PDA

View Full Version : Huckabee "Moneybomb" raises $210k


Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:46 AM
Haha! The so-called front runner put together a moneybomb event, and couldn't even break $500k.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/rp_vs_huck_yesterday.html

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:01 AM
The other way to look at this is that money bomb front runner hasn't even been able to surge into double digits in mainstream polling.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 09:04 AM
The other way to look at this is that money bomb front runner hasn't even been able to surge into double digits in mainstream polling.

Oh yeah, did you see the results of the Carthage, Missouri caucus by chance? :spock:

Cochise
12-13-2007, 09:05 AM
The other way to look at this is that money bomb front runner hasn't even been able to surge into double digits in mainstream polling.

Or that he's still polling well behind a guy who's raised about 1/4 the money.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 09:07 AM
Or that he's still polling well behind a guy who's raised about 1/4 the money.

so the bought and paid for media would like you to believe, we shall see eh? ;)

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 09:15 AM
so the bought and paid for media would like you to believe, we shall see eh? ;)


If Huckabee can't raise any money, how can he buy media?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 10:14 AM
The other way to look at this is that money bomb front runner hasn't even been able to surge into double digits in mainstream polling.


I think that Paul's fundraising vs. Huckabee's is proof that the mainstream polling is flawed. Nonetheless, Paul is gearing up for a pretty serious nationwide blitz here soon -- how big is said to depend on the fundraiser that we have this weekend, which we're expecting to at least match the record breaking day we had in November.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 10:30 AM
Oh yeah, did you see the results of the Carthage, Missouri caucus by chance? :spock:

LOL, good point.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 10:34 AM
I think that Paul's fundraising vs. Huckabee's is proof that the mainstream polling is flawed. Nonetheless, Paul is gearing up for a pretty serious nationwide blitz here soon -- how big is said to depend on the fundraiser that we have this weekend, which we're expecting to at least match the record breaking day we had in November.



Mitt Romney could write himself a $10 million "money bomb" this afternoon. Is that further proof that mainstream polling is flawed?

patteeu
12-13-2007, 10:34 AM
I think that Paul's fundraising vs. Huckabee's is proof that the mainstream polling is flawed. Nonetheless, Paul is gearing up for a pretty serious nationwide blitz here soon -- how big is said to depend on the fundraiser that we have this weekend, which we're expecting to at least match the record breaking day we had in November.

Will more mainstream exposure help Ron Paul or hurt him? I can understand that he has a lot of appeal in the dark corners of anti-Jewish websites like Stormfront and radical neo-isolationist havens like anti-war.com, but will he be able to have the same mindshare penetration in Ward and June Cleaver's home or George and Louise Jeffersons?

:p

Taco John
12-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Mitt Romney could write himself a $10 million "money bomb" this afternoon. Is that further proof that mainstream polling is flawed?


I don't see how. Mitt Romney is one person.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't see how. Mitt Romney is one person.


He could raise more money that Paul. You previously suggested that Ron Paul raised more money than Huckabee* was evidence that 'mainstream' polling is flawed. Wouldn't a candidate raising even MORE money further prove that polling is flawed?


*on a single day, I'll take a look at overall numbers in a minute

Taco John
12-13-2007, 10:44 AM
Will more mainstream exposure help Ron Paul or hurt him? I can understand that he has a lot of appeal in the dark corners of anti-Jewish websites like Stormfront and radical neo-isolationist havens like anti-war.com, but will he be able to have the same mindshare penetration in Ward and June Cleaver's home or George and Louise Jeffersons?

:p


Well, I've garnered a few contacts that I consider reliable since my television stint, and this is what I can tell you: the campaign's internal polling reflects much differently than what the mainstream polls are saying. As of right now, the campaign expects that they've got third place in Iowa essentially locked up, with only Huckabee and Romney mounting any serious grass roots fervency there. The campaign has met all of their precinct goals at this point, and are gearing up for a pretty serious personal blitz on the ground. In addition, they've just hired the guy who put together this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA) (which to answer your question, yes, more mainstream exposure of Ron Paul will be nothing short of great for us) to put together ads that they intend to blitz nationally.

