PDA

View Full Version : Not Progressives, REPUBLICANS.




libertybrewcity
03-08-2011, 01:27 PM
RP will NOT win if he tries to persuade Democrats to vote for him. This strategy has failed many many times before. John Dennis in San Francisco? Just look at the vote count.

The anti-war message is only a fraction of his overall message. Democrats may like that, but they take one look at everything else and they are out.

Guess who votes in Republican Primaries? REPUBLICANS! And they will be coming out in droves in 2012. RP has more in common with the biggest pro-war hawk than any democrat out there.

If we are trying to get democrats to vote for RP, we have some serious issues.

Find likely voting Republicans. Go door to door, hand out fliers, volunteer for the campaign, donate money, and get your family and friends to vote. Let's be for real about this.

Icymudpuppy
03-08-2011, 01:44 PM
Not just anti-war, but pro civil liberties. The progressive MJ crowd, and other anti-socialconservative folks can get on board too. We just have to get them to understand that civil liberty without economic liberty is a false vision.

malkusm
03-08-2011, 01:50 PM
+rep

TheTyke
03-08-2011, 04:05 PM
+Rep to OP.

There are MILLIONS of likely Republican voters, and Ron needs them to win the primary. Once you have contacted ALL of them and asked them to vote for Ron, then you can worry about the others. If he doesn't win the primary, the race is over and progressives/dems won't matter. We might have switched a few thousand "R" for Rand - a generous estimate - but HUNDREDS of thousands voted so it was insignificant, and your time is better spent talking to Republicans than trying to convince people to vote in an opposing primary. Reaching Republicans is what will win, so let's figure out how to win them over.

Ron will do fine in the general, and we can worry about that if/when we make it - but the primary is the absolute priority.

erowe1
03-08-2011, 04:29 PM
I think the OP is mixing different things together. We don't determine RP's strategy here. We support him as grassroots. RP is not going to campaign for the Republican nomination by reaching out to the left. You don't have to worry about that. And that's wise on his part.

But we have a very diverse group of people with different spheres of influence and in various places geographically. For most, working to help RP win Republican primaries by canvassing reliable Republican primary voters is the way to go. But for some people, especially people with liberal friends or who live in liberal congressional districts, reaching out for crossover votes may very well be the best way they can help. In fact, it might be a very important part of the grassroots campaign. And since we can take for granted that the official campaign won't do it, that will make it all the more important for them to do it.

In a lot of states, delegates are awarded on a per congressional district basis. California is one, and it's an open primary state. So in San Fransisco (John Dennis's district), RP could win 3 delegates just for winning that district, which he could win with maybe 12,000 votes, which is the same number of delegates as he would get from a much more solid Republican district where he might have to win 80,000 votes. Given that that district has 200,000 people who voted in the last Democrat primary, and given that those people won't have much incentive to vote in their own party's primary in 2012, and given that a full 46,000 voted for Cindy Shehan there in the general election in 2010, it's not hard for me to imagine that crossover votes can make the difference between whether or not RP wins those 3 delegates. This can happen if we have the right people in that district working to help make that happen. And I wouldn't want to discourage it. The same applies to several other districts with similar situations, such as CD13 in MI, CD1 in IL, and CD1 in MO.

scrosnoe
03-08-2011, 04:53 PM
We have to continue to take leadership spots in the Republican party and do the work and grow the party. We must take care of the party in order to elect our delegates and actually nominate Ron Paul. The good news is that if we build the base correctly we will elect hundreds of thousands of constitutional limited government ethical people to positions all over the land so that a Ron Paul presidency will be able to do what needs to be done once in office.

Hard work = yes. Value = priceless!

libertybrewcity
03-08-2011, 05:12 PM
I think the OP is mixing different things together. We don't determine RP's strategy here. We support him as grassroots. RP is not going to campaign for the Republican nomination by reaching out to the left. You don't have to worry about that. And that's wise on his part.

But we have a very diverse group of people with different spheres of influence and in various places geographically. For most, working to help RP win Republican primaries by canvassing reliable Republican primary voters is the way to go. But for some people, especially people with liberal friends or who live in liberal congressional districts, reaching out for crossover votes may very well be the best way they can help. In fact, it might be a very important part of the grassroots campaign. And since we can take for granted that the official campaign won't do it, that will make it all the more important for them to do it.

