If Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination, but people still vote for him can he become president? Or will it be like Al Gore where, even if he wins the popular vote, he cannot become president because of the electoral college?

Sent by Helen Griffin | 12:40 PM ET | 11-06-2007

Don't forget Nevada and Wyoming. Ron paul is strong in the western states.

Sent by joe dirt | 12:52 PM ET | 11-06-2007

Largest day of fundraising among any republican party candidate this year. Why is this story in a blog and not on the main politics page ?

Sent by Ray Stone | 1:00 PM ET | 11-06-2007

There's something bleakly humorous, I think, in the idea implied (if unintentionally) by this: hey, look at all of the money that this candidate is raising; why are the big media determined to ignore the fundraising totals in their coverage of the race? I guess we've just accepted that coverage of "the issues" is a lost cause.

Sent by MJ | 1:19 PM ET | 11-06-2007

I am also worried about what will happen if Ron Paul wins the popular vote, but electors or Representatives refuse to make him President.

Ron Paul is over $7.3 million for Oct-Nov now. He has a chance to hit the $12 million dollar goal for the quarter.

Sent by Cameron | 2:21 PM ET | 11-06-2007

The media does not want Ron Paul to get noticed because he would fundamentally change the way politics are handled in this country. If policies were followed by way of constitutionality, the media, i.e. people who tell us what to think, would lose their sway. Viable and productive candidates do not exist in the same frame.

Sent by Tim | 2:56 PM ET | 11-06-2007

I tend to agree with previous bloggers issue over coverage. This was a big complaint for me during the coverage in Topeka, of the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. the board of education. Mr. Bush got all the coverage, while it was as though Mr. Kerry didn't bother to attend! This selective coverage includes NPR and its local affiliates.
I believe this type of coverage plays a big part in determining who wins

Sent by Dennis Lacey | 3:23 PM ET | 11-06-2007

To Faux News:

Remember remember the fifth of November
The media's treason and plot.
I see no reason the media's treason
should ever be forgot.

Sent by G.F. | 6:02 PM ET | 11-06-2007

Lest this is lost in all the flurry - he's pro-life and wishes to repeal Roe v. Wade. Idiotic policy no matter your personal beliefs on the morality of the subject.

Sent by Mike1 | 6:18 PM ET | 11-06-2007

i do enjoy NPR, that said it makes more a lot of sense for NPR to 'hide' this story, they get what 25-50% of their funding from the US gov(thats a stab in the dark) which paul would remove. NPR could survive and I think be a better station then ever if it did not have to 'make people happy' to not get its budget cut, like what was attempted earlier this(or was it last) year

Sent by bill | 7:18 PM ET | 11-06-2007

Sent by Helen Griffin: If Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination, but people still vote for him can he become president? Or will it be like Al Gore where, even if he wins the popular vote, he cannot become president because of the electoral college?.....

A very complicated question, Helen. And you'd have to look very closely at the way the electoral college works, particularly in the case of a 'Faithless Elector' who 'changes' the popular vote for president. To get an idea how it works, allow me to paraphrase how the electoral college system works as regards Faithless Electors:

"The Electors meet in their respective state capitals...at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President"...That is, while many people believe they are voting for a particular candidate on Election Day in November, they are, in fact, casting a vote for that candidate's electors ... A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect. On 158 occasions, electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president to whom they were pledged ... While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blairm 343 U.S. 214) ... "The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. In any event, a state may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact; it has no power to change his or her vote."

In other words, Helen, if a large enough group of Faithless Electors changed their votes, what happened with the Supreme Court in the 2000 election could comparatively be a walk-in-the-park when stacked up to, say, the 2008 election?

fred call

Sent by fred call | 8:09 PM ET | 11-06-2007

As an NPR listener for years, I'm pleased to see this information available online. I'm really looking forward to coverage on air!

I'm one of those liberals who have registered Republican so that I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary election in my state. Why the change?

1) Restore the Constitution! The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act are among the most disturbing threats to our Bill of Rights to date.

2) End the Occupation of Iraq! Our invasion was based on a lie, and it is time to come clean.

Sent by Austin James | 8:22 PM ET | 11-06-2007

Mike1: Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life. As an ob-gyn, he's seen the results first hand. That said however, he's also a strict constitutionalist and says the federal government has no business in this arena. It's a matter for each individual state to decide.

Sent by Kent | 9:40 PM ET | 11-06-2007

It is amazing to watch the debates, and watch all of the questions directed to the "chosen few". It is actually more disgusting than amazing, but here is to political correctness! You can feel the other "contestants" cringe when Mr. Paul actually discusses reality. His input in discussion is very important to the election process. . regardless of your views.

Sent by Kevin | 11:19 PM ET | 11-06-2007

It is bizarre that the great NPR seldom gives Ron Paul mention and only rarely a story. What is behind this? This man is a machine, and his supporters are burgeoning in number and very loyal. Curiouser and curiouser... Don't worry, NPR. If Dr. Paul gets elected, your good listeners will have the wherewithal to boost their pledges. Kindly, give this candidate his due coverage.

