PDA

View Full Version : Response for "long shot" argument




vertesc
09-27-2007, 10:45 AM
It drives me nuts that every time there is an article on Dr. Paul, they call him a "long shot," "fringe" candidate, or out-and-out say that he has no chance of winning. This is a major deterrent for supporters. Every time you see that comment, here's your response.

"How is he a fringe candidate? He's come top three in 21 of the 25 real-world straw polls since June. (won 9, 2nd 5 times, 3rd 7 times). And we all know he wins active polls like text-message and phone-ins by a landslide. Nothing about that sounds like a fringe candidate for the primary."

We have to fight this myth that paul has no real-world support!

Ridiculous
09-27-2007, 10:51 AM
Aside from his numbers, I think the MSM labels him as fringe for having the "conspiracy theorist vote". I think that one of the keys to Paul's sucess is to let the MSM know that his supporters aren't just the "Lone Gunmen" type but "Everyday Americans" that they can identify with.

If you notice the other candidates polling under 10% don't get called fringe, just long shot, etc.

kylejack
09-27-2007, 10:51 AM
If Ron Paul is a long shot, let's give him a sniper rifle. DONATE MORE.

Ron Paul Fan
09-27-2007, 10:54 AM
The first step to alleviating this misnomer will be the Q3 fundraising results. If they shock people then Dr. Paul will get more notice. So keep donating as we try to reach our $500,000 three days early! Remember, the current political climate favors us very heavily! Everyone looks at the national polls for their basis of argument and that's why their write him off as fringe.

aknappjr
09-27-2007, 11:04 AM
It drives me nuts that every time there is an article on Dr. Paul, they call him a "long shot," "fringe" candidate, or out-and-out say that he has no chance of winning. This is a major deterrent for supporters. Every time you see that comment, here's your response.

"How is he a fringe candidate? He's come top three in 21 of the 25 real-world straw polls since June. (won 9, 2nd 5 times, 3rd 7 times). And we all know he wins active polls like text-message and phone-ins by a landslide. Nothing about that sounds like a fringe candidate for the primary."

We have to fight this myth that paul has no real-world support!

Here's the best response I've seen to the lack-of-viability statement.

I believe the stars are aligning for a dark horse Republican candidate this year.


Intro:

The only dark horse in the race that has a chance to win the nomination is Ron Paul. As Peggy Noonan noted in the WSJ last week, ďwhen half the room at the Republican debate erupts in applause for the anti-war candidate, something is going on.Ē With the GOP depressed, Ron Paul is the probably the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. I say that because that is what the market is saying. I think his odds have gone from 200:1 to 15:1 to 8:1 on Sportsbook.



First; This is how Ron Paul the can actually wins:

* If 75% of the people in the US now call Iraq a mistake, that means that Ĺ the GOP realizes it has not gone well in some form. In their gut, most Republicans donít like what has happened. If F-rudy Mc-Romney splits the pro war vote 4-5 ways, and Ron Paul captures the realist/unhappy/Scowcroft wing of the GOP, and the independents in open primary states, he can swing to victory. New Hampshire has been very against the war from the start and is an open primary.
* On Intrade, the betting website, the market is saying that there is only a 6% chance that Huckabee, McCain, Fred, Rudy or Mitt will drop out. This will split the GOP through the first month of primaries five ways.



Second: What is going on right now?

* Unscientific: He won the Fox news (dial-in) debate with 30% of the vote. He has won every post-debate poll. Either people like him, or he has great grass roots organization. He is the most searched for candidate on the internet; it is probably both.
* He has beaten Rudy in 18 out of 20 local straw polls.
* He has 45,000 volunteers in MeetUps. (Obama has 4,500, Hillary has 1,000, Fred has 180. Rudy has 0.) Ron Paul is on the same trajectory as Howard Dean. These numbers are increasing at 6% a week. A week. That would put him at 150,000 at the primaries, and he has yet to get mainstream media coverage.
* 60 Minutes (the people who brought you draft dodger report) have a segment on Ron Paul in the next few weeks.
* He has more money than McCain and the other (Huck, Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback).



Possible tipping points for Ron Paul:

* The first tipping point for Ron Paul was when he sparred with Rudy in May debate over why Al Queda attacked us. Ron Paul pretty much regurgitated the 911 commission report, Rudy didnít like it. Ron Paul stood his ground. His campaign took off.
* One big endorsement will be the tipping point: A Greenspan. A Hagel. The GOP will stop laughing and embrace him. The GOP can line up behind him and say, he was right on this war. The neocons stole our party. We are Reganís heirs. (Fact, he was one of the first Congressman to endorse RR in 76). This will allow the party to cut their losses on the bad trade.



His Record

* He has a perfect 30 year track record on lowering taxes. (Huckabee, McCain, Rudy, and Fred canít say that.)
* His consistency on gay marriage, abortion and other values is straight line GOP/libertarian.
* He has never voted against the NRA. (Rudy canít say it.)
* Highest approval rating from taxpayer advocates.
* The WSJ editorial page lines up with Ron Paul on every issue, but the war.
* He has never cross dressed.

runderwo
09-27-2007, 11:24 AM
* He has never cross dressed.