We'll see how it pans out, but while the campaign wont go on record and say it, there is an expectation there that if things continue to fall out the way they are, Ron Paul could pull the upset of the century and walk away with both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 10:45 AM
He could raise more money that Paul. You previously suggested that Ron Paul raised more money than Huckabee* was evidence that 'mainstream' polling is flawed. Wouldn't a candidate raising even MORE money further prove that polling is flawed?



You understand that Ron Paul is raising his money with people right? That he's not writing himself checks? That's a pretty key ingredient here that you seem to be missing.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 11:02 AM
Well, I've garnered a few contacts that I consider reliable since my television stint, and this is what I can tell you: the campaign's internal polling reflects much differently than what the mainstream polls are saying. As of right now, the campaign expects that they've got third place in Iowa essentially locked up, with only Huckabee and Romney mounting any serious grass roots fervency there. The campaign has met all of their precinct goals at this point, and are gearing up for a pretty serious personal blitz on the ground. In addition, they've just hired the guy who put together this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA) (which to answer your question, yes, more mainstream exposure of Ron Paul will be nothing short of great for us) to put together ads that they intend to blitz nationally.

We'll see how it pans out, but while the campaign wont go on record and say it, there is an expectation there that if things continue to fall out the way they are, Ron Paul could pull the upset of the century and walk away with both Iowa and New Hampshire.

If he wins both Iowa and NH, it will certainly be impressive.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 11:10 AM
If he wins both Iowa and NH, it will certainly be impressive.

A Ras. poll that came out yesterday has Hucakbee in Iowa at 39, Romney at 23, and everyone else polling at 8 or below. Given that, third place in Iowa for Paul is certainly possible, but what does it mean? 8% would still equal getting beat by 30 points.

The day before yesterday in NH, Romney was at 33, McCain at 18, Rudy 15, Huckabee 14, Paul 8. So, unless there's a big shift it seems pretty likely that NH will end up with him running fifth.

I think that given all the polling right now, his true level of support among Republicans is probably around 8%, which might allow him to show in a state or two, states that aren't red states.... but 8% doesn't win you anything. Particularly if you don't figure to be the one to gain when wounded ducks like Thompson or McCain drop.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 11:18 AM
You understand that Ron Paul is raising his money with people right? That he's not writing himself checks? That's a pretty key ingredient here that you seem to be missing.


Assuming that Ron Paul's claims of 133,805 donors since 1 October are correct (they are actually just guestimates), that represents less than 1/4 of one percent of all Republican voters.

To put this in perspective, in the third quarter Romney had 37,323 individual donors, Guliani had 37,150 and Paul had 5339 individuals contribute.

More importantly, Paul is not translating his fundraising to an ability to take votes away from the other candidates. Bringing in new donors and new voters is great, taking them away from other candidates is what wins elections.



http://ronpaulgraphs.com/

http://www.opensecrets.org

Taco John
12-13-2007, 11:20 AM
You're putting too much stock in so-called "likely republican voters" that are polled. Ron Paul has brought in a lot of support from people who would never be contacted as a "likely Republican voter."

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 11:22 AM
A Ras. poll that came out yesterday has Hucakbee in Iowa at 39, Romney at 23, and everyone else polling at 8 or below. Given that, third place in Iowa for Paul is certainly possible, but what does it mean? 8% would still equal getting beat by 30 points.

The day before yesterday in NH, Romney was at 33, McCain at 18, Rudy 15, Huckabee 14, Paul 8. So, unless there's a big shift it seems pretty likely that NH will end up with him running fifth.

I think that given all the polling right now, his true level of support among Republicans is probably around 8%, which might allow him to show in a state or two, states that aren't red states.... but 8% doesn't win you anything. Particularly if you don't figure to be the one to gain when wounded ducks like Thompson or McCain drop.


Paul could certainly place third in Iowa since everyone but Huckabee cleared out after Romney turned on the money faucet before the straw poll. A caucus format benefits Paul in that the die-hard Paulites will show up and bring a friend.

