ron paul campaign did not break kerry record
in a typical renunciation of supposedly core principle, the ron paul campaign is asserting (directly or indirectly),
[...] In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry. [...]
however, punching 2004 $5.7M into a few prominent inflation calculators shows that the kerry record is over even 2006 $6.026M.
given the circumstances, the ron paul amount’s far more significant, and it’s not even remotely accurate to compare the two events as equal tests. but if talking straight dollars, currency debasement doesn’t go away for press releases. more shameful pandering by the ron paul campaign when honesty would deliver greater bang in the long run. perfect self-effacing opportunity to point out, where dollars are involved, the inaccuracy of comparisons separated by only 3 years — courtesy of the magical credit expansion.
[update 01: the RP campaign has apparently settled on $6.04M now, less than the following 2006 conversion estimates of kerry's purported 2004 $5.7M: $6.09M, $6.08M, $6.08M, and $6.05M. those are all the calculators i used in writing this post originally; none returned an amount in RP's favor. before anyone goes crazy wanking about rounding diffs, closeness, and CPI inaccuracy blah blah blah, note that the correct comparison (2007) widens the spread. because most calculators either don't offer 2007 comparisons yet or return 2006 numbers when you enter 2007, i went with 2006 for accuracy of comparison among the calculators. if kerry's real number was significantly lower than the rounded 2004 $5.7M (don't care enough to look for it, since i'm only analyzing what the RP campaign published), that also is something RP HQ should have addressed before using, whether directly or indirectly, the number as a concrete target. far as that goes, it's probably a good idea for RP and his campaign, whenever possible, to use years in front of dollar amounts — a practice that should become the standard (not least in hollywood). if adopted widely, perhaps it would have greater positive import for the american liberty movement than anything ron paul ever did or will do.]
[update 02: sitting on my ass, i did eventually google the alleged march 2004 kerry record of $5.7M, and found a claimed compensating factor in favor of the RP campaign. apparently, more of the touted $5.7M was entered offline, which opens up — for those who care — crumbling potential on two fronts: questioning of the accuracy of kerry's number, and eventual accurate increase of the RP number via tightly apportioned offline contributions. in that event, the title of this post would be inaccurate without an "as claimed" caveat or similar.]
[update 03: ugh. now i find an article claiming that the kerry record was attained july 2004, and was $5.6M. okay, that really is the end. if the RP campaign broke the record, it should be stated with reasonably accurate, debasement-adjusted numbers — whatever the hell those are.]
December 17th, 2007 at 14:21
my calculation from his website at 12mid on 12/16 to 12mid on 12/17 total 6,424,000…so take that to the bank and smoke it
December 17th, 2007 at 15:51
Honesty? You don’t give yourself enough credit, you made an observation on inflation that even the Paul people missed.
December 17th, 2007 at 16:03
6.4 million is more than 5.7 million even after accounting for inflation over the past 3 years.
What is the inflation rate on campaign funds anyway? Do you know?
December 17th, 2007 at 17:40
I haven’t seen the final tally from the campaign itself, but it seemed to be a hair over $6M, so your number’s probably pretty close. The point you make, however, is valid, regardless of whether the actual value of Paul’s haul exceeded that of Kerry’s. I don’t know whether the campaign is claiming to have beaten Kerry’s take, but there certainly are publicity perks in allowing the press to unilaterally characterize it that way — if for no other reason than it forces some critics, who might not otherwise be inclined, to adjust for inflation (not referring to you here). I do hope that the campaign takes your advice, though, and points that out to interviewers who make that “record-breaker” claim. It’s a great opportunity for proselytizing a sound money policy. Ironically, though, he’ll probably get more such opportunities by saving the argument for the big interviews (like Beck and Russert).
Update: I just received an email from Ron Paul (a mass email, to all campaign contributors). In his email, he states the one day total as $6.04M (not much different), and makes no reference to any records. I guess he’s leaving those claims to the media.
December 17th, 2007 at 19:42
my calculation from his website at 12mid on 12/16 to 12mid on 12/17 total 6,424,000…
in the statement at ron paul’s official campaign site, i missed the reference to Anonymous’s personal calculation, which i’m sure is much more accurate than those of the geek at ronpaulgraphs (“I am now quite confident [that $6,043,022.96 is] right.”) and ron paul (“On just one day, in honor of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the new American revolutionaries brought in $6.04 million, another one-day record.”).
you said something about smoking?
What is the inflation rate on campaign funds anyway? Do you know?
irrelevant. the usual CPIs — roundly considered underestimates by austrian types — apply well enough. if one wants to get super geeky, global dollar value can never be calculated accurately. however, it’s the RP campaign claiming currency debasement — obviously correctly — and CPI-based calculators are a good starting point in the absence of other compensation claims.
In his email, he states the one day total as $6.04M (not much different), and makes no reference to any records. I guess he’s leaving those claims to the media.
i now find no mention of kerry on the site, and the message purportedly from ron paul says only “another one-day record”, which is true for his campaign.
