An Idea

[RyanRSheets]

This is sort of a duplicate thread, and the other is more detailed, so unless you just want to read the comments, go here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211840

[itshappening]

I would suggest Rand and Schiff are the priority but then we can say "support other candidates", if people want to give to other candidates then fine we can even feature them but it ought to be promoted as Rand and Schiff as they are the priority IN MY OPINION

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Just let the Rand Paul people plan their fourth quarter money bomb. Let the Schiff people plan one. Let the people here promote which one, or both, they want. Let people donate to the one, or both, they want. That is probably all that can be done.

Let the Rand Paul people pick their date, set up the website and promote. Let the Schiff people pick their date, set up the website and promote.

Heck, maybe separate websites but same day on the money bombs? Maybe the free market competition and urge to "one-up" the other will get the hardcore Paul/Schiff partisans motivated to promote harder and donate more to defeat the other.

[itshappening]

Just let the Rand Paul people plan their fourth quarter money bomb. Let the Schiff people plan one. Let the people here promote which one, or both, they want. Let people donate to the one, or both, they want. That is probably all that can be done.

Let the Rand Paul people pick their date, set up the website and promote. Let the Schiff people pick their date, set up the website and promote.

Heck, maybe separate websites but same day on the money bombs? Maybe the free market competition and urge to "one-up" the other will get the hardcore Paul/Schiff partisans motivated to promote harder and donate more to defeat the other.


NO, this leads to fragmentation and failed bombs anyway

November 5th mass donation day

this is not about competition or defeating anyone, this is about getting as much to them as quickly and effectively as possible.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

NO, this leads to fragmentation and failed bombs anyway

November 5th mass donation day

And six weeks of mass promotion on a "donate to Paul/Schiff and maybe these other guys you've never heard of!" will produce success?

You really want to use all that time, promotion and a popular date as an experiment to see if a multi-candidate money bomb works?


this is not about competition or defeating anyone, this is about getting as much to them as quickly and effectively as possible.

No one said that. But maybe the competition will produce better results for both. It certainly will over this multiple-candidate stinker.

[RyanRSheets]

I would suggest Rand and Schiff are the priority but then we can say "support other candidates", if people want to give to other candidates then fine we can even feature them but it ought to be promoted as Rand and Schiff as they are the priority IN MY OPINION

Obviously they're the priority, but we can capitalize on the size of this thing. I think we can motivate a lot of sleepers by simply showing how big this can be and that there are people near them running as well. If we take all of the candidates and put them in one place and promote a single day event and show the size of that event by unifying it into a single ticker it would be just as exciting as all of Ron's money bombs. The only question is how we'd decide who to donate and when, but I think even just randomizing it would be good enough since the main goal is just to show how big the total thing is. People like to see big numbers.

[RyanRSheets]

And six weeks of mass promotion on a "donate to Paul/Schiff and maybe these other guys you've never heard of!" will produce success?

You really want to use all that time, promotion and a popular date as an experiment to see if a multi-candidate money bomb works?



No one said that. But maybe the competition will produce better results for both. It certainly will over this multiple-candidate stinker.

The idea isn't competition, it's scale. We want this to look huge and we want to see the big numbers we saw with Ron's campaign. I think if we take all of the candidates and add up what we need to earn for them to get past the primary we will find that we raised way more for Ron.

[itshappening]

And six weeks of mass promotion on a "donate to Paul/Schiff and maybe these other guys you've never heard of!" will produce success?

You really want to use all that time, promotion and a popular date as an experiment to see if a multi-candidate money bomb works?


have some faith...

what is the alternative? let one of them starve of funds or have a failed moneybomb, what's the point? we might as well go for it.

[RyanRSheets]

have some faith...

what is the alternative? let one of them starve of funds or have a failed moneybomb, what's the point? we might as well go for it.

I think 6 weeks is way too early for this. I would say either the ass end of the year or next year. People aren't as rich as they used to be and these constant moneybombs are going to ensure that every one is somewhat of a failure.

[disorderlyvision]

I would suggest Rand and Schiff are the priority but then we can say "support other candidates", if people want to give to other candidates then fine we can even feature them but it ought to be promoted as Rand and Schiff as they are the priority IN MY OPINION

It is shit statements like this that have made kokesh and harris my priorities. I am sick of everyone acting like they are unimportant. I will only be donating to them from here on

[itshappening]

It is shit statements like this that have made kokesh and harris my priorities. I am sick of everyone acting like they are unimportant. I will only be donating to them from here on

senate candidates should be considered the priority i'm sorry if that's offensive but as I said the event should be about donating to whoever you like.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It is shit statements like this that have made kokesh and harris my priorities. I am sick of everyone acting like they are unimportant. I will only be donating to them from here on

Why not just declare "I only donate to candidates who won't win"?

But seriously, I can't respect Harris' run because primary challenges against incumbents are non-starters.

[RyanRSheets]

senate candidates should be considered the priority i'm sorry if that's offensive but as I said the event should be about donating to whoever you like.

I would say the event should be about getting all of these guys to their goal, not about simply donating to favorites. Obviously many would still donate to their favorites, but we'd want it all to show up on the same ticker.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I would say the event should be about getting all of these guys to their goal, not about simply donating to favorites. Obviously many would still donate to their favorites, but we'd want it all to show up on the same ticker.

See, this is another issue I have with this idea: everyone is going to try and get their favorite no-hoper included.

"Where's Kokesh?"
"Why isn't R.J. Harris included?"
"Don't forget Jaynee Germond!"

Eventually, I think, you need to thin the herd and realize who is viable with a real chance of winning and who isn't. Everyone is obviously free to donate to whomever they want, but for me, I have limited money and am not donating to somebody who I know isn't going to win.

[disorderlyvision]

Why not just declare "I only donate to candidates who won't win"?

But seriously, I can't respect Harris' run because primary challenges against incumbents are non-starters.

i am having this same argument in another thread.:rolleyes:

according to you people we should leave all the dumbfucks in office who have sold us down the river, just because they are a republican incumbent. that is the stupidest shit I have ever heard.

harris is running against an incumbent who voted for the bailouts amongst other things. I would much rather get them out of office than worry about "open seats"

I am beginning to think that some of you dont really want change. you just want to get a pet project in office.

[RyanRSheets]

See, this is another issue I have with this idea: everyone is going to try and get their favorite no-hoper included.

"Where's Kokesh?"
"Why isn't R.J. Harris included?"
"Don't forget Jaynee Germond!"

Eventually, I think, you need to thin the herd and realize who is viable with a real chance of winning and who isn't. Everyone is obviously free to donate to whomever they want, but for me, I have limited money and am not donating to somebody who I know isn't going to win.

Well I think part of the problem might be that this is all perceived as something so small. A lot of people are running and a lot of people are out there, and I think we can gain a lot by working together. We can keep our favorites, but if we agree on a date and make a massive effort to promote that single date we can do a lot more. All I'm saying is we should unify our efforts in one place, work together for a massive promotion and agree to do something all on the same day, then have a unified ticker for the excitement factor.

