We Only have 400 Pledges on Kentucky Fight!

[skyorbit]

:(

Tracy

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I was hoping it'd hit at least 1,000 for the money bomb, but at the rate it's going to get even halfway there (500), it doesn't look too likely.

Still think a Ron Paul e-mail need to be sent.

[Eric21ND]

We need to inform everyone on myspace/facebook.

[Dionysus]

610 members have visited the forum in the last 24 hours, more than have pledged at kentuckyfight.com. Maybe people aren't willing to commit to the hundred, but will contribute, and hopefully will get swept up in the excitement on the day of. Still, quite inexcusable, Rand is the man to get behind 100%. I think we'll drag more of our compatriots into the fight the closer we get to the primary.

[MRoCkEd]

The facebook group has over 1,000 members
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121122948545

[brandon]

I've been saying for a while now this money bomb idea is done with. It was overused and it's not going to work anymore. Need a new internet fundraising concept.

[Dionysus]

I've been saying for a while now this money bomb idea is done with. It was overused and it's not going to work anymore. Need a new internet fundraising concept.

But it worked only a short time ago, raising over half of Rand's total contributions in one day. However, I'm sure that there's enough creativity here to come up with some cool permutations on the concept.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I've been saying for a while now this money bomb idea is done with. It was overused and it's not going to work anymore. Need a new internet fundraising concept.

That is bunk. Rand Paul took in over 430,000 dollars on August 20th. Schiff took in hundreds of thousands on August 7th.

It's a combination of money bomb saturation and poor promotion. We can still organize this to be highly successful (meaning $250,000+), there is still plenty of time if people here get active.

August 7th (Schiff)
August 20th (Paul)
September 9th (Schiff)
September 17th (Germond)
September 23rd (Paul)

Like I said: saturation. After this, the next Rand Paul money bomb probably shouldn't be till November 5th.

[skyorbit]

The facebook group has over 1,000 members
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121122948545

Why don't we e-mail the group then?

[Michigan11]

This money bomb will do better than we think, twice as many aren't signed up.

Another money bomb idea, could be the "money hour" - a chosen hour on a day in which everybody donates. We could pick a time that best suits the time zones and after most are out of work, and since there are so many races, we could condense these smaller money bombs into an hour, much more motivating and would have the same effect afterwards for people to donate... I think this has potential in the off-season elections and the smaller races.

It's the natural progression of the money bomb for the off-season... what do you all think?

It's the "stealth" lazer guided money bomb....even more lethal

[Natalie]

A lot of people who didn't sign up will donate. I never sign those pledge things. I don't even think we should have a pledge count. It's pointless.

[TCE]

A lot of people who didn't sign up will donate. I never sign those pledge things. I don't even think we should have a pledge count. It's pointless.

True, but it's good to know how much we will have if not a single other soul donates. If 500 people sign the pledge, that gives him $50,000 right off the bat. The next money bomb for any candidate shouldn't be until November, and even that's pushing it. The next one should probably be in December at the earliest.

If nothing else, we now know that 5 money bombs, four being for our two Senate Candidates, within 46/47 days is a bad idea. Two within 60 is fine, but four within 45 is not.

[evilfunnystuff]

True, but it's good to know how much we will have if not a single other soul donates. If 500 people sign the pledge, that gives him $50,000 right off the bat. The next money bomb for any candidate shouldn't be until November, and even that's pushing it. The next one should probably be in December at the earliest.

If nothing else, we now know that 5 money bombs, four being for our two Senate Candidates, within 46/47 days is a bad idea. Two within 60 is fine, but four within 45 is not.

as for big moneybombs at the moment i totaly agree. the one for schiff this month shouldnt have tryed to sneak in if they expected big results but thats no reasion not do do smaller scale ones in addition to the larger efforts

the one for rand seemed a little early but with the trey fundraiser happenin it was and still is a good date and im still hoping to see some decent numbers

i also think that there should be a way to sign up for email reminders for these things without pledging 100 dollars as im sure some who dont stay on top of things as much dont forget about them after they have seen them scince they couldnt commit 100 bux

hopefully we should see things pick up more and more as we get closer to the elections

[TCE]

as for big moneybombs at the moment i totaly agree. the one for schiff this month shouldnt have tryed to sneak in if they expected big results but thats no reasion not do do smaller scale ones in addition to the larger efforts

the one for rand seemed a little early but with the trey fundraiser happenin it was and still is a good date and im still hoping to see some decent numbers

i also think that there should be a way to sign up for email reminders for these things without pledging 100 dollars as im sure some who dont stay on top of things as much dont forget about them after they have seen them scince they couldnt commit 100 bux

hopefully we should see things pick up more and more as we get closer to the elections

Isn't the point of a money bomb to make it big? Small money bombs seem pointless to me. People can donate whenever they want to, but it seems the best for a particular candidate to do it all in one day. The smaller candidates (Jaynee, RJ, Kokesh) can have one whenever they want, but it will be just that, a small money bomb.

