The Greatest Mistake the Campaign Made

[nate895]

I believe is that, even though radio talk show host Michael Savage had an open invitation for all GOP contenders to go on air with him, Ron Paul didn't. If Ron Paul would have went on the night before the Iowa caucuses, he could have won. That broadcast has has apx. 10 million listeners on a weekly basis. considering that 40K votes won the Iowa Caucuses, reaching out to a mere 31K more voters would have led to a victory, albeit narrow, over Huckabee. Not to mention the fact that if we were able to convince a quarter of his audience, just that night, we would have at least 2.5M nation wide voters, then incorporate Iowa momentum, and you got yourself a nominee in waiting. His audience already believes the Iraq war to be a strategic error, the gold standard should be applied, and many other issues, you need only make that last leap and they are entirely in that boat. I think a half an hour of Ron Paul on Michael Savage at a strategic time might have been a guarantee of nomination.

[No1ButPaul08]

He would not have won the Iowa Caucus if he went on that radio show. Maybe .5 percent more.

Edit: The campaign's biggest mistake was that McCain got 44% of the anti-war vote in NH. I'm not sure what should have been done, but that should have NEVER happened

[nate895]

He would not have won the Iowa Caucus if he went on that radio show. Maybe .5 percent more.

Who is to say? It has many people who agree on most issues, minus the Patriot Act and other Constitutional legislation. They already believe that a NWO is out there, you need merely convince them the Patriot Act is helping them. Michael Savage had also had his personal mail insulted in the months beforehand, you may have been able to convince that the government itself was involved.

[nate895]

Edit: The campaign's biggest mistake was that McCain got 44% of the anti-war vote in NH. I'm not sure what should have been done, but that should have NEVER happened

That was 35% of the vote, it could have changed a lot if we got a really high percentage of it, but that isn't a mistake, it is a symptom of many small mistakes.

[No1ButPaul08]

Who is to say? It has many people who agree on most issues, minus the Patriot Act and other Constitutional legislation. They already believe that a NWO is out there, you need merely convince them the Patriot Act is helping them. Michael Savage had also had his personal mail insulted in the months beforehand, you may have been able to convince that the government itself was involved.

We got 11000 votes in Iowa. You say we needed a mere?? 29000 more votes to win Iowa. So let me see if I get this straight, one radio show, the night before the caucus, was going to increase Ron's votes by 300%?

[slacker921]

Edit: The campaign's biggest mistake was that McCain got 44% of the anti-war vote in NH. I'm not sure what should have been done, but that should have NEVER happened

Who's to say it did.. have you seen the boxes the paper ballots were transported and stored in? There's no way you can say with 100% certainty that the vote in NH was accurate and no way to ever prove it one way or the other.. it does, however, boggle the mind that anyone who is against the Iraq war would ever vote for McCain.

That said.. I agree.. the anti-war vote in NH should have gone to Paul but whatever needed to happen didn't.

[nate895]

We got 11000 votes in Iowa. You say we needed a mere?? 29000 more votes to win Iowa. So let me see if I get this straight, one radio show, the night before the caucus, was going to increase Ron's votes by 300%.

Who knows? Most of those voters had only seen the vilified image of Ron Paul as an isolationist who believed in disbanding the military and other such nonsense, introduce them to these ideas and you could have people switching who they vote for or showing up and voting for him even though they didn't plan to show up.

[Banana]

Wow!

I never thought armchair quarterbacking could be *that* easy!

[N13]

IMO the big mistake was the blowback argument. Pragmatically speaking it should have been known or predicted in advance that the reaction to anyone taking that view would be highly negative by Republican voters. It should have been anticipated that this entailed that the US was at fault, guilty, and mistaken by a majority of voters and those in the media. This approach to foreign policy was a loser.

I'm not saying that the argument was not true. I'm saying that a better, more manageable, more Republican, and voter friendly stance should have been in economic terms. People understand this and will support you if you are saving them money, saving the lives of the troops, making our defences stronger, and being a fiscal conservative trying to lower taxes.

Second, but not as bad was the abandon the Federal Reserve and constant monetary theory discussion. People generally do not understand that kind of thing. Talking about bandoning the Fed and the department of education makes people scared because they do not know what it means. Voters are not secure and comfy with that message. Uncertainty leads to no vote for you. This kind of thing should be taked about after you win the election. Prior to this a candidate needs to keep it simple.