[RyanRSheets]

December 16th would be the perfect day to do this.

The idea is to get everyone to donate to their favorite on the same day and have a single website that monitors the whole event and shows how much money all of the campaigns are bringing in that day. We can fund all of our campaigns, we just need to change our approach.

[Cowlesy]

Blah, I'm bummed to see so many posts about which candidate to support.

I try and support each candidate that I deem to be pro-freedom at least a little bit, even if they aren't going to win. At least they've pinched their nose and dove into the campaign process. I want them to know there are some folks who support them out there.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

December 16th would be the perfect day to do this.

The idea is to get everyone to donate to their favorite on the same day and have a single website that monitors the whole event and shows how much money all of the campaigns are bringing in that day. We can fund all of our campaigns, we just need to change our approach.

I still don't think it'll work and only leave us scrambling afterwards.

That is a long time that could be used towards a real money bomb going towards a gamble that a multi-candidate money bomb wouldn't fail.

I can't figure out why a few here are so intent on fixing something that isn't broken.

[RyanRSheets]

Blah, I'm bummed to see so many posts about which candidate to support.

I try and support each candidate that I deem to be pro-freedom at least a little bit, even if they aren't going to win. At least they've pinched their nose and dove into the campaign process. I want them to know there are some folks who support them out there.

It's ridiculous, because we should all be supporting all of them. We can fund all of these campaigns! If we could raise 34 million for Ron, mostly in the last 3 months of 2007, we ought to easily be able to fund the campaigns of 2 Senators and a handful of Representatives. Our movement has definitely grown, and these are people that the tea party crowd would get behind if they realized they were running, so we need to promote a massive single event.

[ronpaulhawaii]

pobsting to subscribe. My thoughts on the subject are here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2332595#post2332595

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2332714#post2332714

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2332775#post2332775

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2333432#post2333432

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2333467#post2333467

[RyanRSheets]

I still don't think it'll work and only leave us scrambling afterwards.

That is a long time that could be used towards a real money bomb going towards a gamble that a multi-candidate money bomb wouldn't fail.

I can't figure out why a few here are so intent on fixing something that isn't broken.

How would it fail? Some people would promote it as a money bomb for their candidate on the 16th, others would promote it as a money bomb for Liberty on the 16th. The idea behind unifying it is simply to show how much is in this movement. We're not going to impress people by raising 430,000 for a single Senate candidate, but we might make the news if we pull off a combined total of several million in one day for all of our candidates.

I can't figure out why you think staggered money bombs are a good idea; getting everyone to donate on different days defeats the purpose. It's supposed to be about unity.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

i am having this same argument in another thread.:rolleyes:

according to you people we should leave all the dumbfucks in office who have sold us down the river, just because they are a republican incumbent. that is the stupidest shit I have ever heard.

harris is running against an incumbent who voted for the bailouts amongst other things. I would much rather get them out of office than worry about "open seats"

I am beginning to think that some of you dont really want change. you just want to get a pet project in office.

It's not that I wouldn't much rather see Kokesh or Harris in office over their opponents. It is nothing close to that.

To me, it's a matter of pure viability. I personally, myself have but a little money I can afford to donate to political candidates I strongly support.

As such, I have made a consciousness decision that I will only put my limited money towards candidates who I've looked at twice over carefully and have come to the conclusion they can win.

Bottom-line: I'd rather give $100 to Rand Paul.......than $25 to Paul, $25 to Schiff, $25 to Kokesh and $25 to Harris.

[RyanRSheets]

It's not that I wouldn't much rather see Kokesh or Harris in office over their opponents. It is nothing close to that.

To me, it's a matter of pure viability. I personally, myself have but a little money I can afford to donate to political candidates I strongly support.

As such, I have made a consciousness decision that I will only put my limited money towards candidates who I've looked at twice over carefully and have come to the conclusion they can win.

Bottom-line: I'd rather give $100 to Rand Paul.......than $25 to Paul, $25 to Schiff, $25 to Kokesh and $25 to Harris.

As would many, but if we create a goal for all of our candidates put together and make this a national effort I think we can hit that goal. I don't personally intend to donate to other candidates because I don't have the money and I'm in Kentucky, so I can't justify spending so much time campaigning for Rand in person when I can't afford to max out donating to him. The fact is, though, there's a ton of people across the country that aren't participating and I think we can get them involved. The easiest way would probably be a money bomb where it all happens on the same day rather than trying to get people to donate to Schiff one week then Kokesh then Rand then Germond then Harris then back to Schiff and you get the idea.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We're not going to impress people by raising 430,000 for a single Senate candidate, but we might make the news if we pull off a combined total of several million in one day for all of our candidates.

I'm pretty sure Rand Paul got a ton of positive press for his $433,000 money bomb.

I don't know where you get the idea we can pull off "several million" for multiple candidates, many of whom are obscure to most people and have very little excitement surrounding their campaigns. I mean, I like the optimism, but sometimes you have to be a little bit of a realist.

I just can't see people donating $500,000 to Jaynee Germond in one day.


I can't figure out why you think staggered money bombs are a good idea....

Couldn't be the track record of success....

[RyanRSheets]

I'm pretty sure Rand Paul got a ton of positive press for his $433,000 money bomb.

It was alright, but let's face it, at the end of the day winning 1 Senate race isn't going to be enough to fix this country. I think people recognize that. We have to go national.


I don't know where you get the idea we can pull off "several million" for multiple candidates, many of whom are obscure to most people and have very little excitement surrounding their campaigns. I mean, I like the optimism, but sometimes you have to be a little bit of a realist.

If the event is publicized enough, I think they'll all get quite a bit of money out of it. Naturally Rand and Schiff will get the most out of it because so many people know who they are, but I think a lot of people would be willing to donate to a national event that fields some smaller candidates as well.


Couldn't be the track record of success...

In the presidential race we owned fundraising. Now we are doing good on 2 Senate races and that's about it. In my opinion, that's failure. We are capable of so much more.

[justinc.1089]

Ok at first I wasn't for a multiple-candidate money bomb. (Well I was when I saw the idea, then thought about it and thought one moneybomb divided up doesn't work.)

But...


I am starting to like the thinking behind this now.

Everyone who was like me and is not for the idea just go with my thinking for a minute because I was where you're at so maybe you will get what I'm thinking, or show me where I'm wrong.

The idea of a multiple-candidate moneybomb would divide up the single day donations, yes, probably between 3-5 candidates. So yes, the money they would actually raise would be less than if the moneybomb was all about a particular candidate.

However...

The extra excitement about promoting 3-5 candidates at once, all of our best hopes of winning, would make this the biggest moneybomb for sure. So say a single moneybomb raised $100 dollars for one candidate, divided 4 ways that would be $25 per a candidate. (Of course keeping in mind it would not divide evenly since the best candidates would get the most money, probably Peter and Rand more than likely, but I'm just explaining a point here.)

But the multiple candidate moneybomb would raise $125-$150, meaning each candidate would actually end up with more like $30-$40 each.