Agreed. And considering the circumstances, getting Schiff to over $1 million seems reasonable too, but it shouldn't have been called a money bomb.

Agreed. I never sign up for the pledges either, but that doesn't mean I don't donate. I prefer to throw $20 in every time, and if there are six or seven money bombs before the Primary, I'll have given $140.

We should. This is one of the few places that cares about politics outside of election years.

As for things that are more important than money bombs right now:

* Getting the Libertarian/Constitution Party to help Rand/Schiff/other Liberty Candidates. A.K.A. Tell them to support our candidate and not run against him/her.

* Talk to the media, get name recognition. Try and get in good with an editorial board or two and have them endorse a Liberty candidate.

* Lining up volunteers. The campaigns have hopefully already gathered a bunch of people in their respective states to canvass for them.

There are others, but those are starting points.

[Michigan11]

Again, I will bring up the idea of a "money hour" - a designated hour on a day we choose, promoted like a money bomb.

Most of us realize the bigger the money bomb starts out in the beginning hours, the more likely people are to donate through out the day.

Therefore, choose an hour on a day and promote it... in off elections this would prove to be our winning ticket to bringing in funds.

[RyanMoran]

* Lining up volunteers. The campaigns have hopefully already gathered a bunch of people in their respective states to canvass for them.


No joke. I offered to take two full weeks off of work and travel to KY at my own expense to campaign for Rand if they just told me when the most advantageous time would be for me to do so, and no one ever responded.

[Eric21ND]

I think Rand & Peter should share money bomb dates.

[TCE]

Again, I will bring up the idea of a "money hour" - a designated hour on a day we choose, promoted like a money bomb.

Most of us realize the bigger the money bomb starts out in the beginning hours, the more likely people are to donate through out the day.

Therefore, choose an hour on a day and promote it... in off elections this would prove to be our winning ticket to bringing in funds.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209897 Someone has taken credit for it.


No joke. I offered to take two full weeks off of work and travel to KY at my own expense to campaign for Rand if they just told me when the most advantageous time would be for me to do so, and no one ever responded.

That's not good. When would you want to complete that, though? Theoretically, they would only need people from February or March onwards.

[Michigan11]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209897 Someone has taken credit for it.

Didn't see that thread, but if you look at my original post in this thread(last post 1st page), the time I posted was several hours before this other thread you linked to. Who cares about the credit for it what does everybody think about it?

Share some thoughts....

I don't think people are expecting any record breaking money bombs in the off-season, therefore we should shorten the time frame of the money bombs...

[TruthisTreason]

No joke. I offered to take two full weeks off of work and travel to KY at my own expense to campaign for Rand if they just told me when the most advantageous time would be for me to do so, and no one ever responded.

I forwarded that email to one of the coordinators. :mad:

No doubt, spring will be the best time to come March up to May 18th....

[TCE]

Didn't see that thread, but if you look at my original post in this thread(last post 1st page), the time I posted was several hours before this other thread you linked to. Who cares about the credit for it what does everybody think about it?

Share some thoughts....

I don't think people are expecting any record breaking money bombs in the off-season, therefore we should shorten the time frame of the money bombs...

Just messin' with ya, I knew you were first. And yeah, a good and very unselfish point.

[Michigan11]

Just messin' with ya, I knew you were first. And yeah, a good and very unselfish point.

LOL... Nice! glad u got an opinion on this. I thinks a damn good idea.

Then evenetually it could all take place within a "minute"

Breaking news: Rand receives $1million dollars in one single minute! New World Record!!!!

[Michigan11]

Anyone interested in discussing this "one hour money bomb" any further should go here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209897

[itshappening]

we have one more week to promote this !!

[rich34]

I've been saying for a while now this money bomb idea is done with. It was overused and it's not going to work anymore. Need a new internet fundraising concept.

You're a dumbass too...