December 17th, 2007 at 20:06
Speaking of campaign fund-raising… I think the point this guy makes is somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand :)
I love the video on youtube (here, which I might have already linked to before in a comment, but it’s worth linking to again) where the people go into orgasm mode at RP breaking the $12mil mark, as if freedom was all but won at that point.
What movie was that from, Braveheart? “Freeeeeedooooooooom!”
T: RP, you braveheart, man.
RP: I braveheart.
(the office reference, for the uninitiated who haven’t watched every episode at least twice like I have, nerd-style)
December 17th, 2007 at 20:33
fuck. i’m at a hotel and it just tossed the internet connection and the message i’d composed in reply to you, taylor.
arghhh. woulda been alright if they didn’t have the three screens of agreement and redirect.
short version: though there’s still not, and will never be, a direct relationship between fund raising and political horse racing, the money for the paul campaign carries much more weight than with clinton, after all that bullshit from ignorant naysayers, some of which may go to their graves insisting that the ron paul supporters are 3 teenagers blogging in a basement.
i thought the NY campaign HQ video was okay, apart from the comments of the camera guy. didn’t see anything in the cheering that could be construed necessarily as anything but a thrill at exceeding what many thought months ago was a preposterous money target. if they worked for it, WTF.
though they’re generally out to lunch, the RP campaign has ably and intelligently demonstrated the power of “get out of the way”. gotta hand it to the fuckers on that, however stupid the main path.
and c’mon, taylor — that ticker widget on the ron paul site is pure genius. liberty aside, ya gotta admire the execution.
December 17th, 2007 at 21:36
I guess that wasn’t worded too well. Of course, I meant that he didn’t appear to be claiming to have beaten someone else’s record.
December 18th, 2007 at 01:48
Salty,
I don’t know, I found the video creepy in the extreme. As I watched it, I imagined an equivalent situation in which a bunch of people said, “Let’s show everyone we can build a pyramid!” and they slave and slave (har!) away at building it and then one day they’re done and they have their pyramid and they all yell and scream and ooooorgle! and all that and clap and cheer and hurrah and pat each other on the back for a job well-done and then someone, a party-pooper, says, “Wait… what the hell have we accomplished here? We’ve got a big fucking pyramid now, but… so what?” and then as the depression sets in someone else suggests that they can at least bury themselves inside of it.
It’s like, wow… you raised $12 million. Con-grat-u-fucking-lations. Now some network executives will get a little bit nicer bonus check this year thanks to the advertising space you bought from them, and maybe RP and co. can stay at a few more Best Westerns and shit than they otherwise might have (oh, when will that harp stop being played… Man of the People bullshit, would RP turn down a Secret Service escort when/if he assumes the throne and let his many crazed wanna-be assailants have a day in the park with his ass? Will he have trouble sleeping in the elaborate trappings of the Princely Palace, I mean, White House?) but beyond that, so what? I mean, I see how it’s a big deal from the “See, we could build a pyramid!” perspective, but I don’t get how building a pyramid is itself meaningful, at least from the whole “Hey, get these fucking chains off me you slave-driver asshole” perspective.
And here’s another thing. Say the ticker, for whatever reason, stopped on $11,999,999.99 because that’s all that was donated. Would those people have felt as excited? A fucking number changes by 1 cent and suddenly it’s time to have a shit-throw?
And here’s another thing that’s sort of related that I had been meaning to blog about myself but I’ll never get to it I realized because I don’t care enough, I guess: as someone who desires freedom, shouldn’t I be glad if RP wins from the perspective that, even if he is just another rank statist whore and he won’t come through on even 1% of his promises, if he at least manages to not let the government grow under his watch and/or he does sack at least one bureaucratic ass-munch or program, I’m a little better off (freer), at least in the short-term?
I know it’s taboo to do the whole voting for perceived-lesser-of-two-evils thing, but can’t I prefer one evil over the others subjectively as not making my life as shitty as it possibly could be given the alternatives and at least have a little smile at that fact? I mean, it’ll never be as clear-cut as RP and Stalin, but would I be wrong to say “I’m glad it’s RP instead of Stalin” without actually voting for the douchebag or getting into the whole “If someone has to invade Iraq, it’s better that they’re a libertarian because then they’ll feel bad about it at least” quandary? Or would that logic lead me to enjoying the Bush presidency, for interest, because he didn’t shackle me to the ground during his tenure even though he could have?
And oooooooooone last thing I was thinking about related to the RP campaign for High Lordship. Say RP somehow becomes the next Master of the Known Universe, won’t all the “libertarians” who supported him and “got him there” be angry at “us” for all the nasty things we said about him and them, if the point arrives where His Magnificence somehow manages to reduce the size and scope of the US federal racketeer squad in a meaningful way? Won’t we have to put cotton balls in our ears to drown out the “I told you so’s” and bludgeon our eyes to spare ourselves the looks of smug righteousness and moral superiority?