We are beter off when the dollar is strong. I will do that by working closely with the treasury dept. and the Fed. That's it, nothing scary there.

I want to strengthen education in this country and I'll begin with the dept. of education.


Keep it simple. I love Ron Paul, but parts of his message were complicated and it hurt him with the average voter. He tried too hard.

Just look at the simpleton who is probably going to win the nomination. McCain says things like "I don't know much about economics." This is the number one issue with voters and the guy who knows nothing gets the votes?

[No1ButPaul08]

Who knows? Most of those voters had only seen the vilified image of Ron Paul as an isolationist who believed in disbanding the military and other such nonsense, introduce them to these ideas and you could have people switching who they vote for or showing up and voting for him even though they didn't plan to show up.

I doubt 29000 people in Iowa were evening listening to the show. I do know, he was not going to get 29000 more votes by appearing on one radio show. To say otherwise is just foolish.

The campaign made a ton of mistakes, and not appearing on the Savage show was probably one of them, but it certainly didn't cost us Iowa.

[nate895]

I doubt 29000 people in Iowa were evening listening to the show. I do know, he was not going to get 29000 more votes by appearing on one radio show. To say otherwise is just foolish.

The campaign made a ton of mistakes, and not appearing on the Savage show was probably one of them, but it certainly didn't cost us Iowa.

Like I said, 10 million listen to the show on a regular basis, which means, if each state contributes the same percentage of listeners, there are 100,000 regular listeners in Iowa, meaning you'd need to convince 31% of them. That is possible if you frame your argument to fit their mindset.

[soapmistress]

I think Savage's islamofascist rants would have led into him calling RP a traitor just like all the war protesters that he wanted tried for acts of sedition. And if you disagree with him you won't get a word in edgewise.

I think RP is a gentleman, and I think a Savage appearance would have been a highly hostile interview.

For all of his talk talk talk about borders, language and culture, he's awfully lax about ideas of constitutional legality and civil rights. Homeless people for instance... have you heard him talk about homeless people yet? He says they should all be rounded up off the streets and put into one of three places that they all belong: jail, mental institutions or drug rehabs. He consistently derides the lawyers who defend civil liberties. I used to like him and I listened to him over the last 5-10 years quite a bit. But he is very intolerant and my-way-or-the-highway about a lot of things just because they bug him, not because it is inherently humane or righteous.

[nate895]

IMO the big mistake was the blowback argument. Pragmatically speaking it should have been known or predicted in advance that the reaction to anyone taking that view would be highly negative by Republican voters. It should have been anticipated that this entailed that the US was at fault, guilty, and mistaken by a majority of voters and those in the media. This approach to foreign policy was a loser.

I'm not saying that the argument was not true. I'm saying that a better, more manageable, more Republican, and voter friendly stance should have been in economic terms. People understand this and will support you if you are saving them money, saving the lives of the troops, making our defences stronger, and being a fiscal conservative trying to lower taxes.

Second, but not as bad was the abandon the Federal Reserve and constant monetary theory discussion. People generally do not understand that kind of thing. Talking about bandoning the Fed and the department of education makes people scared because they do not know what it means. Voters are not secure and comfy with that message. Uncertainty leads to no vote for you. This kind of thing should be taked about after you win the election. Prior to this a candidate needs to keep it simple.

We are beter off when the dollar is strong. I will do that by working closely with the treasury dept. and the Fed. That's it, nothing scary there.

I want to strengthen education in this country and I'll begin with the dept. of education.


Keep it simple. I love Ron Paul, but parts of his message were complicated and it hurt him with the average voter. He tried too hard.

Just look at the simpleton who is probably going to win the nomination. McCain says things like "I don't know much about economics." This is the number one issue with voters and the guy who knows nothing gets the votes?

No, he just introduced it the wrong way. You need to slowly get the voter to accept other views, and then that leap to believing in blow back is not that far off.

[nate895]

I think Savage's islamofascist rants would have led into him calling RP a traitor just like all the war protesters that he wanted tried for acts of sedition. And if you disagree with him you won't get a word in edgewise.

I think RP is a gentleman, and I think a Savage appearance would have been a highly hostile interview.