[koob]

I dont understand why on these pledge sites it's always 100. Couldn't people pledge a certain dollar amount? I will probably donate on the 23rd but only give 25 dollars. I won't pledge on the site obviously. So we end up playing these guessing games like "we have so many people signed up, but X amount of people haven't pledged on the site so we can really expect to raise-"

[dr. hfn]

Can a website handle thousands of people donating in the same minute or hour? And if you want to help get more pledges, help here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=207856

[rp4prez]

I've been saying for a while now this money bomb idea is done with. It was overused and it's not going to work anymore. Need a new internet fundraising concept.

there are so many candidates that need money is also a problem. I think the new idea should be a money carpet bomb. just freak'n take a day and donate to all candidates instead of multiple days for multiple candidates.

[Cowlesy]

Can we get Rand to pull a Joe Wilson somehow?

[lx43]

Can we get Rand to pull a Joe Wilson somehow?

Yeah but do not apologize like an idiot. Wilson could have gotten a lot more traction if he didn't apologize and more media coverage.

[josh.schisler]

Yeah but do not apologize like an idiot. Wilson could have gotten a lot more traction if he didn't apologize and more media coverage.

Yelling out during a speech is stupid. The person speaking is only doing so on terms that he has a time slot to speak without interruption.

[nathanmn]

I dont understand why on these pledge sites it's always 100. Couldn't people pledge a certain dollar amount? I will probably donate on the 23rd but only give 25 dollars. I won't pledge on the site obviously. So we end up playing these guessing games like "we have so many people signed up, but X amount of people haven't pledged on the site so we can really expect to raise-"

Yeah, I agree. I already donated 200 on the last money bomb, so I'll probably only do 50 this time. I don't want to pledge 100 and then only donate 50. They could make a pledge site that counts different pledges, but it would open the door up to abuse for trolls to be able to add 2,300+ false pledges.

[Nathan Hale]

Yeah, I agree. I already donated 200 on the last money bomb, so I'll probably only do 50 this time. I don't want to pledge 100 and then only donate 50. They could make a pledge site that counts different pledges, but it would open the door up to abuse for trolls to be able to add 2,300+ false pledges.

The door for abuse is already open - as the system stands I can enter a pledge for every email account I own.

Regarding the issue of changing the sites' formats, IMO these "pledge" sites would do better by being strictly informational sites. Forget about collecting pledges - I'll bet that site traffic is a better indicator than pledges as to the ultimate success of the money bomb.

[Jeremy Tyler]

The door for abuse is already open - as the system stands I can enter a pledge for every email account I own.

Regarding the issue of changing the sites' formats, IMO these "pledge" sites would do better by being strictly informational sites. Forget about collecting pledges - I'll bet that site traffic is a better indicator than pledges as to the ultimate success of the money bomb.


I agree get rid of the pledges and go by amount of visitors.

[RyanRSheets]

Honestly I think bloated numbers would help us. We don't want to be saying "well, we predict", but if people see tons of people pledging they might pledge themselves. Nobody wants to be a part of failure, unless they work for the government and will get a pay raise for failing.

[TCE]

Honestly I think bloated numbers would help us. We don't want to be saying "well, we predict", but if people see tons of people pledging they might pledge themselves. Nobody wants to be a part of failure, unless they work for the government and will get a pay raise for failing.

Bloated numbers are bad in politics. We want to get out to the media that all we expect from this money bomb is around $60,000. That way, if we blow the top off that number, they can say "Senate candidate Rand Paul's money bomb was a huge success, garnering four times the amount that was expected." That frames it as a success story. If we do what we did last time and claim that we'll have a "million dollar money bomb," we are setting ourselves up for failure, and the media capitalizes on that.

[Tenbatsu]

I haven't heard Alex Jones talk about this new money bomb. It might be a good idea to bring it to his attention.

[tuco.sargent]

Bloated numbers are bad in politics. We want to get out to the media that all we expect from this money bomb is around $60,000. That way, if we blow the top off that number, they can say "Senate candidate Rand Paul's money bomb was a huge success, garnering four times the amount that was expected." That frames it as a success story. If we do what we did last time and claim that we'll have a "million dollar money bomb," we are setting ourselves up for failure, and the media capitalizes on that.

It discourages a lot of people though if they think the money bomb isn't going to be that successful. That WILL happen if you try to make it a "pledge" system where the outcome can be easily predicted. We need people donating based on the amount of people who have seen it and know about it; not based on the amount of people guaranteed to donate $100. (Which is not a small amount for people like me.)

[tangent4ronpaul]

there are so many candidates that need money is also a problem. I think the new idea should be a money carpet bomb. just freak'n take a day and donate to all candidates instead of multiple days for multiple candidates.

I like this idea!

there are a lot of candidates out there that deserve our help. One month just choose a day and do a money carpet bomb. Decide what candidates you want to vote for and divide how much you want to donate by the number of candidates. The sum total from all campaigns could be broadcast to the media as a press release. It's different enough that I bet it would get coverage, as would all out candidates.