I would have expected Paul to be looking better in New Hampshire.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 11:23 AM
You're putting too much stock in so-called "likely republican voters" that are polled. Ron Paul has brought in a lot of support from people who would never be contacted as a "likely Republican voter."



Bringing in new donors and new voters is great, taking them away from other candidates is what wins elections.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 11:27 AM
Bringing in new donors and new voters is great, taking them away from other candidates is what wins elections.
Well, the new voters coming in are coming in for Paul, so wouldn't that take away votes from the other candidates? This is what the Paul PPhenomena is about. I suspect that after the primary, these new voters may just cancel their new registrations as well.

If enough votes split between the candidates, there's a chance of an upset with Paul being able to get it with a plurality.

As to Huckabee and money, candidates have won before without the same money as the big-moneyed candidates.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 11:33 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20071212/cartoon20071212.gif

patteeu
12-13-2007, 11:37 AM
A Ras. poll that came out yesterday has Hucakbee in Iowa at 39, Romney at 23, and everyone else polling at 8 or below. Given that, third place in Iowa for Paul is certainly possible, but what does it mean? 8% would still equal getting beat by 30 points.

The day before yesterday in NH, Romney was at 33, McCain at 18, Rudy 15, Huckabee 14, Paul 8. So, unless there's a big shift it seems pretty likely that NH will end up with him running fifth.

I think that given all the polling right now, his true level of support among Republicans is probably around 8%, which might allow him to show in a state or two, states that aren't red states.... but 8% doesn't win you anything. Particularly if you don't figure to be the one to gain when wounded ducks like Thompson or McCain drop.

I wouldn't be surprised if he wins a couple of small states along the way if he's willing to stick it out longer than some of the rest (depending on who and when people drop out of the race). Jerry Brown won a few when he outlasted the rest of the field and became the last man standing against Bill Clinton in 1992. I doubt that he has much chance to win either Iowa or NH and winning both would really surprise me.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 11:48 AM
He's currently leading the entire field in Alaska.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 12:33 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he wins a couple of small states along the way if he's willing to stick it out longer than some of the rest (depending on who and when people drop out of the race). Jerry Brown won a few when he outlasted the rest of the field and became the last man standing against Bill Clinton in 1992. I doubt that he has much chance to win either Iowa or NH and winning both would really surprise me.

Maybe it's possible, but I don't really see it. If someone like Huckabee or Romney is running away, he could benefit from traditional Republican voters who know the race is all over but the shouting and staying home. But if it's tight or one guy is ahead but not all that far, I think the leading candidate will gain momentum and probably squelch that into "Me or the other guy".

After or around the time of South Carolina I think their focus will sharpen to the two leaders. More than likely by then it will either be Romney or Huckabee or a split between the two, and others will begin to fade from attention. The story will be "A sweeping the primaries" or "A won two states, but B took south carolina, which will get the next one?"

I think that voters are attuned to A vs B, they tend to see a choice as being one guy against the other guy. It's Hillary or Obama, it's Bush or McCain, it's Kerry or Dean, etc. You don't remember the also-rans. And nobody really wants to vote for someone with no chance. After all, if the only guy you like is Duncan Hunter but you know he's got no chance, why go out in the February cold to vote? Especially after the first few primaries are over and it starts to become apparent that no miracle is in the cards.

Voters want to feel like they are part of the action, part of the race. That's why at the end I think they gravitate toward the stars and not the scenery. I don't think this year will be any different.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 12:34 PM
Well, the new voters coming in are coming in for Paul, so wouldn't that take away votes from the other candidates? This is what the Paul PPhenomena is about. I suspect that after the primary, these new voters may just cancel their new registrations as well.

If enough votes split between the candidates, there's a chance of an upset with Paul being able to get it with a plurality.

As to Huckabee and money, candidates have won before without the same money as the big-moneyed candidates.


You already answered your own question in the third sentence. Many of the Paul supporters are newly registered. (Hopefully they have more invested than to cancel their registrations after a defeat) That means that they are new voters, not voters who were previously supporting a different candidate.

Think of it in terms of a division playoff race. You have to beat your division opponents, get wins and give the opponents losses.