For all of his talk talk talk about borders, language and culture, he's awfully lax about ideas of constitutional legality and civil rights. Homeless people for instance... have you heard him talk about homeless people yet? He says they should all be rounded up off the streets and put into one of three places that they all belong: jail, mental institutions or drug rehabs. He consistently derides the lawyers who defend civil liberties. I used to like him and I listened to him over the last 5-10 years quite a bit. But he is very intolerant and my-way-or-the-highway about a lot of things just because they bug him, not because it is inherently humane or righteous.

Exactly why you need to frame the argument to fit what he already thinks in the other areas. That is the problem, we could have won , but the campaign just took a position on an issue in public and expected them to visit the website and read, a fundamental flaw. You need to tell the voter using things they already agree with you on that you are right.

[ultimaonliner]

Wow!

I never thought armchair quarterbacking could be *that* easy!


ROFL!

[N13]

No, he just introduced it the wrong way. You need to slowly get the voter to accept other views, and then that leap to believing in blow back is not that far off.

The good side of what Ron Paul did was to educate an army of highly informed activists. This will change the future of this country.


Introducing the ideas the wrong way is what I said, so we agree on that.

Getting the voter to accept other views was the mistake. You want their votes. After you are elected, you can work on that part. Its a pragmatic position. That is what was needed, not an overload of complicated/ emotional information. The winning route was the path of least resistance.

The Ghoul exhibited the classic response to blowback. Why spit in the fan when you can easily walk around it and pull out the plug?

Why say things like eliminate the dept. of education when you know that a majority of voters receive that as wanting to destroy education in the US?

[Joseph Hart]

What matters is now

[Broadlighter]

Oy Gestalt!

Michael Savage would have had Ron Paul on the show for as long he could tolerate him or vice versa. He would have treated him like any other guest - cordial, polite, but not in a way that lets the guest explain himself. Savage would play nice to make himself look like the good guy next to his kooky guest. Once Paul was gone from the mike, Savage would go "Attila the Tongue" on Ron Paul's platform where he disagrees. Then he'd go "Attila the Tongue" on anyone calling in who shows support for Ron Paul.

The net result may have actually been a drop in voters, but not a big drop.

Michael Savage aligns himself to no one and I think he's actually a liberal doing his part to dumb down his conservative listeners.

[Banana]

Getting the voter to accept other views was the mistake. You want their votes. After you are elected, you can work on that part. Its a pragmatic position. That is what was needed, not an overload of complicated/ emotional information. The winning route was the path of least resistance.

The Ghoul exhibited the classic response to blowback. Why spit in the fan when you can easily walk around it and pull out the plug?

Why say things like eliminate the dept. of education when you know that a majority of voters receive that as wanting to destroy education in the US?

FWIW, I really don't think Ron Paul would want to deceive (whether deliberately or inadvertently) voters by saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing something else in White House. He had to be frank with what he would want to do as a POTUS, and in spirit of true republic, win the endorsement of voters instead of pandering to voters.

I think this illustrates the campaigning in general well:
http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/56.gif

Now, Ron Paul could have done the same thing, but in end he'd be just like other candidates, and people will be very angry with him when he takes back the "favors" once elected and will undo everything he wants to do. Right now he's that lady on left.

I think he understand that to make long-lasting change to the system, he has to convince everyone to agree with this view, so that would be why he refuse to dumb down the message.

This is pure speculation by your truly, though. My armchair is quite big and comfy, you know?

[Bradley in DC]

Not hiring ANYONE who understands the delegate process, can read crosstabs on polls, run a Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operation or explain how Dr. Paul's ideas would work and why American and the world would be better off if he were elected.

[nate895]

Yikes, just one thing? Um, torn between not hiring ANYONE who understands the delegate process, reads crosstabs on polls, runs a GOTV operation nor explain how Dr. Paul's ideas would work and why American and the world would be better off if he were elected.

Maybe it should be "one of the" instead just "the."

[Banana]

Yikes, just one thing? Um, torn between not hiring ANYONE who understands the delegate process, reads crosstabs on polls, runs a GOTV operation nor explain how Dr. Paul's ideas would work and why American and the world would be better off if he were elected.

Sorry, would you mind rephrasing this?

You were torn between not hiring someone who knows delegates process or not having a effective spokesperson for the campaign... is that what you tried to said?

Also, what do you mean by "reads crosstabs on polls, runs a GOTV operation" (GOTV=Get out to vote?). This is probably before I was registered, hence my ignorance.