-t

[justinc.1089]

I like this idea!

there are a lot of candidates out there that deserve our help. One month just choose a day and do a money carpet bomb. Decide what candidates you want to vote for and divide how much you want to donate by the number of candidates. The sum total from all campaigns could be broadcast to the media as a press release. It's different enough that I bet it would get coverage, as would all out candidates.

-t

Yeah this is a good idea, I think it was talked about a long time ago. I will start a topic about it in the main area I think because it needs to be done. It will help our chances increase by helping all the candidates, big or small, long shot, no shot, or easy shot lol. We MUST get at least one victory out of ALL these candidates, and that means they need our help! And we need to keep in mind that with all of them there could be an upset somewhere and one we think doesn't have nearly as good of a chance as another may end up being our only winner, so we need to make sure they all get some help at least.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It will help our chances increase by helping all the candidates, big or small, long shot, no shot, or easy shot lol.

No it won't. You gotta thin the herd, know who is viable and who is not. Not give a bunch of limited resources to a total no-hoper.

A "carpet bomb" is also dumb. For starters, it wouldn't be successful. Even if you could get people excited by telling them to donate to a long list of 20 candidates, 17 of which are obscure no-names; none of the candidates would take in a large enough amount to justify the mass promotion. The one candidate thing works just fine, why fix what isn't broken? Secondly, again, you're going to have the no-hopers sucking up money in one of these style bombs.

It is way better to have one or two fully funded viable candidates than it is to have a gigantic slew of half-assed funded candidates.

[justinc.1089]

It wouldn't be a long list of 10-20 candidates, it would be more like 4 maybe 5 tops. And we would decide on the candidates too you know lol. Its not like we would put names in a magic bag and pull a handful out and then force people to give money to them.

I think the best candidates would still get the most money though, as long as the promotion idea is done correctly. If it says donate so much to all these candidates, then you're right, it would give money to less likely to win candidates that could have been given to more likely to win candidates.

But, if it was promoted more like donate as much as you can to as many of these candidates as you like, then the best candidates would still get the majority of the donations, and it would promote the campaigns of all the candidates at the same time.

The advantage to this idea is that the best candidates can get money more often, instead of waiting twice as long since their fundraisers have to skip each other in order to be effective, and it would give the weak candidates free exposure they need to help them, even if it is pointless for some of them.

I mean the only person I have seen that I think is a waste helping is Medina, but I don't think even if Medina was part of a multiple candidate moneybomb she would pull any sizeable amount of money from candidates like Rand or Peter. However, for the record, I wouldn't support the idea of her being part of a multiple candidate moneybomb.

My opinion is that we should do it for Schiff, Paul, and Kokesh, even though I think Kokesh is probably going to lose. But the advantage to still promoting them is that those of us that don't think someone is worth promoting may not see something that someone who supports them does see, and helping promote that candidate won't hurt the other candidates since we would still be donating our money to the other candidates anyway.

If there was something that forced the donations to be evenly divided between all the candidates promoted in the moneybomb then yes, it would hurt the ones that are more likely to win by giving money to candidates less likely to win that may have been donated to them. But there's nothing forcing that so the candidates that are most likely to win in most people's view will still get the most donations, just like normal, but the other candidates would also get free promotion.

I mean what we're doing now is hectic, so I think we should give this a shot. Right now its so and so has a money bomb next week, but so and so has one in two days we must promote! It would work better just to promote a moneybomb for all of them at the same time and let people donate however much they want to whoever they want that day.

If you really want to talk about who has a chance though, the truth is right now none of our candidates have a good chance from what I see. Schiff is against Dodd, so that says a lot by itself. Its going to take a miracle to get the primary and then Dodd's position too. Then Paul is trailing Trey, who has the whole republican party fighting for him now apparently. And Kokesh is running as a republican in a democratic area, and well he just doesn't seem likely to win to me even if he wasn't in that situation. So none of them have good chances of winning if you look at it objectively, which means if any of them win it will be an upset.


Edit:

Or we could do Paul, Schiff, and Harris. I don't know why I didn't think about him, I would rather have those three in a multiple candidate moneybomb than any other combination. I guess we could do four candidates, but I don't think there would be too much point for Kokesh really.

[NerveShocker]

If it's not broke stop trying to fix it. Ron Paul's money-bomb were enormous and are probably one of the main reasons we didn't lose hope in him or the movement even after the polls slammed us. Idea's of money-minutes are terrible.. simply because no website can withstand that. If you were around for the 24hour money-bomb you would know even then we had period where the sites crashed because of too many people visiting the website.