Doesn't that make it more effective?

Also I was thinking probably like you guys out there not liking the idea that it would "divide up" the money and the moneybomb drive itself. But with the idea of combining totals from the seperate campaigns JUST as a ticker on a website showing the money raised during the day, it brings UNITY back to it.

Instead of this:

3-5 moneybombs on the same day for 3-5 candidates

We have this:

1 moneybomb for 3-5 liberty candidates


The difference is the perception in the promotion. If ONE website is used, and has links prominently displayed for the candidates that you can click on to go to their site to donate at, and has a live ticker displaying the $$$ being raised COMBINED together from all the campaigns, even though the individual donations actually go to the single campaign they are donated to of course, it IS still ONE moneybomb.

I'm still not sure if the multiple candidate moneybomb is a good idea or not, but I do get what the people for it are saying now.

It just has been explained clearly enough in my opinion until now.

As for the question, why we would try to fix something thats not broke, in my opinion it IS time for a new twist on the moneybomb because Rand's moneybomb yesterday DID fail in comparison to other moneybombs in the past. It didn't raise as much as the previous one, and possibly didn't even beat Trey's fundraiser. Our moneybombs are weakening very significantly, so we do need to come up with ways to re-invigorate our movement.

I think the problem may be the perception that when we promote moneybombs for 1 candidate, even people that are with us and supported Ron Paul see it as "Oh, cool, a Ron Paul supporter is running for senate or congress. I hope they win, that would be a good little improvement." But they don't think its something HUGE they MUST donate to help out.

If we promote a multiple candidate moneybomb, then the perception may change to "Holy crap, all the people that supported Ron Paul are still organized and are trying to get a bunch of people elected into congress and senate to take control of it?" and then they may actually donate or promote the moneybomb.

The more I think about it the more I think we should go for it.

[RyanRSheets]

I'm glad someone sees what I'm saying :)

I think the idea behind the original money bomb was that we could unify the supporters and shock everyone with our huge numbers. We need to find a way to do that again, and I think the first step is to unify our money bombs.

Our standards for who gets on the list will have to be high, but we will want to have a good number of people on the list.

The way we are doing it right now, we are not going to succeed. Not only does it cause us to split into different factions, which we simply cannot afford to do, it destroys our ability to really promote these things. It's outrageous that we should be fighting over dates; we are fighting for the same cause, so lets share the dates!

This would only be a single money bomb in the sense that it would be a combined effort and there would be a ticker showing the combined total for the day on the event's website. I don't like the idea of trying to tell people to split up their donations. I think it would be best to tell people either the website will direct them toward a candidate that needs help or they can pick a favorite (with preference toward having the website direct them so that we can get everyone adequately funded). This way we would not be working toward 20 or so goals, but one ultimate goal: taking this country back.

[justinc.1089]

I agree there should be a lot of candidates, like around 6-10, but I disagree that they should actually really benefit from the multi-candidate moneybomb the same way our most prominent candidates would. I think having a big number of candidates will be a TREMENDOUS help in promoting, because saying help 10 candidates win sounds a million times better than saying help 2 candidates win, but when you get to the numbers we don't have money to successfully help 10 candidates.

So I think the solution is to encourage Schiff and Paul donations, somewhat encourage two other candidates, probably Kokesh and Harris I guess, although I don't think either are likely to win so we could come up with a better 2, and then list the other candidates in a very small way. They will still get some help, but we just don't have the ability to encourage equal donations to them all.

I suggest the site should have widget graphics displayed prominently at the top for Schiff and Peter, with their campaign contribution amounts to encourage competition to encourage more donations, then smaller widgets below for the two other candidates, and then have a click here link for the rest.

Then have a huge live ticker on the right side with the combined totals of donations from the day from all the candidates to display how much money is being raised.

So it would look something like this, using Kokesh and Harris as an example but again I prefer two other candidates in their place:


Paul: $63,476,023 Schiff: $64,011,093

Kokesh: $9,400,234 Harris: $302,105,772

Click to donate to *********
Click to donate to *********
Click to donate to *********
Click to donate to *********
Click to donate to *********
Click to donate to ********* And a huge ticker here showing the combined amount of cash raised through the day.


The widgets with Paul and Schiff would encourage donations to them, and promote competition between them. So we could push 4 candidates only, but promote this as a moneybomb for 10 candidates which makes for good promotion.

And of course when you go to the site you could just click on whoever and donate to them. It would be an entirely free choice.

It would be really interesting to see who would raise the most cash, but I'm betting Rand would lol.

[CoolChanda23]

My gut reaction was that I hated the idea of splitting money from the liberty base between the candidates. I felt rand should be the priority since he is the most viable candidate. And in a sense I kind of wished schiff didn't run. My logic was that if Rand had Schiff's million then he would definitely beat tray in fundraising this quarter and make rand less of an underdog.

But after reading the above posts I am really starting to like one single day for multi candidate moneybombs.

Money bombs are not just important for the actual cash raised, but importantly the publicity.


Well the ron paul campaign was fueled on gimmicks. The creativity of grass roots made the campaign exciting and thats what got us media coverage and subsequently lots of money during the primary run.

The money bomb gimmick has been beaten to death. As evidenced by the lower and lower amounts being raised. Repeating the same gimmick, but this time with money bombs for different candidates on different days will run our liberty base dry. We have a big population of people who donated to the ron paul campaign that have not donated for the money bombs. I know a lot of my friends have been on the fence because there seems to be like a money bomb every week. Some of them are just money bombs for the sake of money bombs (as evidenced by Schiff's Will you fight - which was cheesy and a randomly chosen day).

To get people like friends to donate , we need to get people excited again.

This multi candidate bomb is innovative enough to recharge our base.

Think of it , we can advertise on how we are using free market principles to make the bomb more competive. By having trackers for who donated to schiff and to rand and having their supporters compete.

This is something really that the media will eat up. I bet they are even sick of reporting how we are doing "another moneybomb"

And DEC 16 would be perfect.

We need to really capture the tea party movement. It was originally started by us and then high jacked by the likes of beck and fox. But it is an angry bunch that can easily be brought back to fight for our principles or at the very least we can try to get their money to support our candidates.

I am thinking a good list of 6-8 candidates. And just promote the hell out of this event and spin it as a whole new concept.

By doing so we can tap into a whole new base to focus on one single event on Dec 16th.


The goal to get everyone who believes in small government to donate.



maybe called the

"The Tea Bomb"




just my two cents,

-Chanda

[justinc.1089]

I think if we do this it needs a whole new name too instead of calling it a money bomb... like something bigger sounding lol.

[RyanRSheets]

I was thinking about just calling it the Shot Heard Round the World, but that can all be discussed. The single most important thing is that we enlarge the scope of our efforts and bring the sleepers and tea party people on board. I think we can do it, but we have to have something that really seems viable. I think the idea of an event devoted to electing a sizable number of candidates would attract a lot more attention than one good candidate.