Sent by Eric in Logan | 12:33 AM ET | 11-07-2007

>>Sent by bill

If Ron Paul were elected and does all the things he promised, I'd have more money to support NPR. :)

I agree with several of the other commenters. I just hope we all get out there and tell our friends and neighbors and beg them to vote for Paul. It's time for a change.

I recently wrote NPR about the lack of mention on Ron Paul on NPR. The reply I got was something along the lines of it's difficult to give each candidate the same amount of time but we've taken your comment into consideration.

Let's hope they do some more considering.

Sent by Ally | 8:25 AM ET | 11-07-2007

While I may not vote for Paul, he is certainly tapping into some important issues that clearly resonate with the many Americans. As a listener (and financial supporter), I'm curious why NPR is choosing to ignore (or relegate to mere blog space) a group of people who feel strongly enough about these issues to "throw away" their money at someone who NPR clearly feels is an unelectable candidate.

Sent by Brian | 8:48 AM ET | 11-07-2007

I adore Ron Paul! I pray he wins...I think he is too old, at 72, to run again. Ron Paul is truly a political 'savior' and he is America's Last Hope!

Sent by Sara | 10:09 AM ET | 11-07-2007

At what point is it proved that Ron Paul's support is real and deep across the national political spectrum. How could anyone logically ask the question "will these people who are giving their money show up at the polls?" It is time that NPR and other news organizations get out of their chairs and breath the same air that the rest of us are breathing - there is a wind of freedom and liberty blowing across the land and our journalists are missing the story.

Sent by Scott Geer | 4:33 PM ET | 11-07-2007

Thats right Scott! I think all of us expect leadership from NPR, so wake up and smell the coffee.

Sent by Mike | 5:31 PM ET | 11-07-2007

If I don't hear any serious coverage of Ron Paul on NPR within the next 48 hours I will come to the conclusion that NPR is controlled media just like Fox News is and will stop listening to it and put my donation dollars into alternaive media like infowars.com and Alex Jones.

Sent by Barbara | 11:06 PM ET | 11-07-2007

If I don't hear any serious coverage of Ron Paul on NPR within the next 48 hours I will come to the conclusion that NPR is controlled media just like Fox News....Sent by Barbara

Barbara, the reality is this: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have absolutely no chance of winning the White House in '08. Zero. Nada. Zilch chance.

Blame the media. Blame the system. Blame the oil companies. Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame Wal-Mart. Blame the next guy or girl. Blame yourselves.

But mostly blame the fact that Americans are creatures of comfort and too set in their ways. The voice of internet dissent is too dispersed to make a dent in the concentrated electoral college system.

To change the system in the global economy would require way too many Americans to alter their lifestyles. And way too many Americans aren't going to give up their creature comforts.

And way too many Americans don't even bother to vote. They prefer to go with the existing flow.

But it's nice to hear the voice of dissent all the same.

Blame the economy, in Today's MSN.Money column, an eyeopener:

How to profit from a 'police state'
By Jon Markman
The booming security business now employs as many as one-fourth of American workers. Here are four companies poised to make a bundle from our penchant for protection.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 11:05 AM ET | 11-08-2007

Bill: NPR gets about 1% of its funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn gets money from the federal government. I don't know why you took a "stab in the dark" when this information is so easily available on the internet.

Sent by Mark | 3:08 PM ET | 11-08-2007

This time you don't need to hold your nose and vote for more-of-the-same. There is a principled alternative. We must make this primary and election about the role, size, and intrusiveness of the US government. How many nations do we need troops in? Are we safe yet?
If you're not impressed with the government monopoly of public education, just wait until Hillary swallows the entire medical market (think WalterReed Hospital).
More Socialism will worsen our problems. Uncle Sam needs to lose 2/3 of his weight! It may shock some of you to consider ???the States??? were never intended to be provinces of Washington DC, but sovereign states. Just imagine!
Hear out, and support Ron Paul.
Ol Ed

Sent by Ed Ware | 8:10 PM ET | 11-08-2007

How come no one mentions Ron Paul's ties to white supremacy groups? I think people would be reluctant to support him if they knew. I have not heard NPR mention it. He is like Lou Dobbs, an out-in-the-open, closeted white supremacist.

Sent by Ofer Sivan | 9:55 PM ET | 11-08-2007

Where is this $6.2M Hillary raised on June 30th substantiated? I am interested to see who gave this money. I don't see it here, http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C00431569/ ,
on the FEC website, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place. Any ideas?

Sent by Hiram Rogers | 1:00 AM ET | 11-09-2007

NPR is limiting our ablity to make free and informed choices by not giving adequate coverage to Ron Paul. People know about Ron Paul because of the internet, word of mouth, and grass root efforts, not by mainstream media. I may as well sign and mail my ballot to NPR so they can choose my President for me.