[JaylieWoW]

Ok based on the insane things I've seen people say and do in person and on YouTubes on the internet.... I'd be willing to bet that much of the anti-war vote are anti-war in that they don't mind fighting wars, in fact they probably like them. Rather, they think McCain is some superhero war vet who will fight the wars better and thus end them quickly while still satiating their desires to kill whatever-monster-it-is-in-the-world at present time.

Does not surprise me at all that "anti-war" people voted for McCain. There is someone where I work that supports McCain that is against the war (and also ex-military).

[N13]

FWIW, I really don't think Ron Paul would want to deceive (whether deliberately or inadvertently) voters by saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing something else in White House. He had to be frank with what he would want to do as a POTUS, and in spirit of true republic, win the endorsement of voters instead of pandering to voters.

I would never suggest the Ron Paul deceive anyone. That was not my point at all.

I think my appoach would be to tell the voters about algebra and save calculus for later. Explain Foreign policy in economic terms rather than with psychological motivational explanations.

Providing answers that can be received by a majority of the listeners in a favorable way instead of making the same argument in a complicated manner that alienates the listener.

Ron Paul is free to choose any aqpproach to the election. Being a smart man with a vision for the future he chose his route, and it has paid off quite well in some ways. Unfortunately, it was not the best way to win the nomination.

A pragmatic approach does not necessarily mean pandering to the voters or deceiving the voters or lying to the voters. It could simply mean telling the truth and doing it in a way that is received by the voters in favorable light. There is no obligation to lay out all of the details, or the complexity of monetary policy, or foreign policy either.

Keep it simple. Keep it true. Keep it real. Keep their attention. Get more votes.

The message only appeals to about 5% of the population and there is a reason for that. This is a great base of support, but its not enough to win. Fortunately, we can learn from this and forward our goals with better efficiency in the future.

[Archie]

I think a Major mistake was them thinking every voter is "internet savy" because of there strong support online. Ron Pauls Handlers needed to understand that they needed to try extra hard to get those voters that arn't into the whole "youtube" thing and "internet research" its Sad but alot of voters dont have the passion for politics like the "internet crowd" does and should have really focused on building the bridge to link these two huge groups togather to form unity for Ron Paul . Oh and I think he should of kept his issues short and simple when explaining stuff to the voters and Should of refused to be bullied by the msm debates and so forth..

[Bro.Butch]

Not hiring ANYONE who understands the delegate process, can read crosstabs on polls, run a Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operation or explain how Dr. Paul's ideas would work and why American and the world would be better off if he were elected.

Ditto +

The best grassroots movement in my lifetime squandered by inept top staffers completely out of their league and a candidate concerned more about his house seat than running to win. Hence staying in D.C. to vote instead of holding 100 town hall meetings across NH. This was a weak field to run against and the shame of it all is the money was there to win NH if used correctly.

They ask for $12 million to win, they got 20 and blowed it ! Moore and Synder should have never been hired, but at the least should have been fired the day after NH voted. Instead they are now sitting on over $5 millions in donations in which they will take out about $250, 000 for themselves in salary and expenses this year.

As long as I draw breath I will always remember those two in infamy, because they truly squandered a movement that could have changed the world in '09 and beyond for all of us. Sadly, it's not to be...

When this campaign began Ron Paul with property and savings etc. was worth 1.5 -to- $3 million (official F.E.C. documents). (Under official F.E.C. rules) At the time Ron decides this campaign is over, all campaign funds can be transferred into his congressional campaign fund. Upon defeat or retirement he can keep all excess funds for personal use. AH LA, Dr. Paul as of today has over doubled his personal net worth, thanks to all of you. And some of you have wondered why the campaign has stopped spending very much on campaigning !-lol

I submit everyone request that the campaign start back campaigning and use the donations for what they were sent in to do, SPREAD the MESSAGE to the people !!! There is about two weeks left to convience Dr. Paul to accept the CP nomination and take this campaign to the general Nov.4 and deny the socialist winner any claimed mandate. Alan Keyes may take it, if Ron won't step up and easily take it !!! We all know Keyes won't accomplish anything with it but a paycheck for being a professional (LOSING) candidate yet again. Call and request Ron to start back campaigning and/or accept their nomination !!!
(202) 225-2831

[VoteForRonPaul]

Ditto +

The best grassroots movement in my lifetime squandered by inept top staffers completely out of their league and a candidate concerned more about his house seat than running to win. Hence staying in D.C. to vote instead of holding 100 town hall meetings across NH. This was a weak field to run against and the shame of it all is the money was there to win NH if used correctly.