As for a money-carpet.. that would cause complete confusion and I'm guessing get 0 people excited about. Especially after the next day comes and it ends up a complete dud do to lack of organization.

The reason recent money-bomb haven't been as successful is lack of time and lack of effort or enthusiasm of the part of people promoting them. So get to work now.

Sign for for Rand Paul money-bomb at www.KentuckyFight.com

Our huge Money-bombs for Ron Paul that brought in 4 and other 6million dollars had over 20,000 pledges. Pledges DO matter.

[Flash]

and Kokesh, even though I think Kokesh is probably going to lose.

I think if Gary Johnson becomes politically active again, then he'll begin campaigning for Kokesh. If this is true then he'll suddenly become a serious candidate against the Dem's incumbent.

[justinc.1089]

Huh? I didn't say anything about money minutes... stuff like that has been talked about since way back in Ron Paul's campaign and it is pointless because like you said servers can't take that much traffic. I have been here since well before Paul's first money bomb and saw his campaign go from small to huge.

I really don't see why you guys think a moneybomb for multiple candidates is a bad idea.

It won't take money from better candidates and give it to worst candidates because people can donate to who they want to.

[justinc.1089]

I think if Gary Johnson becomes politically active again, then he'll begin campaigning for Kokesh. If this is true then he'll suddenly become a serious candidate against the Dem's incumbent.

You know, I hadn't even thought about that. Have we mass emailed Johnson to try to get him to campaign for Kokesh? Johnson could be our ace in the hole for Kokesh!

I keep wondering anyway if Kokesh could win over dems there by talking about a non-interventionist foreign policy too. Personally I think he could. That makes me keep wondering if there isn't a possible shock coming there with Kokesh.

But we really need to write, call, and/or email Johnson if that hasn't been done yet.

[Flash]

But we really need to write, call, and/or email Johnson if that hasn't been done yet.

It's impossible to get into contact with him, all I can find is fan-made facebooks or myspaces.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=194492


Btw we still have only 500 pledges for Rand Paul's money bomb. :\

[skyorbit]

I really don't see why you guys think a moneybomb for multiple candidates is a bad idea.


Because frankly, I'm not sure we can fund both Schiff and Rand -- let alone anybody else.

There WAS a PAC set up where for everybody who donate $20 to said PAC you could VOTE for who you wanted to money to go to.

We could maybe do something like that. Then we can choose which candidate to go all out for.

Of course, personally, I think Rand's rase is much more viable, so he's where we should focus our energy on.

Tracy

[dr. hfn]

The more I learn, the more I realize a multi-candidate moneybomb is a bad idea and will just disperse our power.

[Nathan Hale]

Because frankly, I'm not sure we can fund both Schiff and Rand -- let alone anybody else.

There WAS a PAC set up where for everybody who donate $20 to said PAC you could VOTE for who you wanted to money to go to.

We could maybe do something like that. Then we can choose which candidate to go all out for.

Of course, personally, I think Rand's rase is much more viable, so he's where we should focus our energy on.

Tracy

Tracy, I agree and disagree with you.

I think you're on to something with the PAC idea. It probably wouldn't get many takers in the liberty movement, but it's a meaningful idea because it highlights the fact that libertarianism should be the political goal, but not the organizational strategy, of the liberty movement.

I disagree that we don't have the resources to fund these races (and more). Keep in mind that we don't have to fund these races in their entirety. Our funding is important early, to establish the candidate as a mainstream, top-tier candidate. Once that is accomplished, our funding stream should be overtaken by local and regional funding that allows us to back off and focus our energies elsewhere.

[Flash]

580 People have pledged to donate $100.

Only 580 so far.

[Young Paleocon]

There are probably double that number that haven't pledged but are going to donate.

[Austin]

There are probably double that number that haven't pledged but are going to donate.

The variation seems to be between 1.9x - 2.4x the pledged amount -- means we're looking at anywhere between $110,000 and $140,000. Hopefully we blow other moneybombs out of the water in terms of pledge/donation ratio; we need to get to get 1 million for this quarter.

[skyorbit]

Well, we need about 3* to get up to $1 Million with the MoneyBomb == at the current rate of Pledges.

Tracy

[Michigan11]

We are going to have to get as many people as possible to donate right at midnight or as early as possible, this is key.

[Young Paleocon]

How about we message everyone in CFL that lives in our county, or if it's a large county a few members that log on often, and inform them about the bomb, and encourage them to try and get at least one other person to donate on the 23rd. It seems like if that was done by just 10-15 people on here it could spread quickly aye?