To truly move ahead, a candidate must take votes away from opponents. There just aren't enough "new" voters out there to make up 30 points. Take New Hampshire, there were 239,523 Republican ballots cast in 2000. Using that same number, Romney would have the equivalent of 88k votes, Paul would have 19k, based on the recent polls. Therefore, Paul would need to bring in 69,000 new voters in a state with a total population of 1.31 million.

If only 65% of the population is voting eligible, 40% are Democrats, and you subtract the already active Republicans, you are left with a pool of about 271,000 inactive Republicans and independents to pull "new" voters from. That means pulling in over 25% of all inactive Republicans and Independents in order to make up the difference (assuming Romney makes no attempt to bring in "new" voter groups). Keep in mind, these are people that for a number of reasons are not registered, purposely independent, or don't regularly participate.


On the other hand, if Paul could pull 34,500 voters directly from Romney, he would pull into the lead in New Hampshire.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 12:41 PM
If only 65% of the population is voting eligible, 40% are Democrats, and you subtract the already active Republicans, you are left with a pool of about 271,000 inactive Republicans and independents to pull "new" voters from. That means pulling in over 25% of all inactive Republicans and Independents in order to make up the difference (assuming Romney makes no attempt to bring in "new" voter groups). Keep in mind, these are people that for a number of reasons are not registered, purposely independent, or don't regularly participate.


I don't think it's accurate to characterize all unregistered voters as really being available to the candidates. For one thing, it's probably now too late to register in most of these places, isn't it?

Secondly, people who have never voted in their lives are probably not likely to start now. Particularly anti-war non-voters... If that was their motivation, why didn't they register in 2004?

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 12:49 PM
I don't think it's accurate to characterize all unregistered voters as really being available to the candidates. For one thing, it's probably now too late to register in most of these places, isn't it?

Secondly, people who have never voted in their lives are probably not likely to start now. Particularly anti-war non-voters... If that was their motivation, why didn't they register in 2004?


Statistically, they are available. You'll notice I added the little caveat at the end...


"Keep in mind, these are people that for a number of reasons are not registered, purposely independent, or don't regularly participate."



(FWIW, New Hampshire allows election day registration)

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 12:50 PM
Then there's the youth crowd who've come of age...Paul is big on campuses. This won't help him in Iowa though as they'll still be on break.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 01:09 PM
Then there's the youth crowd who've come of age...Paul is big on campuses. This won't help him in Iowa though as they'll still be on break.


Young people don't vote. They get high and sit around and watch rock and roll music on that MTV.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 01:18 PM
Young people don't vote. They get high and sit around and watch rock and roll music on that MTV.

You out-of-touch, old geezer. They don't have rock and roll music on MTV anymore. :)

Chocolate Hog
12-13-2007, 01:37 PM
Ron Paul has gotten donations from about 16,000 Iowans. If 16,000 people show up and vote for him in Iowa using the 2000 numbers he would finish in third place. Although the turnout is expected to be much lower this year then it was back in 2000.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 01:59 PM
Young people don't vote. They get high and sit around and watch rock and roll music on that MTV.
90% of the people I saw at a Paul rally here were college age people.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 02:00 PM
90% of the people I saw at a Paul rally here were college age people.


damn hippies!

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:02 PM
Ron Paul has gotten donations from about 16,000 Iowans. If 16,000 people show up and vote for him in Iowa using the 2000 numbers he would finish in third place. Although the turnout is expected to be much lower this year then it was back in 2000.



As I understand it, the campaign's official goal for Iowa is 25,000 committed turnout, and they believe that they've already hit that number.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 02:09 PM
damn hippies!
I know you're joking around...but they weren't anything like a :Peace: A lot looked like preppies, jocks and cleancut young men ( mostly) with short hair. Very middle-class looking and down to earth if ya' ask me. Besides, since when would a :Peace: care about tax reform or a gold standard. Sound like capitalists to me.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 02:12 PM
90% of the people I saw at a Paul rally here were college age people.