One could say that ALL the other frontrunners are just Democrats cross-dressing as Republicans. Looking and talking like Republicans is fine, everyone does it, but when they claim to the public that they actually are Republicans while they still act like Democrats in every measurable way, that's where the public gets off board because they know they're being deceived.

vertesc
09-28-2007, 12:42 AM
Of course I agree with all your comments... and thank you for that detailed and well thought-out post, aknappjr. The trouble is, you have to reduce it to a sound byte. A one or two line comment you can post (or make verbally on a radio call-in show) that will make the original speaker stop for a moment and consider that the evidence is actually against him.

In business, one of the first things you do is define your "elevator speech". If you find yourself in an elevator with the most powerful venture capital man in your field, how do you explain what you do in 10 seconds or less?

We need a similar elevator speech to throw back at people for every negative comment we hear with any regularity. And so far, the most persistent one is the "long shot" comment. Maybe my original should be amended to say:

"Second-tier? He's come top three in 21 of the 25 real-world straw polls since June. He's third in cash-on-hand, he's the only possible benefactor of a Giuliani/Romney/McCain split in the "mainstream" Republican vote, and he has been top-two in every major post-debate poll. If that doesn't make you a top-tier candidate, nothing will!"

How's that?

Oddball
09-28-2007, 12:48 AM
It drives me nuts that every time there is an article on Dr. Paul, they call him a "long shot," "fringe" candidate, or out-and-out say that he has no chance of winning. This is a major deterrent for supporters. Every time you see that comment, here's your response.

"How is he a fringe candidate? He's come top three in 21 of the 25 real-world straw polls since June. (won 9, 2nd 5 times, 3rd 7 times). And we all know he wins active polls like text-message and phone-ins by a landslide. Nothing about that sounds like a fringe candidate for the primary."

We have to fight this myth that paul has no real-world support!
Forget the policy essays and theses.

The reality of recent history shows that nobody knew who the heck Jimmy Carter and Bubba Clinton were, before the votes were counted, either.

Are your "friends" looking for a candidate to get behind, or a bandwagon to ride on??

vertesc
09-29-2007, 12:18 AM
Hey Oddball -
This isn't a thread about convincing friends. It's about responding to the oft-repeated argument that RP has no, or only a fringe, following. This means letters to the editor complaining about articles and comments on blogs, as well as individual argument.

And while yo uand I certainly don't make our political choices based on popularity, it's a major issue for this "second tier" candidate.

robatsu
09-29-2007, 12:50 AM
* The WSJ editorial page lines up with Ron Paul on every issue, but the war.


Really? The WSJ for 20+ years has been calling for a Constitutional amendment stating "There shall be open borders". I can think of other issues, but all I have to do is show one. RP is miles apart from WSJ, although perhaps not where WSJ was way in the past or where they would like to think they are.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 05:32 AM
"He's ahead of where Kerry was at this time of 2003, and in the election, Kerry got more votes than Bush."

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 05:59 AM
Here's a good response to the "long shot" argument: grab them by the shirt and repeatedly pound his face with your fist, then his kick his face on the floor. It may not be "professional," but it does get your point across. lol *sarcasm*

uncloned21
09-29-2007, 06:12 AM
Here's a good response to the "long shot" argument: grab them by the shirt and repeatedly pound his face with your fist, then his kick his face on the floor. It may not be "professional," but it does get your point across. lol *sarcasm*


I'm going to actually do that and leave a link to this page at the scene.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:13 AM
I'm going to actually do that and leave a link to this page at the scene.

lol. that's just how I feel when I hear the "long shot" crap.

erowe1
09-29-2007, 06:55 AM
"He's ahead of where Kerry was at this time of 2003, and in the election, Kerry got more votes than Bush."

What the?!! I knew there were some conspiracy nuts here, but what conspiracy do you have to believe to think Kerry got more votes than Bush? It wasn't even that close. Bush got more votes in that election than not only Kerry, but more than any other presidential candidate in any election in America's history.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-29-2007, 06:57 AM
What the?!! I knew there were some conspiracy nuts here, but what conspiracy do you have to believe to think Kerry got more votes than Bush? It wasn't even that close. Bush got more votes in that election than not only Kerry, but more than any other presidential candidate in any election in America's history.

Perhaps he's mixing it up with the 2000 election? But he's right on the polling.. kerry was, I believe, 3-4% in december, while RP is 4% now

erowe1
09-29-2007, 06:57 AM
For the longshot argument, ask them what would have to happen to make them think he's not too much of a long shot to support? And then say, "So if that happens will you start supporting him too?"
They'll come around. We're getting closer and closer to that point every day.

Corydoras
09-29-2007, 07:14 AM
Perhaps he's mixing it up with the 2000 election? But he's right on the polling.. kerry was, I believe, 3-4% in december, while RP is 4% now

Yes, I got it mixed up with 2000. Sorry. Yes, the Kerry polling thing is correct.

That's what I get for being awake so early on a Saturday morning with a hangover.
:rolleyes:

Joe Knows
09-29-2007, 08:00 AM
It drives me nuts that every time there is an article on Dr. Paul, they call him a "long shot," "fringe" candidate, or out-and-out say that he has no chance of winning.




When that comes up I generally say, "Maybe Ron Paul is a long shot, but if I don't vote for him I will be wasting my vote. 70% of Americans want the war ended and our troops brought home. So if I vote for (Put in their choice here) Hillary will be elected. Even though Ron Paul is a long shot I would rather vote for him than waste my vote on someone who can't beat Hillary."