Lessons learned from straw poll?

[JasonD]

These straw polls are nice in that they allow you to test the candidate’s message and if not received well, provide an opportunity to revise or hone it. I think this quote I pulled from an article referenced in another thread sums up the challenge for Dr. Paul:

Jane Atchley of Garland voted for Thompson. "I would have voted for Ron Paul, except Ron Paul is completely off the face of the Earth on the war."

So my question is how do we convince the pro-war base that their position is flawed? Moreover how do we do it when the party leadership is clearly pro-war and is willing to propagandize their members with pro-war sentiment right before a poll? You can be sure they will be doing this right before the primaries as well.

The other question is to what extent these straw polls accurately reflect the opinion of likely republican voters? (A scientific survey would be nice to know this.) If these straw polls are fairly representative then we need to do a better job on explaining the war issue and recruit more anti-war people into the party.

In addition to this we can hope the pro-war vote is heavily split to allow Dr. Paul to win congressional districts, and their corresponding delegates, with a plurality. The fact that the nomination is still up in the air and there are so many pro-war candidates is a huge advantage to us.

The other issue is even if we can’t convince the pro-war voters that their positions are flawed, can we convince them to vote for Dr. Paul anyway? This other quote from the same article offers what I consider a strong selling point for Dr. Paul:

Paul Attwood of Rowlett voted for Ron Paul. "He's the best representative of the conservatives and the only one who has a chance of beating Hillary."

[BarryDonegan]

you can't beat someones opinion on the war, you CAN beat how high they prioritize it. aka, is the constitution's protection less important than the war.

[slantedview]

you can't beat someones opinion on the war, you CAN beat how high they prioritize it. aka, is the constitution's protection less important than the war.
The lesson I've learned (from looking at why the delegates vote) is there is a LOT of room to steal voters away from other candidates given that they mostly support other candidates for positions that are common to Ron Paul (pro-life, pro border security, etc.)

[njandrewg]

the lesson I learned is that we can rely on 16% of hardcore republicans to convert to Ron Paul cause. The rest we'll need to make up with people who change parties and come out of the woodwork to vote for him

And that the major candidates have 0 supporter loyalty, that all their lead is one screw up away from evaporating, and having their supporters look for someone else

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think we try to show them that their position is flawed. I think we need to get our position across clearly and succinctly. Dr. Paul has not really done this well, as of yet. Little bits and pieces all over the place, but not a cohesive group of statements where he demonstrates that his approach would enhance our national defense, making us safe and strong as a country.

I think we are spending way too much time describing what is wrong, instead of describing what WE would do and how great it would be. Even though we have the nice little "Hope for America", most of what we say is taking potshots, however justified, at what is currently being done and saying how horrible it is, rather than turning it around and showing how our approach is better.

I'm not sure how best to do this, but I know it has to be done. People see Dr. Paul as negative, living in dreamland with regard to terrorism and very weak on national defense. He's not of course, but both we and the campaign have to come up with a good succinct, cohesive argument.