Fairness Doctrine was paramount, and the airlines, markets, and utilities were siginificantly regulated. Where exactly are you coming from? (I naturally, far prefer the world today to that 30 years ago)

I think the long term trends have been towards social liberalism and some degree of economic libertarianism (less regulated markets, less regulation of industries, and so forth). Clearly, there's been some backlash and a changing of the spectrum at some level.

Eg: I think free trade is a good thing, and pretty much anyone with any degree of economic literacy tends to agree - nonetheless, its generally seen a right-wing, libertarian issue. However, an extreme-right winger like Bubba is petrified of free trade. A recent WSJ poll showed that a majority of Republicans think free trade has been a net loser, which is shocking (you would imagine this to be a Democratic issue). The last couple of years have seen the start of a backlash on the right-wing economic trend and a rise of populism, but the GOP long since reinvented itself as the populist Southern party,instead of the economic northeastern-party it used to be.

[st.cronin]

Eg: I think free trade is a good thing, and pretty much anyone with any degree of economic literacy tends to agree.

Slight tangent, but I have not found this to be true. Its been my experience that its extremely difficult to explain this issue to even very bright people.

[Buccaneer]

Squiddy, a "big free trade Democrat" is a different animal than a big free trade GOP or a big free trade Libertarian. You make it sound like it would all be the same thing. I really doubt a libertarian-minded leader would have introduced reams of union and so-called environmental protections into such an agreement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

blah blah etc etc

You might be downright shocked to discover exactly how little economic policy even crossed my mind when I commented about the movement of the center.

Or you might not be {shrug}

[Crapshoot]

You might be downright shocked to discover exactly how little economic policy even crossed my mind when I commented about the movement of the center.

Or you might not be {shrug}

Really? I know you're a conservative, and economics isn't a factor at all to you? I know you're not an "evangelical" (I think I have a long PM from you explaining it), so are you just completely a "national security" Republican?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Really? I know you're a conservative, and economics isn't a factor at all to you? I know you're not an "evangelical" (I think I have a long PM from you explaining it), so are you just completely a "national security" Republican?

It's a factor, but it isn't really the strong influence it would have been even a few years ago.

While I'm not an evangelical by definition (politically) I'm probably still a social issues conservative first (abortion notwithstanding), a national security and law & order one second, and a fiscal one third.

The latter gets downgraded I suppose as I've come to realize that I'm going to feel assraped by taxes no matter which one of the parties has power, the difference is mostly by degrees. And the social conservative aspect needs to be satisfied more in order for me to tolerate the fiscal b.s. that I'm going to get even if the GOP had every seat in both chambers.

I don't know if I'm explaining this as well as I would have liked, but maybe that helps make a little more sense of it.

[ISiddiqui]

Squiddy, a "big free trade Democrat" is a different animal than a big free trade GOP or a big free trade Libertarian. You make it sound like it would all be the same thing. I really doubt a libertarian-minded leader would have introduced reams of union and so-called environmental protections into such an agreement.

He would if we wanted to get the thing passed ;). Lots of things get added so some Senator will sign off on it and vote yes.

And yes, when I talk about the shift to the right during the Reagan years, I speak of economics. While I do think social issues are important (and I am a big social 'liberal' - in the classic sense), I give equal weight to economic issues.

[Jas_lov]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNSIJG0

Bump for Ron Paul's historic day! $3.5 million raised online in the last 20 hours! Woot! He should reach $4 million for the day and $7 million total just 5 weeks into the 4th quarter. He has a $12 million goal for the entire 4th quarter and it looks like he'll reach that! That certainly would put him up in the top tier Republican money. When this all started I was just happy his message was gonna get out there, but this is ridiculous! He was on the Tonight Show last week and his campaign is picking up steam.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html

The bottom map shows it's still a western/New Hampshire movement. I think he might have an outside chance at an upset in New Hampshire or Nevada where independents/libertarians can vote! He certainly has the money now to get his name and message out there.

[Galaxy]

It's great for Paul that no one seems to be looking. The democrats and republicans (Rudi) seem too busy slugging at each other, while Paul seems to be taking a more low-key approach.

[Buccaneer]

I forgot to post this modified map earlier...

http://home.comcast.net/~ouray2/images/libmap.jpg

[Jas_lov]

The 24 hours is up on the East Cost and it came to about $4 million raised just today and up to $7.1 million for the quarter so far. It's still technically November 5th on the West Coast so we'll see where this ends up overall. Pretty impressive for a guy the media typically ignores and writes off as fringe though.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02

[Galaxy]

The 24 hours is up on the East Cost and it came to about $4 million raised just today and up to $7.1 million for the quarter so far. It's still technically November 5th on the West Coast so we'll see where this ends up overall. Pretty impressive for a guy the media typically ignores and writes off as fringe though.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02

Not bad at all.