Sent by Janice Wong | 9:16 AM ET | 11-09-2007

Ron Paul is this campaign's 'Howard Dean' story of internet campaign money for this coming election.

Ask Howard Dead how much good raising a couple of milions on the internet did for him in his presidential campaign.

And 2.4 million.....you talk as though that's a lot of money in today's political circle. It's a drop in the bucket. George Bush doubles that in one afternoon at a Texas style backyard bar-b-cue.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:56 AM ET | 11-09-2007

Barbara, the reality is this: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have absolutely no chance of winning the White House in '08. Zero. Nada. Zilch chance.

I'm not sure who you think will win, then. But I look forward to you eating those words. :-)

"Every generation needs a new revolution."-Thomas Jefferson, I think. This revolution can be bloodless; or at least the bloodshed can be stopped as soon as possible. Much like Vietnam, the people have wisened up to the fact that this war is a for profit venture and only benifits those waging and supporting it. Ron Paul has support from those who appreciate him having the courage to speak the truth which we can all see.

Mike Gravel also speaks truth but for some reason hass been unable to move the people in the same way. I think the biggest message of hope for American citizens is: Limit the government to the size and power which the framers of the Constitution intended.

Sent by Tim P | 11:02 AM ET | 11-09-2007

Sent by Tim P: I'm not sure who you think will win, then. But I look forward to you eating those words. :-)

Tim, I'll tell you what: If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich wins in '08, I will personally run buck naked down Pennsylvannia Avenue in the shivering cold rain during the Inaugural Parade, screaming through a bullhorn for the Secret Service to shoot me down as a desperately dangerous rabid scoundrel.

That's how confident I am of how the Washington system works. It has not as much to do with personal beliefs or ideology or wishing upon a star. It's looking at the reality of today's global economy, and understanding how the Washington system works, and how the left no longer works.

Here's my further prediction. It looks as though Hillary Clinton will take the Demo nomination. Her defeat will be as bad, if not worse, as when Nixon took 49 states against George McGovern at the height of the Vietnam War (despite the fact that Nixon had to resign two years later in 1974).

The '08 election landslide will completely shut down the credibility of the Democratic Party and any further anti-war movement (and Bill Clinton and the two George Bush's will continue playing golf together).

I'll even give you ten to one Las Vegas odds on anything else you want to bet, Tim. I'm that generous a man.

The likes of Thomas Jefferson and Bobby Kennedy was another time, another place, light years away from today's reality. Sorry to inform you. It's good to see idealism. It's sad to see Idealism without good leadership. The Intellectual Left is dead and rudderless. Again, sorry to have to be the one to tell you. But don't give up. Maybe some miraculous day it'll change.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 5:54 PM ET | 11-09-2007

I have never voted in the 24 years that I have been of age to vote. I am both sad and sorry to say that I have never really felt a strong pride in being American (look what they have done to this country). Ron Paul has changed all that, he has lit a fire in me, I want to run through the streets with our flag in one hand and the Constitution in the other and shout "look what President Paul has given me". Even if he does not win, I thank him for the experience of feeling the way Americans were meant to feel.

Sent by DB | 9:03 PM ET | 11-09-2007

Why is all Ron Paul's support from people on the web. Its the only place you can see the truth of his veiws with out the media twist. If the truth was known by all he would have already won this election. There not going to find out about him from the media. So get out there and spread the news!

Sent by Truth Please | 1:12 AM ET | 11-10-2007

I am no expert on polictics.I was just wondering,if the peoples popular vote does not get thier candidate elected,who exactly is picking the president?

Sent by Robert Irvin | 10:10 AM ET | 11-10-2007

I think that people just got confused. They thought he was Ron Popiel, and they were going to get that thing that beats an egg inside it's shell.

Sent by David McLain | 9:42 PM ET | 11-10-2007

hillary only raised like 1.6 million in a day. the 6.1 that is mentioned in the article represents a cumulative amount from several days that her campaign managers put in before the quarter closed.

Sent by robinlynn | 4:03 AM ET | 11-11-2007

I don't want to pay federal income tax and neither does anyone else. Many will vote for Dr. Ron Paul because of his vision and process to make this happen. Imagine what you could do with an extra 20-30% more of your income per year. That would add up to ...better neighborhood, better education, better, child care choices, better choice in Medical doctor....endless.

Sent by Robin | 8:42 PM ET | 11-12-2007

Sent by David McLain: I think that people just got confused. They thought he was Ron Popiel, and they were going to get that thing that beats an egg inside it's shell.

I don't know about you, David. But I sure could use the Pocket Fisherman that will be given to every voter for Ron Paul as they leave the electronic voting booth.

And you know that the electronic voting booth don't lie. So, don't try to vote for Mit Romney or Fred Thompson and come out saying you voted for Ron Paul. Cause they'll check your vote right then and there to see if you are lying to get a Pocket Fisherman.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:15 AM ET | 11-13-2007

The Ron Paul Revolution is the most important revolution since the Scientific Revolution.

Sent by Galileo | 8:29 PM ET | 11-23-2007