From the article:
The 2008 campaign may be over but the lasting “revolution” spawned by Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) candidacy continues to echo through the political world.
Paul, capitalizing on a healthy distrust of government and his strident opposition to the war in Iraq, became an Internet phenomenon — using the web to raise an astounding $35 million for his longshot candidacy.
The financial network built by Paul during his presidential race has, somewhat amazingly, continued to produce for two men seeking to serve as the Congressman’s political heirs.
Rand Paul, who is running for the Senate in Kentucky and is the son of the Congressman, has already raked in $822,000 despite the fact that nearly the entire GOP establishment in the Bluegrass State has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
Peter Schiff, an economic adviser to Paul’s presidential campaign and a likely candidate for Senate in Connecticut, has raised $998,000 for his bid — despite the fact he has yet to officially declare.
Both men have employed the “money bomb” approach (encourage donors to all give on a certain day to post large 24 hour totals) to fundraising that Paul pioneered in 2008.
Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul during the campaign, said that he was not all surprised by the amounts of money both Rand Paul and Schiff had been able to raise to date.
He called the Paul movement “legitimate” and “real”, noting that the Campaign for Liberty — an organization formed in the aftermath of the campaign and on which Paul serves as honorary chairman — had raised $4 million since its founding in February.
“These are people who want to return to our traditional values of self reliance and liberty,” added Benton.
It remains to be seen whether either Rand Paul or Peter Schiff can crack the code to turn fundraising capacity into actual votes.
While Ron Paul raised vast sums of cash and had — without question — the most vocal and energized group of supporters on the Republican side, he was never a real factor in any state.
Paul won 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses — good for fourth place — and crested 20 percent in a handful of primaries and caucuses including North Dakota (21 percent), Montana (25 percent) and Idaho (24 percent). But, overall, he remained a bit player in the race for the Republican nomination.
Polling conducted in Kentucky suggests his son is a more legitimate threat to the party establishment. Grayson led Paul 40 percent to 25 percent in a primary matchup conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal Daily Kos blog.
Schiff has fared far less well in polling on the Connecticut race. In a late July Quinnipiac survey, Schiff didn’t even receive one percent of the vote. (Ouch!) Of Schiff’s candidacy, political analyst Stu Rothenberg wrote: “A majority of Connecticut Republicans are not ready for the second coming of Ron Paul.”
We tend to agree with Rothenberg that while the Paul message is VERY appealing to a small group of voters, it doesn’t sell well when presented to the broader electorate. (Otherwise, we would have been listening to President Paul address a joint session of Congress last night.)
Still, the sums of money that Paul-ites have donated to Senate candidates in Connecticut and Kentucky are impressive and suggest that the Ron Paul Revolution — such as it is — may not be over just yet.
By Chris Cillizza
Related posts:
