Ron Paul Debate Strategy

[Nathan Hale]

Any reader of these boards knows that I'm no fan of Ron's performance in debates (or in any public speaking for that matter). But all criticism aside, there's one thing Paul should capitalize on from the 2007 debate season...the numerous times he called out that the economy was faltering and due for a collapse. Not only did he call it out, but all of the other candidates (including 2 of the "big 4" this time around - Romney & Huckabee) laughed it off and proclaimed how great the economy was. Paul can and should throw that in their face.

[Dr.3D]

The big problem is, they always seem to ask different questions to each of those in the debate. If they don't ask each person the same questions, it isn't really a debate, but an attempt to discredit some individuals.

[Nathan Hale]

The big problem is, they always seem to ask different questions to each of those in the debate. If they don't ask each person the same questions, it isn't really a debate, but an attempt to discredit some individuals.

I don't see how this points to a problem with my suggestion. It's a problem with debate, yes, but it doesn't mean my point isn't a good one for Ron to exploit.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Moderator: "Dr. Paul, many experts consider your economic views extreme. Even you collegues in the GOP disagree with you. Are you electable being so far out of the mainstream?

Dr. Paul: "Go watch a video on Youtube called "Ron Paul was right". What you will see are clips of the 2008 presidential debates where I was saying the same thing and all of my collegues called me crazy and laughed. 4 years later it turns out, I WAS RIGHT! My question is, being that they were all so wrong, how are they qualified?"

[Dr.3D]

I don't see how this points to a problem with my suggestion. It's a problem with debate, yes, but it doesn't mean my point isn't a good one for Ron to exploit.

I just don't see how he can exploit anything if the questions asked of him are stupid to begin with. Usually Ron is asked stupid questions that would not be asked of any other candidate. Those questions are designed to make him look fringe and a kook. How is Ron supposed to answer a stupid question, except to respond with how ignorant the question is?

[Romulus]

I think Ron Paul needs a 1-2-3 punch.

1. Educate
2. Toldja
3. Attack

[pacelli]

Moderator: "Dr. Paul, many experts consider your economic views extreme. Even you collegues in the GOP disagree with you. Are you electable being so far out of the mainstream?

Dr. Paul: "Go watch a video on Youtube called "Ron Paul was right". What you will see are clips of the 2008 presidential debates where I was saying the same thing and all of my collegues called me crazy and laughed. 4 years later it turns out, I WAS RIGHT! My question is, being that they were all so wrong, how are they qualified?"

From your fingers to Ron's ears, hopefully.

[Krugerrand]

I just don't see how he can exploit anything if the questions asked of him are stupid to begin with. Usually Ron is asked stupid questions that would not be asked of any other candidate. Those questions are designed to make him look fringe and a kook. How is Ron supposed to answer a stupid question, except to respond with how ignorant the question is?

That's when he should answer a completely different question. Use the time that he has to get good information out there.

[Dr.3D]

That's when he should answer a completely different question. Use the time that he has to get good information out there.

Well, that would be an alternative. I'm just disgusted with the way the media always tries to make him seem fringe.

[hazek]

I just don't see how he can exploit anything if the questions asked of him are stupid to begin with. Usually Ron is asked stupid questions that would not be asked of any other candidate. Those questions are designed to make him look fringe and a kook. How is Ron supposed to answer a stupid question, except to respond with how ignorant the question is?

I think Ron should do 2 things:
1. during the debates he should ignore the stupid questions and have prepared topics to talk about for example:
-moderators ask him do you have any electability
-Ron can just start: "I want to share something more important with the audience, bom bom bom"
2. address all the silly questions post debate in a press release

This way he can use the air time to have his really important points broadcasted and also address the silly question to prevent someone accusing him of evading.


If I were Ron that's what I'd do.

[Dr.3D]

I think Ron should do 2 things:
1. during the debates he should ignore the stupid questions and have prepared topics to talk about for example:
-moderators ask him do you have any electability
-Ron can just start: "I want to share something more important with the audience, bom bom bom"
2. address all the silly questions post debate in a press release

This way he can use the air time to have his really important points broadcasted and also address the silly question to prevent someone accusing him of evading.


If I were Ron that's what I'd do.
Another good idea. Thanks. :)

[georgiaboy]

I think Ron should do 2 things:
1. during the debates he should ignore the stupid questions and have prepared topics to talk about for example:
-moderators ask him do you have any electability
-Ron can just start: "I want to share something more important with the audience, bom bom bom"
2. address all the silly questions post debate in a press release

This way he can use the air time to have his really important points broadcasted and also address the silly question to prevent someone accusing him of evading.