In a lot of states, delegates are awarded on a per congressional district basis. California is one, and it's an open primary state. So in San Fransisco (John Dennis's district), RP could win 3 delegates just for winning that district, which he could win with maybe 12,000 votes, which is the same number of delegates as he would get from a much more solid Republican district where he might have to win 80,000 votes. Given that that district has 200,000 people who voted in the last Democrat primary, and given that those people won't have much incentive to vote in their own party's primary in 2012, and given that a full 46,000 voted for Cindy Shehan there in the general election in 2010, it's not hard for me to imagine that crossover votes can make the difference between whether or not RP wins those 3 delegates. This can happen if we have the right people in that district working to help make that happen. And I wouldn't want to discourage it. The same applies to several other districts with similar situations, such as CD13 in MI, CD1 in IL, and CD1 in MO.

I know this is a grassroots effort. I was just sick of hearing people here and at the DP say the only way for RP to win the nomination was if we recruit a bunch of progressives. I completely agree with you that a handful of districts and delegates can be won if we win hyper-lib districts, but pandering to progressives is not going to win the Repub nomination. Those delegates might add up to 20-30 whereas we need over 1000 to win, and those will come from persuading REPUBLICANS to vote for him.

BuddyRey
03-08-2011, 05:16 PM
Why should we have to water down our message to appeal to EITHER side? Ron Paul keeps hammering this message home, and some people seem insistent to ignore it, that liberty is an inextricable whole. Neither social nor economic liberty is *more* vital than the other. You can no more call yourself a friend of liberty if you support the drug war or Unconstitutional detainment than you can if you oppose competing currencies or believe in taxing income. Freedom is a unified concept, and it should be marketed as such.

erowe1
03-08-2011, 05:17 PM
I know this is a grassroots effort. I was just sick of hearing people here and at the DP say the only way for RP to win the nomination was if we recruit a bunch of progressives. I completely agree with you that a handful of districts and delegates can be won if we win hyper-lib districts, but pandering to progressives is not going to win the Repub nomination. Those delegates might add up to 20-30 whereas we need over 1000 to win, and those will come from persuading REPUBLICANS to vote for him.

Absolutely. It will never be our bread and butter. But I wouldn't discourage it for those who think that's their niche. The RP supporters who really think that's what they should be doing are often going to be people we probably don't really want to be putting out in front of Republican primary voters.

StateofTrance
03-08-2011, 08:24 PM
Ron should do what Rand did: talk about debt more than wars..atleast in the primaries. He needs to tone down his anti-"illegal" war views just for his own benefit in the long term.

speciallyblend
03-08-2011, 08:29 PM
something tells me the gop is screwed for 2012!! the problem is not the dems but the republicans themselves!!

Anti Federalist
03-08-2011, 08:33 PM
Why should we have to water down our message to appeal to EITHER side? Ron Paul keeps hammering this message home, and some people seem insistent to ignore it, that liberty is an inextricable whole. Neither social nor economic liberty is *more* vital than the other. You can no more call yourself a friend of liberty if you support the drug war or Unconstitutional detainment than you can if you oppose competing currencies or believe in taxing income. Freedom is a unified concept, and it should be marketed as such.

This ^^^

Anti Federalist
03-08-2011, 08:35 PM
something tells me the gop is screwed for 2012!!

And that ^^^ because of the previous post.

Peopel want freedom for their little niche, their little pet peeve.

Outside of that, they're more than willing to "crack down" on anybody that doesn't toe the line.

Justinjj1
03-08-2011, 08:58 PM
Ron should do what Rand did: talk about debt more than wars..atleast in the primaries. He needs to tone down his anti-"illegal" war views just for his own benefit in the long term.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. If it wasn't for Ron's outspoken views on the war, then a lot of us would not be a part of the movement. We don't need him to become another milquetoast GOP candidate like Tim Pawlenty, that will get him nowhere. The current problems that this nation faces needs bold ideas and Ron is brave enough not to shy away from controversy. I love the fact that Ron will go to an event like CPAC and call out the neocons for their hypocrisy. Let's not forget that the vast majority of this country is anti-war, and we will never win over the warmongering neocons, so it's best not to pander to them.

CUnknown
03-08-2011, 09:38 PM
Absolutely. It will never be our bread and butter. But I wouldn't discourage it for those who think that's their niche. The RP supporters who really think that's what they should be doing are often going to be people we probably don't really want to be putting out in front of Republican primary voters.

Yes, totally. The very fact that we're talking about this at all is a plus for RP, regardless if he makes reaching out to liberals part of his campaign strategy or not. How much crossover appeal does Mitt Romney have? None. Palin? None. The very fact that Ron will without doubt get some liberal votes is a plus any way you look at it.

