PDA

View Full Version : When the hell we going to have a $ bomb for Harris??




disorderlyvision
09-24-2009, 07:30 AM
Rand just had another one, Schiff just had another one. Kokesh has one coming up on the 30th.

Let's not forget about RJ. I think he has a legit shot in the primaries. let's help him out.

scrosnoe
09-24-2009, 07:48 AM
i double ditto agree!/sc

rj is downright awesome and working his heart out for Oklahoma . . .

ctiger2
09-24-2009, 08:54 AM
Bump for Harris. I've donated twice to him so far.

disorderlyvision
09-24-2009, 09:41 AM
Bump for Harris. I've donated twice to him so far.

I donated a small amount a while back, but have been waiting on a $ bomb to donate again. perhaps I should quit waiting:(

Mahkato
09-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Is Harris the one running against an incumbent Republican?

disorderlyvision
09-24-2009, 09:56 AM
Is Harris the one running against an incumbent Republican?

an incumbent republican who voted for the bailouts...yes. we need more people running against incumbents who have sold us down the river.

some people on here have an aversion to people running against republican incumbents. I don't understand it:confused: especially when they are a piece of shit incumbent

Mahkato
09-24-2009, 10:06 AM
an incumbent republican who voted for the bailouts...yes. we need more people running against incumbents who have sold us down the river.

some people on here have an aversion to people running against republican incumbents. I don't understand it:confused: especially when they are a piece of shit incumbent

I think it's mostly a question of allocating resources most effectively. We can't win every battle, so we should focus on the battles that are most winnable and make sure we win there. With that accomplished, we can move on to winning back areas where both the Democrats and the local GOP old guard will be against us.

In my view, we should focus on races in this order:


Open seat, historically Republican district
Open seat, historically Democrat district
Democrat incumbent, historically Republican district
Republican incumbent, historically Republican district
Democrat incumbent, historically Democrat district
Republican incumbent, historically Democrat district

disorderlyvision
09-24-2009, 10:11 AM
I think it's mostly a question of allocating resources most effectively. We can't win every battle, so we should focus on the battles that are most winnable and make sure we win there. With that accomplished, we can move on to winning back areas where both the Democrats and the local GOP old guard will be against us.

In my view, we should focus on races in this order:


Open seat, historically Republican district
Open seat, historically Democrat district
Democrat incumbent, historically Republican district
Republican incumbent, historically Republican district
Democrat incumbent, historically Democrat district
Republican incumbent, historically Democrat district



I would rather get rid of the assholes that sold us out, than give them a free pass and only worry about "open seats"

Mahkato
09-24-2009, 10:34 AM
I would rather get rid of the assholes that sold us out, than give them a free pass and only worry about "open seats"

I think prevention is the best cure. If you have a bad apple in there now, work to restore an understanding of liberty and the rule of law in your local GOP, so that they learn how to spot the bad ones before they get endorsed for high office.

Spending $100,000 on a race you're not going to win is okay IF you cause the other guy more than $100,000 worth of pain. If you can't do that, spend the $100,000 elsewhere.

disorderlyvision
09-24-2009, 10:48 AM
I think prevention is the best cure. If you have a bad apple in there now, work to restore an understanding of liberty and the rule of law in your local GOP, so that they learn how to spot the bad ones before they get endorsed for high office.

Spending $100,000 on a race you're not going to win is okay IF you cause the other guy more than $100,000 worth of pain. If you can't do that, spend the $100,000 elsewhere.

How are you going to prevent anything if you leave the dipshits in office who have sold us out? they will continue to sell us out!

Mahkato
09-24-2009, 11:07 AM
How are you going to prevent anything if you leave the dipshits in office who have sold us out? they will continue to sell us out!

Yes, they will, but you'll be spending your time and money in other districts where they'll have more effect. I'm not suggesting supporting bad incumbents at all. Don't donate, don't campaign, nothing. Instead, educate local GOP activists and groom replacement candidates for when the seat does open up, and let the GOP incumbent know that (s)he is not earning your activist support for the next election.

535 seats, 1 ours, two options:

1) Fight everywhere, lose everywhere: 534 - 1
2) Fight where we can win, lose most places: 530-5

Rinse, repeat.

disorderlyvision
09-24-2009, 11:18 AM
535 seats, 1 ours, two options:

1) Fight everywhere, lose everywhere: 534 - 1
2) Fight where we can win, lose most places: 530-5

Rinse, repeat.

5 votes isn't a majority. so you are wasting your time and money too. all of their votes will be negated by the incumbents that have sold us out. so whats the point. we are all fighting an uphill battle.

randolphfuller
09-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Assuming the priority list is correct, we would have to give only nominal support to Adam Kokesh in New Mexico. He is runnng against Democratic incumbent in a historically Democratic district. A majority non-white District. I have been unable to find a single instance in recent years where a Republican has carried it. One of the myths of American politics is that the parties re-district in order to maximize their number of seats. They do no such thing. They re-district in a way to maximize the number of absolutely safe, really uncontestable districts. Our three largest states, California. New York, and Texas do not contain a single marginal seat. The freedom movement must concentrate its efforts in the House in party primaries.