Obviously Rand is about the best candidate we have, and we need to make sure he wins, but if we are really going to set our goals at winning a single race, I'm done. Rand is competing for 1/100th of the power of the president and we did very well on fundraising for Ron. We ought to be able to elect 10 people to lesser positions.

[TCE]

If this is to work, we need to limit it to only four people maximum. Everyone needs to look in the mirror and be honest about who has a chance, and more importantly, who doesn't. The following absolutely stand no chance, and this is the hard truth:

Debra Medina - Against an incumbent Senator and an incumbent Governor. She came in at 3% in the polls. She will need to outspend both contenders, and even then she is a long shot.

Jaynee Germond - She is running against a Republican establishment who has their candidate picked, meaning she will likely have to run third party. That automatically throws her out of the running. However, if that weren't enough for you, even if she makes it onto the Republican ticket, she would be running against Peter DeFazio, a Democrat who will not lose in that district.

John Dennis - In Pelosi's district? He stands no chance at all. He is merely running to try and educate some of those people, he does not need our money to do this.

There are others, but those are the big three. Would I love for all three to be elected? Of course, but I live in reality. We shouldn't be endorsing money bombs with people featured who cannot win. Harris and Kokesh actually have a chance, and there are a couple others.

[justinc.1089]

If this is to work, we need to limit it to only four people maximum. Everyone needs to look in the mirror and be honest about who has a chance, and more importantly, who doesn't. The following absolutely stand no chance, and this is the hard truth:

Debra Medina - Against an incumbent Senator and an incumbent Governor. She came in at 3% in the polls. She will need to outspend both contenders, and even then she is a long shot.

Jaynee Germond - She is running against a Republican establishment who has their candidate picked, meaning she will likely have to run third party. That automatically throws her out of the running. However, if that weren't enough for you, even if she makes it onto the Republican ticket, she would be running against Peter DeFazio, a Democrat who will not lose in that district.

John Dennis - In Pelosi's district? He stands no chance at all. He is merely running to try and educate some of those people, he does not need our money to do this.

There are others, but those are the big three. Would I love for all three to be elected? Of course, but I live in reality. We shouldn't be endorsing money bombs with people featured who cannot win. Harris and Kokesh actually have a chance, and there are a couple others.

I agree with that. They should not be on the list. But I think 8 people should be on the list at least for promotional purposes. Only 2 will be pushed heavily on the site, and two more somewhat heavily, and the other 4-6 would basically just be listed.

[RyanRSheets]

I agree with that. They should not be on the list. But I think 8 people should be on the list at least for promotional purposes. Only 2 will be pushed heavily on the site, and two more somewhat heavily, and the other 4-6 would basically just be listed.

The list should be open to polling imo. The best situation I could hope for would be a list that was voted on by members on this forum and people that didn't have a very good chance would naturally be toward the bottom of that list, or eliminated. I don't want to waste anyone's time or money, but I think there's plenty of people out there running who would be good candidates.

[TCE]

The list should be open to polling imo. The best situation I could hope for would be a list that was voted on by members on this forum and people that didn't have a very good chance would naturally be toward the bottom of that list, or eliminated. I don't want to waste anyone's time or money, but I think there's plenty of people out there running who would be good candidates.

We need more candidates who will run as "R's" for the House or State House. It will be a big Republican swing year and we can easily piggy back a couple of our candidates onto that. Anyone know of anyone like that?

[RyanRSheets]

We need more candidates who will run as "R's" for the House or State House. It will be a big Republican swing year and we can easily piggy back a couple of our candidates onto that. Anyone know of anyone like that?

If I was old enough lol

[ronpaulhawaii]

My gut reaction was that I hated the idea of splitting money from the liberty base between the candidates. I felt rand should be the priority since he is the most viable candidate. And in a sense I kind of wished schiff didn't run. My logic was that if Rand had Schiff's million then he would definitely beat tray in fundraising this quarter and make rand less of an underdog.

But after reading the above posts I am really starting to like one single day for multi candidate moneybombs.

Money bombs are not just important for the actual cash raised, but importantly the publicity.


Well the ron paul campaign was fueled on gimmicks. The creativity of grass roots made the campaign exciting and thats what got us media coverage and subsequently lots of money during the primary run.

The money bomb gimmick has been beaten to death. As evidenced by the lower and lower amounts being raised. Repeating the same gimmick, but this time with money bombs for different candidates on different days will run our liberty base dry. We have a big population of people who donated to the ron paul campaign that have not donated for the money bombs. I know a lot of my friends have been on the fence because there seems to be like a money bomb every week. Some of them are just money bombs for the sake of money bombs (as evidenced by Schiff's Will you fight - which was cheesy and a randomly chosen day).

To get people like friends to donate , we need to get people excited again.

This multi candidate bomb is innovative enough to recharge our base.

Think of it , we can advertise on how we are using free market principles to make the bomb more competive. By having trackers for who donated to schiff and to rand and having their supporters compete.

This is something really that the media will eat up. I bet they are even sick of reporting how we are doing "another moneybomb"

And DEC 16 would be perfect.

We need to really capture the tea party movement. It was originally started by us and then high jacked by the likes of beck and fox. But it is an angry bunch that can easily be brought back to fight for our principles or at the very least we can try to get their money to support our candidates.

I am thinking a good list of 6-8 candidates. And just promote the hell out of this event and spin it as a whole new concept.

By doing so we can tap into a whole new base to focus on one single event on Dec 16th.


The goal to get everyone who believes in small government to donate.



maybe called the

"The Tea Bomb"




just my two cents,

-Chanda

Lots of good stuff here.

E Komo Mai :) (welcome to the crucible)

[justinc.1089]

The list should be open to polling imo. The best situation I could hope for would be a list that was voted on by members on this forum and people that didn't have a very good chance would naturally be toward the bottom of that list, or eliminated. I don't want to waste anyone's time or money, but I think there's plenty of people out there running who would be good candidates.

Yeah of course we should do a poll on it. I agree with that.

[skyorbit]

have some faith...

what is the alternative? let one of them starve of funds or have a failed moneybomb, what's the point? we might as well go for it.


The alternative is that neither one get adequate funds and neither one wins. We'll do better to focus our resources on 1 candidate. At least we get one in Congress that way.

Tracy

[skyorbit]

Why not just declare "I only donate to candidates who won't win"?

But seriously, I can't respect Harris' run because primary challenges against incumbents are non-starters.

LOL. I agree with the sentiment. However I'm starting to be convinced that Harris might actually have a shot. I'm also starting to think Schiff really doesn't.

Which is why all my money's going to Rand -- I think. I might send Harris a token amount. We'll see.

Tracy

[justinc.1089]

The alternative is that neither one get adequate funds and neither one wins. We'll do better to focus our resources on 1 candidate. At least we get one in Congress that way.

Tracy

They're not getting adequate funds now, except maybe Rand, but I personally don't think he has adequate funds. Schiff could potentially have enough if he uses his own money, but still, thats his own money. Even if you look at it with optimism only Rand and Peter have enough funds.

