Do you suppose the reason that Ron Paul is able to raise so much money has something to do with the spending habits of his base?
In other words, might it be true that young, libertarian-leaning Americans (Paul's base) are more willing to make campaign contributions--credit contributions they really can't afford--than, say, older, thriftier conservatives (Huckabee's base)?
I suspect, though I can't prove, that this explains the astounding disconnect between Paul's considerable money and his less-than-considerable poll numbers. But what politically correct media outlet would ever say so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I suppose you could consider that an "interesting hypothesis," and in some cases, you are possibly correct.
However, the average donation size was $50; not exactly an un-affordable expenditure. Thus I would argue that your hypothesis is not applicable to a majority of the donors. I know that my money came from my checking account.
Indeed, my hypothesis would not be true of you. As for the "majority of the donors", I still don't know.
A question: how many $50 donations has the average Paul supporter made? Might multiple donations lead to "an un-affordable expenditure"?
Additionally (and I don't mean anything derogatory by this), Paul's base appears to be composed largely of those who've only just recently, or not yet begun, their careers. It wasn't all that long ago that I myself was a college student. $50 is harder to come by, and constitutes a far larger portion of one's overall financial worth, when in college.
For so few (judging from the polls) to be generating so much still makes me wonder. Maybe I'm just all washed up, though...
Thanks for the comment.
I have nowhere else to post this, so I'll make note of it here: after reading your NYT post, I have to respectfully disagree. As someone working on my third degree in life sciences and having taught science courses at a public college, you are quite wrong about the ability of Behe and the others to "intelligently defend" creationism.
What they can intelligently do is provide challenges to Darwinian evolution--a theory that, incidentally, does NOT purport to explain all of the development of life on Earth, which is a major flaw that *true* evolutionary biologists admit. Having read Behe's book and on two occasions had the opportunity to pose questions directly do him, he dodges the question of why his book provides no proof in favor of creationism. Dr. Behe is an excellent chemist, a devout Christian, but a flawed philosopher; the negation of one conjecture (Darwinian evolution) does not result in the proof of another conjecture (intelligent design).
That said, your blog is interesting, and I told my wife two years ago, following a 1/3 page article in The Economist on Huckabee, that he would likely win the nomination and perhaps the presidency. I think he is a thoughtful, decent, hard-working man and someone I would be happy to call a friend. I would also, in spite of some of our differences (such as creationism or abortion), much prefer him over ANY other Republican candidate.
Keep up the good work, sir, and feel free to reply by email (I can be found at CWRU).
Best wishes for a happy new year for you and your family,
Greg Ward
Post a Comment