They ask for $12 million to win, they got 20 and blowed it ! Moore and Synder should have never been hired, but at the least should have been fired the day after NH voted. Instead they are now sitting on over $5 millions in donations in which they will take out about $250, 000 for themselves in salary and expenses this year.

As long as I draw breath I will always remember those two in infamy, because they truly squandered a movement that could have changed the world in '09 and beyond for all of us. Sadly, it's not to be...

When this campaign began Ron Paul with property and savings etc. was worth 1.5 -to- $3 million (official F.E.C. documents). (Under official F.E.C. rules) At the time Ron decides this campaign is over, all campaign funds can be transferred into his congressional campaign fund. Upon defeat or retirement he can keep all excess funds for personal use. AH LA, Dr. Paul as of today has over doubled his personal net worth, thanks to all of you. And some of you have wondered why the campaign has stopped spending very much on campaigning !-lol

I submit everyone request that the campaign start back campaigning and use the donations for what they were sent in to do, SPREAD the MESSAGE to the people !!! There is about two weeks left to convience Dr. Paul to accept the CP nomination and take this campaign to the general Nov.4 and deny the socialist winner any claimed mandate. Alan Keyes may take it, if Ron won't step up and easily take it !!! We all know Keyes won't accomplish anything with it but a paycheck for being a professional (LOSING) candidate yet again. Call and request Ron to start back campaigning and/or accept their nomination !!!
(202) 225-2831
Keep the good work man! It seems that we have created dictators with our hands and now I cannot resist the feeling of questioning their loyalty to us and to Ron Paul. So let us keep pushing!

[Bradley in DC]

Call and request Ron to start back campaigning and/or accept their nomination !!!

The number you gave is for the Congressional office which has nothing to do with any campaigns. Do NOT call that number about campaign related issues.

[Banana]

I would never suggest the Ron Paul deceive anyone. That was not my point at all.

...

Keep it simple. Keep it true. Keep it real. Keep their attention. Get more votes.

I know that you didn't intend to suggest anything like that. I was more of arguing that the message couldn't be dumbed down without passing the threshold of doublespeak.

Let's take abolishing the Federal Reserve as an example:

"As a POTUS, I will advocate for a strong dollar and a sound monetary policy."

This is true, but absolutely not descriptive; I'd imagine all other candidates would say the same thing and yet have something entirely different in their mind. It's also inevitable that someone will ask "How?"

Once that question has been asked, Ron Paul has to answer "by abolishing Federal Reserve and returning to a gold standard." We both agree that this is quite scary to an average voter and they may have wrong idea, thinking he's suggesting that we literally go back a thousand years back to when we were toting among pounds of metal in our pouch to market. Ron Paul could probably say something more like:

"by overhauling the Reserve, and require that dollars be fully backed other than promises."

But this puts us in the territory of waffling which can get us in more trouble, especially when we consider how biased MSM. This will just put Ron on defensive and inevitably someone will why wasn't he forthright with how he intended to approach this?

So, that's why I think that simplifying the message isn't really possible- he is *already* being simple as possible, and you have to admit that an average voter knows far more about what he *will* do than other candidates who babbles and blather on while saying nothing of substance. But I do agree with you fully that his stances does scare off the voters. It's an unfortunate conditioning we'll have to overcome, I'm afraid.

[Soccrmastr]

One radio interview is the BIGGEST mistake? You need tor e-evaluate the whole campaign before you start making stupid conclusions like this.

[liberteebell]

I know that you didn't intend to suggest anything like that. I was more of arguing that the message couldn't be dumbed down without passing the threshold of doublespeak.

Let's take abolishing the Federal Reserve as an example:

"As a POTUS, I will advocate for a strong dollar and a sound monetary policy."

This is true, but absolutely not descriptive; I'd imagine all other candidates would say the same thing and yet have something entirely different in their mind. It's also inevitable that someone will ask "How?"

Once that question has been asked, Ron Paul has to answer "by abolishing Federal Reserve and returning to a gold standard." We both agree that this is quite scary to an average voter and they may have wrong idea, thinking he's suggesting that we literally go back a thousand years back to when we were toting among pounds of metal in our pouch to market. Ron Paul could probably say something more like:

"by overhauling the Reserve, and require that dollars be fully backed other than promises."