So the worst scenario is that we end up with the multi-candidate moneybomb not being any more successfull than a normal one, and our candidates are still underfunded, because people want to go back and forth from Paul to Schiff so we're funding at least those two right now anyway. And they aren't funded that great at the moment.

The thing you're not looking at is promoting. People have to feel like something big is happening to want to be a part of it and donate, so if we have a list of 8-10 candidates we can promote the multi-candidate mb as "taking back the senate and congress." It will create MUCH more excitement and interest than a single candidate moneybomb. And those have been run in the ground anyway.

BUT... for the actual fundraising on the website, we would have ONLY Schiff and Paul displayed very prominently so that hopefully most of the donations go to them. Everyone else would be listed on there with links to their campaign sites too so that if someone did want to donate to them in particular they could, but the moneybomb would focus on getting donations to Paul and Schiff.

[skyorbit]

Why not just declare "I only donate to candidates who won't win"?

But seriously, I can't respect Harris' run because primary challenges against incumbents are non-starters.

LOL. I agree with the sentiment. However I'm starting to be convinced that Harris might actually have a shot. I'm also starting to think Schiff really doesn't.

Which is why all my money's going to Rand -- I think. I might send Harris a token amount. We'll see.

Tracy

[FSP-Rebel]

LOL. I agree with the sentiment. However I'm starting to be convinced that Harris might actually have a shot. I'm also starting to think Schiff really doesn't.

Which is why all my money's going to Rand -- I think. I might send Harris a token amount. We'll see.

Tracy
Schiff wouldn't be running if he didn't have a chance. He has a big ego that wouldn't be served well by a decisive defeat.

[skyorbit]

They're not getting adequate funds now, except maybe Rand, but I personally don't think he has adequate funds.

So, why the hell do you want to dilute this any more?

Jim Rogers says in investing, diversification might make you marginally less suseptible to risk, (deworsifying as Robert Kiatowski likes to say) but you don't get anywhere. The true investor DOES put his eggs in one basket. He just, does a lot of research before he does it.

The same thing is true here. Rand's candidacy is the MOST likely to win candidacy. So, we should be focuses all of our money and support on him. If we don't, and he looses then we won't have our one Senator to help filibuster on these issues.

True, 1 Senator isn't going to scale back government -- but one Senator can sure prevent it from getting worse.

I want to get at least ONE Senator in Washington.

Frankly, I have trouble seeing that happen even if the liberty movements funds are split between Rand and Peter. Let's not advocate splitting it any more ???

I like JR. I really do. (Go see my comments about him in the Harris forum.) but seriously. I want to do more then get the message out. I want a win for a change.

Tracy

Tracy

[justinc.1089]

So, why the hell do you want to dilute this any more?

Jim Rogers says in investing, diversification might make you marginally less suseptible to risk, (deworsifying as Robert Kiatowski likes to say) but you don't get anywhere. The true investor DOES put his eggs in one basket. He just, does a lot of research before he does it.

The same thing is true here. Rand's candidacy is the MOST likely to win candidacy. So, we should be focuses all of our money and support on him. If we don't, and he looses then we won't have our one Senator to help filibuster on these issues.

True, 1 Senator isn't going to scale back government -- but one Senator can sure prevent it from getting worse.

I want to get at least ONE Senator in Washington.

Frankly, I have trouble seeing that happen even if the liberty movements funds are split between Rand and Peter. Let's not advocate splitting it any more ???

I like JR. I really do. (Go see my comments about him in the Harris forum.) but seriously. I want to do more then get the message out. I want a win for a change.

Tracy

Tracy

The thing you're not seeing is that a multi-candidate moneybomb will NOT dilute the money. It won't divide it up. I thought the same thing at first, but then I "got" the concept.

The site will focus prominently on Schiff and Paul, not everyone else. So they will get probably 3/4 of the money if I had to guess, maybe more.

Also since we already plan on alternating mb's between them making them share one doesn't take away money.

Schiff moneybomb brings $10

Then Paul moneybomb brings $10

Schiff/ Paul moneybomb brings each $6

Schiff/ Paul moneybomb brings each $6

More interest and excitement will be generated around a multi-candidate moneybomb. Yes, you and I and most people here understand we only have funds for one, maybe two candidates at best, but the problem is most of the people that donated to Paul sadly could care less about donating to "one" little senate or congressional race. Thats my thinking about it at least. But if they think we're "re-taking congress and the senate" with 10 candidates they will donate and our promotions will be better.

Its just that once they go to the website it will in truth only be promoting Schiff and Paul mainly. They should be displayed huge smack at the top of the site and have widget things displaying current cash amounts to encourage competition.

And this will encourage people to donate to them, and not other candidates listed below on the site. We will just have other people listed on the site to justify the promotion.

Its kind of sneaky promoting to encourage more excitement for Schiff and Paul. The other candidates will get a spike in donations if they end up listed on the site, but they won't get anything compared to Schiff and Paul. They will get the overwhelming majority of donations.

I'm telling you it won't dilute the amounts for Schiff and Paul. Its certain that they would both get at least the same amount of cash the 23rd gave to Paul, and everyone considers that successful.

Saying this will just divide up the money is not getting the concept. Its not different moneybombs for different candidates on the same day. Its one moneybomb for mainly Schiff and Paul but also other liberty candidates (for promotional purposes mainly) in 24 hours.

People followed similar logic when we first planned moneybombs for Ron way back when, and I myself was wondering if they were right too. People said moneybombs would be pointless, crash the site servers, cause problems for the campaign, and not raise more money because people would simply hold off on donating, causing a lack of donations before the moneybomb, and then donate during that day, and that no extra money would be brought in.

They turned out to be wrong, because not only was extra cash brought in but priceless media coverage followed.

Thinking about how the money would be divided up among the candidates for this is following that same logic that made people think moneybombs were going to be pointless for Ron back then.

The excitement and interest will cause the multi-candidate moneybomb to be at least a little bigger than a single candidate one, and not lower funds because you can have a money bomb for Schiff then Paul, or you can have a moneybomb for both of them one time and then a second one another time. They both get the same number of moneybombs that either way, but because the multi-candidate moneybomb will bring in a little extra cash they come out better sharing moneybombs than alternating moneybombs.


And believe me I want us to win with at least one candidate too lol. Very badly lol.

[GunnyFreedom]

senate candidates should be considered the priority i'm sorry if that's offensive but as I said the event should be about donating to whoever you like.

And I think we should all be focusing on our own State Assemblies, where the Constitutional Power has actually been vested to restore the Constitutional Order. IMHO, if we continue to try and do this from the top-down then we'll be another 30 years with very little movement -- but if we do this from the bottom-up (as the framers intended) then we can get real palpable results in 3-5 years.

But hey, that assumes that the framers actually knew what they were doing....

[justinc.1089]

And I think we should all be focusing on our own State Assemblies, where the Constitutional Power has actually been vested to restore the Constitutional Order. IMHO, if we continue to try and do this from the top-down then we'll be another 30 years with very little movement -- but if we do this from the bottom-up (as the framers intended) then we can get real palpable results in 3-5 years.