Of course we should focus mostly on likely Republican voters. But this primary is going to be tough, and we need all the votes we can get. No one in the grassroots should be discouraged from talking to anyone about Ron Paul. Let's focus on proven winning strategies, but let our strength of diversity work for us at the same time.

Edit

From the OP:

RP has more in common with the biggest pro-war hawk than any democrat out there.

Wait, I didn't see this the first time. This is absolutely not true. RP has more in common with Dennis Kucinich than Mitt Romney. What does he have in common with Mitt, at all?

RP
Fiscal conservative
Anti-war
Anti-Fed
Pro-civil liberties

MR
Fiscal liberal (Does anyone think he's really going to cut spending? He just has different pet programs he wants to spend on.)
Pro-war
Pro-Fed
Anti-civil liberties

DK
Fiscal liberal
Anti-war
Anti-Fed
Pro-civil liberties

The way I see it, Mitt and RP are polar opposites and RP has at least some in common with DK.

libertybrewcity
03-08-2011, 10:29 PM
Yes, totally. The very fact that we're talking about this at all is a plus for RP, regardless if he makes reaching out to liberals part of his campaign strategy or not. How much crossover appeal does Mitt Romney have? None. Palin? None. The very fact that Ron will without doubt get some liberal votes is a plus any way you look at it.

Of course we should focus mostly on likely Republican voters. But this primary is going to be tough, and we need all the votes we can get. No one in the grassroots should be discouraged from talking to anyone about Ron Paul. Let's focus on proven winning strategies, but let our strength of diversity work for us at the same time.

Edit

From the OP:


Wait, I didn't see this the first time. This is absolutely not true. RP has more in common with Dennis Kucinich than Mitt Romney. What does he have in common with Mitt, at all?

RP
Fiscal conservative
Anti-war
Anti-Fed
Pro-civil liberties

MR
Fiscal liberal (Does anyone think he's really going to cut spending? He just has different pet programs he wants to spend on.)
Pro-war
Pro-Fed
Anti-civil liberties

DK
Fiscal liberal
Anti-war
Anti-Fed
Pro-civil liberties

The way I see it, Mitt and RP are polar opposites and RP has at least some in common with DK.

lol, there is more to it than four issues.

Immigration, marraige, military, defense, abortion..think outside those four.

CUnknown
03-08-2011, 11:08 PM
lol, there is more to it than four issues.

Immigration, marraige, military, defense, abortion..think outside those four.

I doubt that Mitt would do much about immigration... let's be realistic.

On military, they are opposites obviously. On abortion, Romney is a flip-flopper. Ron never flip-flops.

Got any more?

Mitt supports "Free-trade" agreements and globalization... there's another biggie on which they are in opposition.

libertybrewcity
03-09-2011, 01:14 AM
I doubt that Mitt would do much about immigration... let's be realistic.

On military, they are opposites obviously. On abortion, Romney is a flip-flopper. Ron never flip-flops.

Got any more?

Mitt supports "Free-trade" agreements and globalization... there's another biggie on which they are in opposition.

Okay, how about this. Over the course of RPs campaign you promise to talk, go door to door, or call 1000 democrats. I will call, go door to door to, talk to, etc 1000 Republicans. Come primary time you see how many democrats you got to vote for RP, and I will see how many Repubs I got to vote for RP.

Or better yet, how about you go to the DailyKos and start talking up RP on his anti-war background. I've done it not only for RP, but for John Dennis and others.

When I lived in San Francisco I worked on the John Dennis campaign. I've had to talk to Dems over and over about the same message that RP has. Let's just say it doesn't go so well. I'll explain why. First and foremost he has an R in front of his name. He always will, too. Second, he supports eliminating the income tax which is like a god to dems. Third, he supports overturning Roe v Wade. Fourth, he supports sealing the borders.

I could go on and on. I don't know why you mentioned Mitt Romney because I never even mentioned his name to begin with. I was talking about Republican primary voters who are war hawks. Approach them and you will have a much easier time. They may not like RP, but at least they won't shut the door in your face.

Do you think RP would be invited to a liberal event similar to CPAC? or the Iowa Family Values Event? or the Tea Party Patriots Event in Arizona? He wouldn't because his message does not resonate with most democrats. They might be somewhat receptive, but voting is a whole other game.