But this puts us in the territory of waffling which can get us in more trouble, especially when we consider how biased MSM. This will just put Ron on defensive and inevitably someone will why wasn't he forthright with how he intended to approach this?

So, that's why I think that simplifying the message isn't really possible- he is *already* being simple as possible, and you have to admit that an average voter knows far more about what he *will* do than other candidates who babbles and blather on while saying nothing of substance. But I do agree with you fully that his stances does scare off the voters. It's an unfortunate conditioning we'll have to overcome, I'm afraid.


I think RP could have done a MUCH better job with the message, not necessarily dumbing it down but doing a better job explaining, for example, HOW the fed and inflation are causing harm to the middle class and how his policy would change all that and literally put money in our pockets. He came off sounding totally negative; he sounded critical but without answers that the average public school educated person could understand. He might have done well with charts and graphs ala Ross Perot.

Same with foreign policy----he could have turned the tide had he couched his foreign policy like Reagen did, "Peace through Strength" or some such.

I understand Ron Paul's positions very well and I am aware that he does not come across well using bumper sticker slogans. But the public's attention span is that of a gnat. Had I been his advisor, I'd have dumbed about three major positions down into slogans that had lots of positive, rah, rah USofA feel-good stuff in them that enticed people to look further. And I would have gotten him a speech coach and speech writer to practice positive rhetoric and excellent come-backs to the inevitible questions he got. Even though he did hit several home-runs, he could have had a library of quips that would have done the opponents in.

[Ozwest]

No young turnout in New Hampshire.

The campaign died there.

[nate895]

Ditto +

The best grassroots movement in my lifetime squandered by inept top staffers completely out of their league and a candidate concerned more about his house seat than running to win. Hence staying in D.C. to vote instead of holding 100 town hall meetings across NH. This was a weak field to run against and the shame of it all is the money was there to win NH if used correctly.

They ask for $12 million to win, they got 20 and blowed it ! Moore and Synder should have never been hired, but at the least should have been fired the day after NH voted. Instead they are now sitting on over $5 millions in donations in which they will take out about $250, 000 for themselves in salary and expenses this year.

As long as I draw breath I will always remember those two in infamy, because they truly squandered a movement that could have changed the world in '09 and beyond for all of us. Sadly, it's not to be...

When this campaign began Ron Paul with property and savings etc. was worth 1.5 -to- $3 million (official F.E.C. documents). (Under official F.E.C. rules) At the time Ron decides this campaign is over, all campaign funds can be transferred into his congressional campaign fund. Upon defeat or retirement he can keep all excess funds for personal use. AH LA, Dr. Paul as of today has over doubled his personal net worth, thanks to all of you. And some of you have wondered why the campaign has stopped spending very much on campaigning !-lol

I submit everyone request that the campaign start back campaigning and use the donations for what they were sent in to do, SPREAD the MESSAGE to the people !!! There is about two weeks left to convience Dr. Paul to accept the CP nomination and take this campaign to the general Nov.4 and deny the socialist winner any claimed mandate. Alan Keyes may take it, if Ron won't step up and easily take it !!! We all know Keyes won't accomplish anything with it but a paycheck for being a professional (LOSING) candidate yet again. Call and request Ron to start back campaigning and/or accept their nomination !!!
(202) 225-2831

I am sure he is going to use a ton of that money putting delegates on the ballot. In my state, it costs around $300 to elect someone all the way through, and thery specifically ask us to not pay it and wait for them.

[SteveMartin]

The Greatest Mistake the Campaign Made...

Not running a real campaign, and thinking we'd all be too dumb to notice.

[nate895]

Not running a real campaign, and thinking we'd all be too dumb to notice.

If we ran a real campaign, no one give a shit what the greatest mistake because we'd have won anyway. I don't hear people in McCain's camp going "greatest mistake the campaign made."

[SteveMartin]

Ditto that, Nate.

[freedom1787]

4 Words - Public Education / Idiotic Masses

[nate895]

Ditto that, Nate.

My second ditto, yeah.

[porcupine]

First, saying that Ron Paul could've gotten 25 extra percentage points simply by interviewing on some nightly talk show is absurd. Am I the only Ron Paul supporter not completely ignorant of politics?

Second, if you've ever listened to Michael Savage, you might begin to understand why Ron Paul didn't go on his show. He wouldn't have gotten any support from that audience anyway.