I just thought it was funny how anti-RPers spend so much time shitting on RPers but over at RP Campaign News Central (OMG OMG, says the Boy Wonder Raskin, TUCKER FUCKING CARLSON ENDORSED RP!) they pretty much ignore all the RP-shitting-on that is going on.
December 18th, 2007 at 02:33
taylor, on balance, of course you’re right. but i think it’s okay to temporarily view the futility (and negativity) of the RP campaign through the same isolated glasses you’d use if watching people cheering a successful domino fall. stupid? okay. but it’s still an indication of cooperation and effort. and i can’t help but still savor the minuscule portion of “fuck you” contained even in the pussified version of opposition by the RP statists. think of it, if nothing else, as telling the MSM to get stuffed.
you’re damned straight pointing out that, much like war profiteering from destruction, the biggest and probably only benefit goes to the principals — ron paul, his paid staff, and the ad scumbags who’ll soak up the money.
would RP turn down a Secret Service escort when/if he assumes the throne and let his many crazed wanna-be assailants have a day in the park with his ass?
not a fucking chance he’d do that and survive. if he did a damned thing for liberty as president, he’d have more resentful enemies high on entitlement than anyone in history — including a shitload of fired “law enforcement” goons in full ‘roid rage.
Say the ticker, for whatever reason, stopped on $11,999,999.99 because that’s all that was donated. Would those people have felt as excited? A fucking number changes by 1 cent and suddenly it’s time to have a shit-throw?
you’re speaking to the guy who, at age 9 or so, declared the new year’s eve countdown to be philosophically bankrupt arbitrary nonsense. still, i’ve been known to enjoy watching my car odometer flip certain numbers, probably notable only because we have 10 fingers and 10 toes. you gonna bitch about the paulists’ footwear next? LOL
sure you haven’t been watching more CYE than i have? not a bad larry david impersonation string you threw together.
, if he at least manages to not let the government grow under his watch and/or he does sack at least one bureaucratic ass-munch or program, I’m a little better off (freer), at least in the short-term?
ron paul cannot slow socialism. he likely can increase it through mass backlash, however, and mass backlash is precisely what ron paul would get if he did anything worth a fuck in “office”. for all the anti-”top down” baloney he spins, you’d think he and his numbnutz supporters would catch a whiff of the future.
, but can’t I prefer one evil over the others subjectively as not making my life as shitty as it possibly could be given the alternatives and at least have a little smile at that fact?
of course. as i wrote in the comments of another post, all voluntarists support reducing state crime, even incrementally. that alone, however, is not gradualism as touted by “libertarians” in love with state force as a mechanism for peace. i support all reductions in state force. i do not support becoming the state, that inherent evil, to reduce its only currency. neither do i support granting it the power of presuming it’s a usable function. the state must be opposed fully. even then it’ll never go away, far as i can foresee.
but would I be wrong to say “I’m glad it’s RP instead of Stalin”
first, it’s a little too much of a hypothetical, in that the american morons, however steeped in socialism, are still probably at least 10 years and some major “unforeseen” disasters away from openly supporting a stalin. however, bypassing that for argument practicality, there’s plenty of room to argue, given the current environment of the morons, that ron paul could be worse for liberty than a stalin. that’s the complex anti-vacuum bit of which most people don’t have the first clue. president ron paul would not be a dictator for liberty; he would be the lightning rod that 90% of the public piss on, confusing him with liberty, and fighting him as an uncaring for not sprinkling largess of stolen wealth liberally. he’d perhaps turn the morons far more socialistic, far faster than they would have otherwise. aside from the obvious foreign policy dangers of having an overt “peace president”, it’s a damned real — and i argue, likely — possibility.
where His Magnificence somehow manages to reduce the size and scope of the US federal racketeer squad in a meaningful way? Won’t we have to put cotton balls in our ears to drown out the “I told you so’s” and bludgeon our eyes to spare ourselves the looks of smug righteousness and moral superiority?
when that happens, consider me first in line to publicly and loudly announce that i’ve been a stupid, wrong, unforgivable asshole — with one major, non-negotiable caveat: the test period must be all the way through three years past his presidency. liberty’s enhanced significantly, and makes it through three years following? i’ll eat hillary clinton’s raggedy ol’ pussy for joy, and ask for seconds.
even under those conditions, the long term result will be increased tyranny (“government works for good!”), but a 7&ndash11 year period under which liberty was enhanced significantly via president paul would be enough of a thwapping of my observations and theories that i’d just keep my mouth shut about it afterward, except perhaps to remark positively on the changes, then apologize again.
i’d like to be wrong on all of my dire predictions. so wrong. history backs me up, however, and that’s a helluva backup, imperfect as it may be.
March 31st, 2011 at 22:54
[...] using adjusted dollar figures is dishonest (directly counter to the avowed doctrine of their hero, as usual), and pulling their puds over partial "refunds" of office budgets not discussed in the post until [...]