But hey, that assumes that the framers actually knew what they were doing....

Yeah but there aren't that many of us to organize enough people to run on state levels to make a difference. If people actually educated themselves on what they need to do for the country, then enough people could work their way up and make a difference.

But there is a lack of will there, and a lack of financing power here with us. So we have to try to work with what we've got.

I mean how are we going to run 100 state senators, and 100 state representatives? Because thats the equivalent of how many popular candidates we have running at "the top," two for senate and two for congress.

I mean running 4 state level candidates is pointless, which I know is not what you're saying, but even 20 state level candidates is pointless, and would become extremely hard to organize our efforts around.

And of course like I already pointed out running 4 candidates per a state is absolutely impossible it would be so complicated, not to mention we couldn't begin to finance them.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah but there aren't that many of us to organize enough people to run on state levels to make a difference. If people actually educated themselves on what they need to do for the country, then enough people could work their way up and make a difference.

But there is a lack of will there, and a lack of financing power here with us. So we have to try to work with what we've got.

I mean how are we going to run 100 state senators, and 100 state representatives? Because thats the equivalent of how many popular candidates we have running at "the top," two for senate and two for congress.

I mean running 4 state level candidates is pointless, which I know is not what you're saying, but even 20 state level candidates is pointless, and would become extremely hard to organize our efforts around.

And of course like I already pointed out running 4 candidates per a state is absolutely impossible it would be so complicated, not to mention we couldn't begin to finance them.

If the allocation of proper Constitutional authority is not enough, how about cost?

It costs approx $2 Mil for a successful bid for US Congress, at a population of 619,178, while is costs approx $100 K for a successful bid for State House, at a population of 64516. That means that a US Congress bid costs $3.23 per constituent, while a State House bid costs $1.55 per constituent.

So the reality is that you get more than DOUBLE your bang-for-the-buck focusing on State Assemblies than you do on the Federal Congress.

And you are mistaken. My plan is not to focus on the State Assemblies in order to "work my way up," but because THAT is where the Constitution actually vests the power to restore the Constitutional order.

You don't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail. By focusing on the US Congress, you are simply using the wrong tool for the job. So there are several reasons why it's a better idea for all of us to focus on our State Assemblies.

1) The Constitution puts the authority to restore our Republican form of Government in the STATES, not in the FedGov.

2) The cost to win a Fed race is astronomically higher, not just over all, but PER CONSTITUENT.

3) The State Houses have more authority to effect the lives of citizens than the US House.

That's just for starters. Truth is, even if you have only 1 or 2 candidates overall, ot's still more effective to focus on the States. Truth is, we will never do this top-down, if this is going to happen at all, it needs to be bottom-up.

[justinc.1089]

If the allocation of proper Constitutional authority is not enough, how about cost?

It costs approx $2 Mil for a successful bid for US Congress, at a population of 619,178, while is costs approx $100 K for a successful bid for State House, at a population of 64516. That means that a US Congress bid costs $3.23 per constituent, while a State House bid costs $1.55 per constituent.

So the reality is that you get more than DOUBLE your bang-for-the-buck focusing on State Assemblies than you do on the Federal Congress.

And you are mistaken. My plan is not to focus on the State Assemblies in order to "work my way up," but because THAT is where the Constitution actually vests the power to restore the Constitutional order.

You don't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail. By focusing on the US Congress, you are simply using the wrong tool for the job. So there are several reasons why it's a better idea for all of us to focus on our State Assemblies.

1) The Constitution puts the authority to restore our Republican form of Government in the STATES, not in the FedGov.

2) The cost to win a Fed race is astronomically higher, not just over all, but PER CONSTITUENT.

3) The State Houses have more authority to effect the lives of citizens than the US House.

That's just for starters. Truth is, even if you have only 1 or 2 candidates overall, ot's still more effective to focus on the States. Truth is, we will never do this top-down, if this is going to happen at all, it needs to be bottom-up.

You have very valid points, but since the federal government is smack in the middle of everything, how would theoretically even having full control of one state's senate and congress get the federal government out? I mean the problem is that the states have given up their power to the federal government.

Also, its true elections cost more at a federal level, but there are far more elections to win at the state level. So its still cheaper to go for federal level elections than state level because you have so many elections you need to win at state level.

The only advantage I can see to running state level candidates is that it would be easier to win, and then the next election cycle they could run for a federal level office and have a better chance of winning.

[GunnyFreedom]

You have very valid points, but since the federal government is smack in the middle of everything, how would theoretically even having full control of one state's senate and congress get the federal government out? I mean the problem is that the states have given up their power to the federal government.

Last time I looked, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution had not been repealed. The only way the States can truly give up their power to the Fed Gov, is to repeal the 10th Amendment.

If one theoretically had control over their entire State gov, then they could assert their 10th Amendment reserved powers and opt-out of all the federal crap coming down from the hill. This will make the state wealthier and more prosperous. Surrounding states will copy them based on this new-found prosperity, and quite by accident copy the Constitutionalist reforms as well.

As it becomes apparent that this reform package actually WORKS, then more and more States will adopt similar reforms, and then as the States reach critical mass THEN the impetus is pushed up into the US Congress.


Also, its true elections cost more at a federal level, but there are far more elections to win at the state level. So its still cheaper to go for federal level elections than state level because you have so many elections you need to win at state level.

It's not cheaper to win 5 federal races which accomplish nothing vs 50 State races that absolutely WILL move our agenda. You still do not seem to understand what I am saying. Even if we WERE fully funded and had enough candidates to take over the US Congress -- IT'S THE WRONG PLACE.

What I'm saying is that the amount of money we can raise and the number of candidates we have are irrelevant. What we want to do, we simply CANNOT DO from the US Congress unless the States have been set up FIRST.


The only advantage I can see to running state level candidates is that it would be easier to win, and then the next election cycle they could run for a federal level office and have a better chance of winning.

Why would you want to use a term at State House (where you CAN affect the lives of citizens to restore the Constitutional Order) in order to run for US Congress (where you can't)?

You are still not grasping what I am saying.

We could spend $100 Million on US Congress races, elect everyone running from our group, and have ZERO EFFECT on our agenda, or we can spend $10 Million on State House elections, elect most of our candidates, and actually start making progress on our agenda.

It would take 250 candidates and $500 Million just to build the US House up enough to move bills into the Senate where they will be rejected, and into the Oval Office where they will be vetoed.

It would take maybe $100 Million and 150 candidates to "own" 3 or 4 states, who will then effect Constitutionalist reforms, and cause other States to copy those reforms based on jealousy over their newfound prosperity.

The idea that we need to focus on Fed races because of limited resources is just WRONG. To me, it's like saying there are 500 hungry people and we only have $100, so since we can't feed everybody on $100, we might as well burn the money to maybe provide a little heat for them.

These kinds of reforms MUST come from the bottom up or they will not work. Trying to do it from the top down WILL fail.

There is no benefit to putting massive resources into an effort that will not move our agenda one iota, when we can more easily invest in an effort that actually WILL.