[SeanEdwards]

Dodging the Michael Savage show may have been a mistake.

But I don't think that is anywhere near the worst mistake the campaign made. In my opinion the worst mistake they made was in not realizing from the beginning the potential depth of their support and as a consequence not running a serious campaign from day 1.

Paul himself stated that he never expected to do as well as he did with this campaign. He entered the race as a way to educate more people about his political philosophy and to raise the issue of returning to a constitutionally limited government with the voters; he did not enter the race with the goal of becoming president.

The campaign had no idea that they could raise millions of dollars in 24 hours via the internet with no investment of their own. Subsequently, they never planned how to effectively use millions of dollars in order to win votes. Then, when they got those millions of dollars they were unable to effectively convert that economic power into political power.

This campaign's biggest mistake was that they didn't think big.

[New York For Paul]

Savage just had Michael Scheuer on the radio show for an hour and Savage agreed with him and called it one the best interviews he ever had. So there is some potential agreement with Ron Paul on some issues.

It would have been a tricky interview to pull off.

There were other problems that were bigger.

[kigol]

woah

[slacker921]

SeanEdwards - "This campaign's biggest mistake was that they didn't think big." so.... if there were suddenly a Barr/Paul or Paul/Barr ticket announced running 3rd party, would you forgive the major lack of foresight by the Paul campaign leaders and donate? .. Do you think the people in the Paul campaign have learned from their mistakes?

[tajitj]

I still think we are about 4000 votes in Iowa from possibley winning. That is the difference from Paul and 3rd place McCain. Paul got 5th.
McCain, Paul, and Thompson all have 10%. Seperated by 4000 votes. So yes I bet if he went on that show we might have got third. Then the media would have really looked at us.

Another thing was the being left out of the Fox debate in NewHampshire. Those two events very early in the process put us in a whole, nationwide. We needed every bit of coverage we could get back then. Most coverage was about how crazy his supporters were.

[FSP-Rebel]

For us to continue strongly from here on in, it's important to take over the GOP but I also think we need to educate as many people as we can. For this to happen, we need to target talk show hosts like Savage and demote them as much as we can from the public eye. His time slot is usually 6-9pm est. The good news is that the largest real libertarian radio show in the world is in a similar slot. Free Talk Live has over 30 affiliates and is growing every month (they've only been syndicated for 4 years) and their show is Mon-Sat at 7-10pm. Savage is their main competition. People should check out their local talk stations and ask them to carry FTL especially if Savage currently has the slot. Not to single out neocons only, we also need to target Air America stations and push FTL as well.
For those who don't know, FTL has been supportive of Ron Paul from day one and all hosts have donated good portions of money. Even to this day, they say RP has a slim chance at the nom, but refuse to say 'it's' over. Anyway, go to www.local.freetalkive.com and see if your locality carries FTL, if not--email or call the program manager and ask them to carry the show. We need to re-revolutionize the air waves in freedoms favor and FTL is an up and coming show. BTW, the main host doesn't pay any income taxes--so they're serious folks that care about liberty and they preach it 18 hours a week. So, check'm out. I podcast them everyday and I can't think of a more liberty friendly show that I'd rather listen to. So, let's continue this REvolution in a 3-pronged attack: subvert/takeover the GOP, promote RP GOP candidates, and support talk radio shows that advertise the liberty message.

[wgadget]

Is it too late to go on Savage? Does the invitation still stand? Ron's still in the race, ya know...

[Giuliani was there on 911]

Michael Savage listeners are savages, they would never vote for a candidate who doesn't want to turn the ME into a glass parking lot.

[Bro.Butch]

The number you gave is for the Congressional office which has nothing to do with any campaigns. Do NOT call that number about campaign related issues.

That's the WHOLE idea ! He might get the message, hq isn't doing anything but cashing their checks !!! This movement flooded and harrassed people all over the U.S., it's time to communicate to Ron Paul !

Is that where you work Bradley ?

[Bradley in DC]

That's the WHOLE idea ! He might get the message, hq isn't doing anything but cashing their checks !!! This movement flooded and harrassed people all over the U.S., it's time to communicate to Ron Paul !

Is that where you work Bradley ?

I USED to work in the Congressional office (1997-2001) and I can reassure you campaign-related calls to the Congressional office will have ZERO effect.