Frankly, I like Ron Paul and I think he is good for the Republican Party. I just see a lot of people with pie-in-the-sky expections for his performance (cough**TJ**cough) that are going to be very bitter after super Tuesday

Cochise
12-13-2007, 02:16 PM
Frankly, I like Ron Paul and I think he is good for the Republican Party. I just see a lot of people with pie-in-the-sky expections for his performance (cough**TJ**cough) that are going to be very bitter after super Tuesday

They're going to cry corruption, fraud, and voter suppression no matter what. Just prepare yourself. You'll think it was Palm Beach County all over again.

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 02:17 PM
I know you're joking around...but they weren't anything like a :Peace: A lot looked like preppies, jocks and cleancut young men ( mostly) with short hair. Very middle-class looking and down to earth if ya' ask me. Besides, since when would a :Peace: care about tax reform or a gold standard. Sound like capitalists to me.


They were probably just there for the hot chicks.

Cochise
12-13-2007, 02:18 PM
They were probably just there for the hot chicks.

They know that lib chicks are easy.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 02:32 PM
They know that lib chicks are easy.
No, it's southern girls.

BucEyedPea
12-13-2007, 02:33 PM
They were probably just there for the hot chicks.
The males significantly outnumbered the females, most of whom were pusing strollers.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 02:49 PM
They're going to cry corruption, fraud, and voter suppression no matter what. Just prepare yourself. You'll think it was Palm Beach County all over again.



Let me go ahead and confirm that I have no confidence that the voting system is clean of corruption and fraud... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176468)

trndobrd
12-13-2007, 03:50 PM
Let me go ahead and confirm that I have no confidence that the voting system is clean of corruption and fraud... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=176468)


The Iowa caucus should be fair and square...counting heads and all.

Chocolate Hog
12-13-2007, 08:45 PM
Fox News should count the votes that way it'll be fair and balanced.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 09:31 PM
The Paultards will wreak Havock on Caucus sights.....but Mainstream America's silent majority will throw down with their votes and show the truth. I think the shouting minority paultards will try to make a bigger showing than the population would represent.

I don't think Paul will make NEAR the impact the fanbois do. Not even close.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 09:34 PM
Those machines are ALL programmed on the local level. Is it possible for a small amount of error and tampering? yeah. Is it likely to have an impact on even a regional election> no.


There is FAR more potential for election fraud in the new Dem ideas....the over-use and ridiculous misuse of absentee voting, election day registrations, failure to require ID etc....

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 09:43 PM
Those machines are ALL programmed on the local level. Is it possible for a small amount of error and tampering? yeah. Is it likely to have an impact on even a regional election> no.


There is FAR more potential for election fraud in the new Dem ideas....the over-use and ridiculous misuse of absentee voting, election day registrations, failure to require ID etc....

Well there isn't simply one way of cheating, there are many ways. It would be a much better idea to go back to paper ballots. So what if it takes a month to count, I would rather know for sure who the people elected.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 09:46 PM
Democrats pushed/forced the new electronic ballots on Iowa counties for the last election.

Thank Gov Chet "i've been running for governor on the taxpayer dollar for the past decade" culver.


They need to get control of the ballots in general, and make voters actually take responsibility for their votes. Ballots leaving the control of election officials isn't a good idea.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 09:55 PM
Well there isn't simply one way of cheating, there are many ways. It would be a much better idea to go back to paper ballots. So what if it takes a month to count, I would rather know for sure who the people elected.

Surely you realize that there were cases of election fraud before electronic voting machines. "Stuffing the ballot box" is a phrase that comes from a time when people voted on paper ballots.

I had John Connally as a lecturer in one of my college classes. He was the Lyndon Johnson protege who was wounded on the day of the Kennedy assassination in Dallas, supposedly by the same bullet that killed Kennedy. Anyway, he told a story about one of Johnson's early elections in which the precinct where Johnson's ranch was located waited until after almost all the other precincts in the state had submitted their vote counts. He didn't come right out and say it, but he clearly implied that that was done so that the Johnson team would know how many votes they needed to guarantee a victory. Not surprisingly (nor coincidentally, I'm led to believe), Johnson won that election. And of course, paper ballots were in use at the time.