[justinc.1089]

Last time I looked, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution had not been repealed. The only way the States can truly give up their power to the Fed Gov, is to repeal the 10th Amendment.

If one theoretically had control over their entire State gov, then they could assert their 10th Amendment reserved powers and opt-out of all the federal crap coming down from the hill. This will make the state wealthier and more prosperous. Surrounding states will copy them based on this new-found prosperity, and quite by accident copy the Constitutionalist reforms as well.

As it becomes apparent that this reform package actually WORKS, then more and more States will adopt similar reforms, and then as the States reach critical mass THEN the impetus is pushed up into the US Congress.



It's not cheaper to win 5 federal races which accomplish nothing vs 50 State races that absolutely WILL move our agenda. You still do not seem to understand what I am saying. Even if we WERE fully funded and had enough candidates to take over the US Congress -- IT'S THE WRONG PLACE.

What I'm saying is that the amount of money we can raise and the number of candidates we have are irrelevant. What we want to do, we simply CANNOT DO from the US Congress unless the States have been set up FIRST.



Why would you want to use a term at State House (where you CAN affect the lives of citizens to restore the Constitutional Order) in order to run for US Congress (where you can't)?

You are still not grasping what I am saying.

We could spend $100 Million on US Congress races, elect everyone running from our group, and have ZERO EFFECT on our agenda, or we can spend $10 Million on State House elections, elect most of our candidates, and actually start making progress on our agenda.

It would take 250 candidates and $500 Million just to build the US House up enough to move bills into the Senate where they will be rejected, and into the Oval Office where they will be vetoed.

It would take maybe $100 Million and 150 candidates to "own" 3 or 4 states, who will then effect Constitutionalist reforms, and cause other States to copy those reforms based on jealousy over their newfound prosperity.

The idea that we need to focus on Fed races because of limited resources is just WRONG. To me, it's like saying there are 500 hungry people and we only have $100, so since we can't feed everybody on $100, we might as well burn the money to maybe provide a little heat for them.

These kinds of reforms MUST come from the bottom up or they will not work. Trying to do it from the top down WILL fail.

There is no benefit to putting massive resources into an effort that will not move our agenda one iota, when we can more easily invest in an effort that actually WILL.

I get what you're saying, everything would be more effective at a state level, but again, its a numbers game, and I don't think we can put up the numbers for state level races even though they're cheaper.

[GunnyFreedom]

I honestly believe that the only way for our people as US Reps and US Senators to be effective at moving our agenda, would be with one of ours in the Oval Office.

About the only good I see coming from our people being elected to the US Congress would come from raising our profile on the national stage, thereby possibly making it easier to win State Houses and thus implement the 10th Amendment reforms necessary to open the door for larger reforms at the state and national level.

Once we get 20-30 states pushing for a restoration of the proper Constitutional order, then reforms handed down from the Federal Gov't will actually have a profound effect, but until then it will be more for show than anything, I think.

My primary concern here is that the more effective races are being ignored in favor of the more glamorous but less effective races.

As to recruiting candidates, as you say, we do not really have enough people to make that much of a dent -- so are you running for State House in your district?

[justinc.1089]

I honestly believe that the only way for our people as US Reps and US Senators to be effective at moving our agenda, would be with one of ours in the Oval Office.

About the only good I see coming from our people being elected to the US Congress would come from raising our profile on the national stage, thereby possibly making it easier to win State Houses and thus implement the 10th Amendment reforms necessary to open the door for larger reforms at the state and national level.

Once we get 20-30 states pushing for a restoration of the proper Constitutional order, then reforms handed down from the Federal Gov't will actually have a profound effect, but until then it will be more for show than anything, I think.

My primary concern here is that the more effective races are being ignored in favor of the more glamorous but less effective races.

As to recruiting candidates, as you say, we do not really have enough people to make that much of a dent -- so are you running for State House in your district?

I wish I could, but I'm too young for now. And I wouldn't want to be a career politician anyway.;) I do all I can still though. Once I finish college in a couple of years hopefully I can get a decent business going and have the opportunity to run for my district one day.

[randolphfuller]

I have sent money to Schiff and have decided it was a mistake. I have also sent money to Rand and Harris but wish everything had gone to Rand. Schiff is simply too far back in his own primary with high profile, well known opponents. Rand is an underdog in his primary but definitely can win. I feel one Senator will mean more than half a dozen Congressmen. As a former employee of a state legislative councio I can promise you any money spent there will be wasted. While I amnot one of these people(like Dr. Paul) who think Murray Rothbard was always right he did say that "all major struggles for liberty will henceforth be fough t n the area of the Empire and foreign affairs".
Those struggles take place primarily in the United States Senate. There is a finite amount of money to be spent and we should put it on what we think is the best horse. At this time that certainly looks like Rand.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well I sure as heck don't want to be a career politician either -- if I DID, then I'd probably want to go for the US Congress where I'd be paid $165,200 a year instead of the NC State House where I'll be paid $20,659 a year.

[justinc.1089]

Well I sure as heck don't want to be a career politician either -- if I DID, then I'd probably want to go for the US Congress where I'd be paid $165,200 a year instead of the NC State House where I'll be paid $20,659 a year.

I hope you win! I will get angry for you lol!:mad:

I love this video.:mad:

YouTube - Network - Mad as Hell Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE)

[ronpaulhawaii]

I honestly believe that the only way for our people as US Reps and US Senators to be effective at moving our agenda, would be with one of ours in the Oval Office.

About the only good I see coming from our people being elected to the US Congress would come from raising our profile on the national stage, thereby possibly making it easier to win State Houses and thus implement the 10th Amendment reforms necessary to open the door for larger reforms at the state and national level.

Once we get 20-30 states pushing for a restoration of the proper Constitutional order, then reforms handed down from the Federal Gov't will actually have a profound effect, but until then it will be more for show than anything, I think.

My primary concern here is that the more effective races are being ignored in favor of the more glamorous but less effective races.

As to recruiting candidates, as you say, we do not really have enough people to make that much of a dent -- so are you running for State House in your district?

Gunny raises many good points in his posts here. I would like to point out the bit I have bolded and mention that such behavior is part of human nature. It is the reason we see so many people voting in presidential election years and not in off years. It is the mindset that the federal gov't is all that matters. ISTM that is a prime thing we need to change in the mindset of the "sleeping giant."

Promoting the fact that the r3VOLution is challenging TPTB at all levels of gov't will raise awareness of the true nature of the main problem in America; the imbalance of power between federal and state gov'ts.

[Malachi]

Too many people crying on the Rand Paul forum, this is the RAND FORUM, not the schiff or any other candidate.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Too many people crying on the Rand Paul forum, this is the RAND FORUM, not the schiff or any other candidate.

moved to GC to avoid distractions from this important debate

[RyanRSheets]

Edited the beginning to point people to the other thread I had regarding this with a poll to gauge support. Currently it's 50/50 so unless someone else would be willing to work on a sample website I may try to do it myself (it has been a while since I've done web design).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211840

[ronpaulhawaii]

A couple more points:

1 - The idea of the multi bomb is only one aspect of our nationwide fight against tyranny. It does nothing to prevent the continuation of single candidate "bombs." I feel this point is especially important in regard to the 5th and the 16th, which I feel any candidate laying claim to would cause division and rancor amongst ourselves.