The staffers in the Congressional office have to follow House ethics rules which prohibit what you want. You will NOT get any campaign-related message to Dr. Paul through the Congressional office. Besides, with everything going on, we need THOSE staffers working on our public policy problems.

DO NOT CALL THE CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE WITH CAMPAIGN-RELATED ISSUES.

[pacelli]

In NH, the campaign did 1 rinky-dink town hall that was obviously scripted in advance and was not nationally broadcast. I think it was broadcast on 1 local TV station. Ron did an excellent job, but as far as I know that was the only town hall that they did in the entire campaign.

I think they started the precinct leader program way too late.

I also think that they weren't as aggressive and proactive on working the press. Even though I would never consider voting for him, Huckabee and his pal Ed Rollins worked the press for all it was worth and his numbers rose as a result. I think the campaign made a mistake in allowing Jesse Benton to avoid putting campaign events on the daily media list (i.e. independence hall rally in philadelphia, no press knew about it, therefore 2 members of the press attended). I also think Benton or Snyder should have done far more interviews with the press. It would have given the perception that Ron was part of a larger campaign network rather than a lone candidate. Ron's campaign staff appeared to be the only presidential campaign staff that avoided doing interviews with the national media. The media then engaged in a blackout which didn't appear to be counteracted by the campaign. The grassroots took over at that point.


I think the campaign has made a mistake in relying completely and totally on the grassroots to get the votes when the numbers keep showing that such a strategy consistently gets 5%-10% of the overall vote (some exceptions such as Washington, etc). I also think they made a mistake in calling only listed supporters the night before each primary / caucus and reminding them to vote.

I also think that Dr. Paul wasn't aggressive enough during the debates, but the campaign cannot be faulted for it. Romney consistently interrupted other candidates, the moderators, and ignored the allotted time for responses. Ron overall did not interrupt anyone and stuck within his time frame. Viewers obviously didn't care about the most honorable candidate who played by the rules.

[spacehabitats]

Isn't because RP didn't do the Michael Savage show. Does anyone even know what market coverage his shows have here in Iowa? Anybody who thinks that a radio show could have impacted the Iowa caucus vote does not understand our electorate here. Unfortunately, neither did the national campaign HQ. Ron Paul did not lose because of a particular stance on the issues either (although he could try to target his audiences a little more selectively).

No, as an Iowan who has seen a number of presidential campaigns in our state I can say with near absolute certainty that he could have come in 3rd, and may have even won if he had spent as much TIME in the state as the frontrunners.

Here are the number of days each candidate spent in Iowa and the % of votes they got here on Jan. 3:

76 Romney 25%
75 Huckabee 34%
43 McCain 13%
31 F. Thompson 13%
25 Hunter 0%
22 Giuliani 3%
20 Paul 10%

(Thanks to Dave from Iowa for the stats)


1) The campaign underestimated the importance of the early primary states. (Yes, I know that Iowa got more than its "share" of money and personal appearances from Dr. Paul, but that is a fact of life in presidential politics.) Concentrating his efforts on two relatively small states could have reaped huge PR benefits early on. In the Iowa caucuses Ron Paul came within 3% of beating not only Guliani, but John McCain and Fred Thompson as well! Our supporters may have realized that as some type of moral victory, but it allowed the media to virtually ignore him going into New Hampshire.

2) The national media blackout (and, yes, there WAS one) meant that Ron Paul was going to need to punch through to the local media here in Iowa and New Hampshire and, whenever possible, actually meet the voters.
Again, those not familiar with Iowa caucus politics don't realize how spoiled Iowa voters are. They don't just read about candidates or see them on television; they expect to see and hear them in person and often get to shake their hands.
Fair? Of course not! But the fact is that our little town of 5,000 people had visits from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, and others. McCain walked in a Labor Day parade in a little town five miles from here. Fred Thonmpson got in a big bus that traveled the whole state visiting every little whistle stop. He would get out walk down the main street, make a little speech, and shake hands. Sure this approach is corny and old fashioned. But that is the way candidates get support in Iowa.
In contrast, the closest Ron Paul came to us was fifty miles away during the ice storm of the century.
If Iowa seemed to ignore Ron Paul the feeling was mutual.

3) The poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire mortally wounded the campaign. The mainstream media was able to justify their snubbing of his candidacy and continued to ignore him up to and through Super Tuesday.
End of story.