Chocolate Hog
12-13-2007, 10:04 PM
The Paultards will wreak Havock on Caucus sights.....but Mainstream America's silent majority will throw down with their votes and show the truth. I think the shouting minority paultards will try to make a bigger showing than the population would represent.

I don't think Paul will make NEAR the impact the fanbois do. Not even close.


Way to throw blanket statements on every Ron Paul supporter.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 10:12 PM
If you're a thread in the quilt, don't be offended by being called a blanket.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 10:25 PM
The Paultards will wreak Havock on Caucus sights.....but Mainstream America's silent majority will throw down with their votes and show the truth. I think the shouting minority paultards will try to make a bigger showing than the population would represent.

I don't think Paul will make NEAR the impact the fanbois do. Not even close.



Good to see you changing your tune. First it was that Paul had NO support in Iowa... Now it's just that the support that he does have in Iowa is loud (which is also good to hear).

Also, a quick lesson for you: In a Republican democracy, it doesn't matter how big your showing represents across the population. All that matters is turnout.

SNR
12-13-2007, 10:29 PM
We'll see. Just remember, this time Faux News doesn't have Frank Luntz and his magic machine that discredits Ron Paul against Mike Huckabee.

On a more serious note, I don't claim voter fraud by any means. The candidates already have that wrapped up. Example: Mitt Romney buses people in (even Rudy supporters will testify to that). And that's fair democracy, in my opinion :shake:

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 10:32 PM
I've never said Paul had no support. I've said repeadly that I thought MOST of his staunchest supporters were fruitcakes...9-11truthers, disenfranchised moveondotorgers and misinformed non-voters who think ronPaul lets them legally smoke dope.

I know alot more about the election process than you'd think.


Good to see you changing your tune. First it was that Paul had NO support in Iowa... Now it's just that the support that he does have in Iowa is loud (which is also good to hear).

Also, a quick lesson for you: In a Republican democracy, it doesn't matter how big your showing represents across the population. All that matters is turnout.

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2007, 10:33 PM
BUT DOES MR. JEFFERSON HAVE A BLIMP?

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2007, 10:34 PM
We'll see. Just remember, this time Faux News doesn't have Frank Luntz and his magic machine that discredits Ron Paul against Mike Huckabee.Hahahahaha.

"**** YOU FRANK!"

So predictable.

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 10:37 PM
With the significance of the BLimp in election votes.....I can't BELIEVE that Mr Goodyear and Snoopy haven't gotten into office yet.


Just imagine if Mike Huckabee could somehow wrangle the Macy's Parade SHREK ballon and sew his "I Heart Huckabee" patch on the Ogre's Hollister canvas pullover.

POWNAGE!!!!

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2007, 10:44 PM
Huckabee actually does have his own blimp:

http://i18.tinypic.com/71rfl94.jpg

Iowanian
12-13-2007, 10:58 PM
Mike Huckabee was great in his pre-governor job on OUR GANG.

http://otherstuff.laurelandhardycentral.com/blips/ogang.jpg

The Ronpaul-Obama ticket will be unstoppable!
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/other/our_gang.jpg

Taco John
12-13-2007, 10:59 PM
Huckabee actually does have his own blimp:

http://i18.tinypic.com/71rfl94.jpg



Bwahahahahahaha!


It's true! Stripes are slimming!

Taco John
12-13-2007, 11:11 PM
With the significance of the BLimp in election votes.....I can't BELIEVE that Mr Goodyear and Snoopy haven't gotten into office yet.


Just imagine if Mike Huckabee could somehow wrangle the Macy's Parade SHREK ballon and sew his "I Heart Huckabee" patch on the Ogre's Hollister canvas pullover.

POWNAGE!!!!



I guess Mike Huckabee raised enough yesterday to launch the Mike Huckabee Kite. Look for it on election day!

Seriously though, I guess the campaign is in trouble. They have only $600k in the bank. They were expecting a Ron Paul-esque day out of their Huckabus fundraiser, and apparently there is a bit of panic right now because they've only got enough money for Iowa while other campaigns are gearing up big get out the vote pushes.