2 - By putting all our eggs in one basket, we allow the tyrants to focus all of their considerable power, and increase the risk regarding dirty tricks... and visa versa. By promoting the nationwide aspect of the r3VOLution we make them spread themselves thin and increase the possibilty that dirty tricks will be exposed...

[justinc.1089]

This was moved to the wrong place. It should be in 2010 planning....

Also I agree with your two points.;)

[ronpaulhawaii]

This was moved to the wrong place. It should be in 2010 planning....

Also I agree with your two points.;)

moved again - haha

[GunnyFreedom]

Just wanted to point out that the idea there are more State House races than US Congress races making State House overall more expensive is not true. Do the math. State House victories cost less than 50% per constituent, therefore with the same money you can cover twice as much geography with the same money. TWICE as much population with the same money. In every way State Assembly races are more Constitutionalist bang for the buck.

[justinc.1089]

Well then I think you have me persuaded about it lol. I think we should be supporting at least one state candidate. You're running right?;)

I think it should have been planned out that way to start with because if you could control the majority of the senators and representatives in a state then they could bring back Nullification, and declare unconstitutional federal laws null and void, and not allow them to apply to the state.

I think that is the ONLY practical solution to gain liberty in our lives. I don't think we can ever hope to have enough finances to make a major difference in Washington.

So I really think gaining a state and then nullifying certain laws is the only real and logical plan of action I can think of that I have heard of that could actually be pulled off.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I like what I am seeing here. People with good ideas and open minds

GO GRASSROOTS!!!

:D

[TCE]

A couple more points:

1 - The idea of the multi bomb is only one aspect of our nationwide fight against tyranny. It does nothing to prevent the continuation of single candidate "bombs." I feel this point is especially important in regard to the 5th and the 16th, which I feel any candidate laying claim to would cause division and rancor amongst ourselves.

2 - By putting all our eggs in one basket, we allow the tyrants to focus all of their considerable power, and increase the risk regarding dirty tricks... and visa versa. By promoting the nationwide aspect of the r3VOLution we make them spread themselves thin and increase the possibilty that dirty tricks will be exposed...

It's just like one gentleman famously stated about investing (paraphrased): "you can diversify, but you'll never gain or lose anything. If you put all of your eggs in a basket, there is opportunity for great gains."

Schiff is a toss-up right now. If by February or March he has not gone past 5% in the polls, then we really have to start considering if he has any chance.

As far as Gunny's position, he is correct. Just look at the difference between a high profile Senate and House race on the Federal level. $50 million versus around $10 million. If we go down to the State level, it is possible to spend around $1 million per race, and that is on the high end.

What we should do is, pick one state (New Hampshire anyone?) and spend all of our money in that state to elect people we like. Eventually, with our fund raising capabilities, we should capture a fair amount of seats and have significant leverage over the state government.

One day, we will realize that all of our efforts to elect a couple of people to the U.S. Congress could have been better put to use in the state elections. We can start with Gunny in 2010 and work our way up.

[Brian4Liberty]

There are plenty of Candidates to donate to! Pick your favorites...

Obviously there are priorities (and different people have different priorities).

Here's an example:

1. Liberty candidates - as close to Ron Paul on the issues as we can get. Especially in the Primaries! We don't want to be stuck with bad choices in the final election.

2. Nationwide (President, Senate, House) gives us a good bang for the buck, and effects us all. (i.e. being a US Senate candidate makes Rand and Schiff a slightly higher priority. We can't forget the others though.)

3. Local - We all have our own State and local governments that effect us directly.


I don't really have an opinion on multi-money-bombs. It's probably a good idea to spread them out... :D Each candidate may have slightly different needs though (i.e. timing). A guaranteed Primary winner may not need money until the General election, and we all have our personal budgets to watch.

[justinc.1089]

It's just like one gentleman famously stated about investing (paraphrased): "you can diversify, but you'll never gain or lose anything. If you put all of your eggs in a basket, there is opportunity for great gains."

Schiff is a toss-up right now. If by February or March he has not gone past 5% in the polls, then we really have to start considering if he has any chance.

As far as Gunny's position, he is correct. Just look at the difference between a high profile Senate and House race on the Federal level. $50 million versus around $10 million. If we go down to the State level, it is possible to spend around $1 million per race, and that is on the high end.

What we should do is, pick one state (New Hampshire anyone?) and spend all of our money in that state to elect people we like. Eventually, with our fund raising capabilities, we should capture a fair amount of seats and have significant leverage over the state government.

One day, we will realize that all of our efforts to elect a couple of people to the U.S. Congress could have been better put to use in the state elections. We can start with Gunny in 2010 and work our way up.

Why New Hampshire though? I never have found out why the free state project chose that state. It doesn't make sense to me, I mean isn't New Hampshire a democratic, big government voting type of state?

I mean I would think our best choice would be a more conservative state. Alaska would probably be good since they had actually talked about trying to leave before, that is if it wasn't so freaking cold you die if you're not an eskimo and full of monster man-eating bears.:eek:

Also I get the feeling this was all thought out before by the people that started the free state project lol. But if it was why didn't they step in and explain that to the grassroots? And Ron Paul should know all this anyway, so that makes me wonder why he wants us to try to elect people to go to Washington. It seems wierd to me.

[TCE]

Why New Hampshire though? I never have found out why the free state project chose that state. It doesn't make sense to me, I mean isn't New Hampshire a democratic, big government voting type of state?

I mean I would think our best choice would be a more conservative state. Alaska would probably be good since they had actually talked about trying to leave before, that is if it wasn't so freaking cold you die if you're not an eskimo and full of monster man-eating bears.:eek:

Also I get the feeling this was all thought out before by the people that started the free state project lol. But if it was why didn't they step in and explain that to the grassroots? And Ron Paul should know all this anyway, so that makes me wonder why he wants us to try to elect people to go to Washington. It seems wierd to me.

"There's no better place for freedom-loving Americans than New Hampshire... In a vote that ended in September 2003, FSP participants chose New Hampshire because it has the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the second-lowest level of dependence on federal spending in the U.S., a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, the lowest crime levels in the U.S., a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a culture of individual responsibility indicated by, for example, an absence of seatbelt and helmet requirements for adults. "

http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_vote

[justinc.1089]

"There's no better place for freedom-loving Americans than New Hampshire... In a vote that ended in September 2003, FSP participants chose New Hampshire because it has the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the second-lowest level of dependence on federal spending in the U.S., a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889, the lowest crime levels in the U.S., a dynamic economy with plenty of jobs and investment, and a culture of individual responsibility indicated by, for example, an absence of seatbelt and helmet requirements for adults. "

http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_vote

Those sound like good reasons to me!:) I say next election cycle we start promoting races in that state instead of going federal.