Mahkato
09-24-2009, 11:29 AM
5 votes isn't a majority. so you are wasting your time and money too. all of their votes will be negated by the incumbents that have sold us out. so whats the point. we are all fighting an uphill battle.

Point taken, but the sellouts will still vote with us more often than those who openly promote big government.

lx43
09-26-2009, 10:39 PM
Give as much money as you want to people who YOU believe in regardless of what others say. I voted libertarian for a long time because I refuse to vote for evil, even the lessor of two evils.

tpreitzel
09-26-2009, 10:57 PM
Surely, someone around here has the talent and time to pick a date in December or February. If so, I'll donate during the money bomb. If not, I'll donate at my own whim. ;)

Flash
09-27-2009, 10:27 AM
Assuming the priority list is correct, we would have to give only nominal support to Adam Kokesh in New Mexico. He is runnng against Democratic incumbent in a historically Democratic district. A majority non-white District.

You do realize most of this country will be non-white in a matter of decades, right? By your logic our Libertarian efforts are futile no matter what since the white race will no longer be a majority.

I would like for Adam to get a Gary Johnson endorsement which should give him a bit of a boost in that district.

Nathan Hale
10-01-2009, 07:41 AM
I would rather get rid of the assholes that sold us out, than give them a free pass and only worry about "open seats"

That's what we WANT, sure. But the strategy for supporting races should be less about what we want, and more about what we are capable of getting. Challenging a Republican incumbent is a tough sell. Let's fund candidates for open seats or candidates challenging incumbents in the other party before we start in with primary challengers, especially ones without the celebrity needed to really make an impact.

RJ has a little money, I'd advocate holding off until an independent poll shows him in striking distance before having a money bomb.

Flash
10-10-2009, 03:45 PM
That's what we WANT, sure. But the strategy for supporting races should be less about what we want, and more about what we are capable of getting. Challenging a Republican incumbent is a tough sell. Let's fund candidates for open seats or candidates challenging incumbents in the other party before we start in with primary challengers, especially ones without the celebrity needed to really make an impact.

RJ has a little money, I'd advocate holding off until an independent poll shows him in striking distance before having a money bomb.

Fair enough.

MR2Fast2Catch
10-12-2009, 11:38 PM
Why not just promote the thisnovember5th.com money bomb, and use that to help RJ Harris raise money?

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-12-2009, 11:39 PM
Why not just promote the thisnovember5th.com money bomb, and use that to help RJ Harris raise money?

+1

why can't everyone promote the Nov 5th moneybomb?

what's the hold up?

ronpaulhawaii
10-12-2009, 11:46 PM
why not just promote the thisnovember5th.com money bomb, and use that to help rj harris raise money?

+2010

Jamsie 567
10-17-2009, 09:45 PM
All of these candidates have a very genuine opportunity. They are on the November 5th Money Bomb website. Why not make a money bomb video for your candidate and promote www.thisnovember5th.com?

Not one of the candidates has truly backed this event. They just don't understand the money bomb completely. It is not an idea it's our movement that makes it succeed. If you use that leverage and create your own media you can leverage that success in your favor.

Which ever candidate creates their own media will be the most successful.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-18-2009, 11:09 AM
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+H0OK04133
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+H2OK04055

CASH ON HAND

Cole: $540,917
Harris: $290

Couple that with the fact that challenging incumbents in party primaries never works and I think it's very fair to say this ain't one of our more likely 2010 wins.

abrahamclark
10-29-2009, 02:57 PM
I think it's mostly a question of allocating resources most effectively. We can't win every battle, so we should focus on the battles that are most winnable and make sure we win there. With that accomplished, we can move on to winning back areas where both the Democrats and the local GOP old guard will be against us.

In my view, we should focus on races in this order:


Open seat, historically Republican district
Open seat, historically Democrat district
Democrat incumbent, historically Republican district
Republican incumbent, historically Republican district
Democrat incumbent, historically Democrat district
Republican incumbent, historically Democrat district


Your synopsis and logic are majorly flawed. A primary is hundreds of times easier to win than a general. Primaries requrie receiving less than 20% of the votes you would need to obtain in a general.

Read this thread by Harris's campaign manager http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209716&page=2

abrahamclark
10-29-2009, 02:59 PM
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+H0OK04133
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+H2OK04055

CASH ON HAND

Cole: $540,917
Harris: $290

Couple that with the fact that challenging incumbents in party primaries never works and I think it's very fair to say this ain't one of our more likely 2010 wins.


Read this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209716&page=2