All in all, I was trying to make the point that in order to win a Republican Primary, you need to persuade a large amount (millions) or Republicans to vote. A strategy that focuses on getting democrats to vote in primary that isn't even their own is not a good strategy at all. I am not trying to say don't get dems to vote for RP, but some people think that you can somehow drag 20 million democrats to a Republican Primary to win a Republican nomination. NUH-UH

TIMB0B
03-09-2011, 02:31 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. If it wasn't for Ron's outspoken views on the war, then a lot of us would not be a part of the movement. We don't need him to become another milquetoast GOP candidate like Tim Pawlenty, that will get him nowhere. The current problems that this nation faces needs bold ideas and Ron is brave enough not to shy away from controversy. I love the fact that Ron will go to an event like CPAC and call out the neocons for their hypocrisy. Let's not forget that the vast majority of this country is anti-war, and we will never win over the warmongering neocons, so it's best not to pander to them.

I think the mere fact that Obama has extended the war will help Ron Paul, because republicans will blindly support whatever policies that oppose the democrats. The war and economic liberty are the biggest issues in the country right now, and funding the war is part of our economic problems. 2 birds with 1 stone.

CUnknown
03-09-2011, 01:28 PM
Okay, how about this. Over the course of RPs campaign you promise to talk, go door to door, or call 1000 democrats. I will call, go door to door to, talk to, etc 1000 Republicans. Come primary time you see how many democrats you got to vote for RP, and I will see how many Repubs I got to vote for RP.

Or better yet, how about you go to the DailyKos and start talking up RP on his anti-war background. I've done it not only for RP, but for John Dennis and others.

When I lived in San Francisco I worked on the John Dennis campaign. I've had to talk to Dems over and over about the same message that RP has. Let's just say it doesn't go so well. I'll explain why. First and foremost he has an R in front of his name. He always will, too. Second, he supports eliminating the income tax which is like a god to dems. Third, he supports overturning Roe v Wade. Fourth, he supports sealing the borders.

I could go on and on. I don't know why you mentioned Mitt Romney because I never even mentioned his name to begin with. I was talking about Republican primary voters who are war hawks. Approach them and you will have a much easier time. They may not like RP, but at least they won't shut the door in your face.

Do you think RP would be invited to a liberal event similar to CPAC? or the Iowa Family Values Event? or the Tea Party Patriots Event in Arizona? He wouldn't because his message does not resonate with most democrats. They might be somewhat receptive, but voting is a whole other game.

All in all, I was trying to make the point that in order to win a Republican Primary, you need to persuade a large amount (millions) or Republicans to vote. A strategy that focuses on getting democrats to vote in primary that isn't even their own is not a good strategy at all. I am not trying to say don't get dems to vote for RP, but some people think that you can somehow drag 20 million democrats to a Republican Primary to win a Republican nomination. NUH-UH

Well I do agree with what you're saying here. I still think Paul is a good candidate for a protest vote for many liberals... but yeah, we should focus on Republicans.

I brought up Mitt just because I do think they are polar opposites. It's just, you're right, most people (liberal and conservative) wouldn't agree with that without some serious convincing.

libertybrewcity
03-24-2011, 08:41 PM
Well I do agree with what you're saying here. I still think Paul is a good candidate for a protest vote for many liberals... but yeah, we should focus on Republicans.

I brought up Mitt just because I do think they are polar opposites. It's just, you're right, most people (liberal and conservative) wouldn't agree with that without some serious convincing.

Mitt may be a polar opposite, but the supporters are more flexible because they are often sympathetic to other Republicans.

Eric21ND
03-24-2011, 09:42 PM
I concur. What's the benefit if we manage to drag 100-200 kicking and screaming dems over to our side? It won't win us jack. Focus on republican primary voters. We can do the dem outreach during the general election.

trey4sports
03-24-2011, 09:45 PM
Why should we have to water down our message to appeal to EITHER side? Ron Paul keeps hammering this message home, and some people seem insistent to ignore it, that liberty is an inextricable whole. Neither social nor economic liberty is *more* vital than the other. You can no more call yourself a friend of liberty if you support the drug war or Unconstitutional detainment than you can if you oppose competing currencies or believe in taxing income. Freedom is a unified concept, and it should be marketed as such.

I am downright envious of your avatar

acptulsa
03-24-2011, 10:01 PM
In which state? Some allow anyone to vote in a primary, some require that you be pre-registered for a certain length of time in that party. Obviously, your results will differ.

In addition, you have to consider that Republicans love to win. We really do. And most of us are plenty smart enough to realize that you don't win without attracting independents. Which we are helping Ron Paul to do. Will Romney? I think not.

muzzled dogg
03-24-2011, 10:02 PM
http://republican4aday.com/