If I were Ron that's what I'd do.


I think Ron Paul needs a 1-2-3 punch.

1. Educate
2. Toldja
3. Attack

combine these two.

Ron's answer: "Of course I am electable, and here's why -- 1. Educate, 2. Toldja, 3. Attack"

[mello]

Debate angry. When he got pissed off during a debate his response seemed to be more concise with a bit of gravitas.

[Romulus]

Debate angry. When he got pissed off during a debate his response seemed to be more concise with a bit of gravitas.

NO! I take my marching orders from the CONSTITUTION.

Classic.

[KramerDSP]

I loved his performance in the debates. Sure, commentators thought he sounded whiny and as if he were always in a panic, and he could definently work on that. I think the second GOP debate, he was so on target it was ridiculous. I believe he won the online poll in every major category, to the point that the newssite pulled it down and everyone started emphasizing this one poll where he was at 2%. If that online poll had gotten any fanfare (who was the most genuine? Which showed the most leadership qualities? etc.), 2008 may have been a very different story.

When the debates come around, I trust him to do what he does best. I don't think he will be attacked nearly as much by the other candidates, and may even be praised for his stances on the economy and/or Fed. What I am most afraid of is if he starts hitting 20% in the polls and the GOP decides to march out Christie or Patreaus.

[trey4sports]

I think the best thing for Ron to do is to have clear and concise answers.

[Nathan Hale]

I just don't see how he can exploit anything if the questions asked of him are stupid to begin with. Usually Ron is asked stupid questions that would not be asked of any other candidate. Those questions are designed to make him look fringe and a kook. How is Ron supposed to answer a stupid question, except to respond with how ignorant the question is?

While this did appear from time to time, it wasn't all-pervasive and I am not of the opinion that there was some media conspiracy against Dr Paul. That said, he was given plenty of chances to make his points, and I see no reason why he won't have plenty of opportunities in the coming debate season in which to work in the argument with which I lead this thread.

[Nathan Hale]

I loved his performance in the debates. Sure, commentators thought he sounded whiny and as if he were always in a panic, and he could definently work on that. I think the second GOP debate, he was so on target it was ridiculous. I believe he won the online poll in every major category, to the point that the newssite pulled it down and everyone started emphasizing this one poll where he was at 2%. If that online poll had gotten any fanfare (who was the most genuine? Which showed the most leadership qualities? etc.), 2008 may have been a very different story.

When the debates come around, I trust him to do what he does best. I don't think he will be attacked nearly as much by the other candidates, and may even be praised for his stances on the economy and/or Fed. What I am most afraid of is if he starts hitting 20% in the polls and the GOP decides to march out Christie or Patreaus.

I don't share your confidence in Paul's debate performance. Forget the whinyness or the posture or all the other stuff. Look at his answers. He had a bad habit of harping on Iraq and ignoring his strong points. Sometimes his answers meandered so far from the point in so random a direction that I don't think Paul himself was controlling where he was going.

[JamesButabi]

I think his debate strategy should be 1. educating 2. connecting with the average person

There is so much misinformation about Ron Paul simple one liners on the big stage can go a long way to clearing these things up.

"Im the only candidate up here with a plan to save Social Security and fund Medicare for people who paid into it over the past few decades."

"Im the only person here who has served in the military, and I receive more donations from active military than anyone else. I experienced war first hand and I will only engage it in as a last resort."

[Nathan Hale]

I think his debate strategy should be 1. educating

I totally disagree. Education should not be the goal of a presidential campaign. Nomination should be.

That said, education is not going to happen at a debate. You're given one minute, two minutes tops, to answer a question. Ron Paul simply cannot adequately bring people up to speed on 300 page textbook amounts of information given that time. He needs to follow a bit from his son and speak within the box enough for primer voters to understand.

[hugolp]

I think Ron should do 2 things:
1. during the debates he should ignore the stupid questions and have prepared topics to talk about for example:
-moderators ask him do you have any electability
-Ron can just start: "I want to share something more important with the audience, bom bom bom"
2. address all the silly questions post debate in a press release

This way he can use the air time to have his really important points broadcasted and also address the silly question to prevent someone accusing him of evading.


If I were Ron that's what I'd do.

This is a very good idea.

[Krugerrand]

I think Ron should do 2 things:
1. during the debates he should ignore the stupid questions and have prepared topics to talk about for example:
-moderators ask him do you have any electability
-Ron can just start: "I want to share something more important with the audience, bom bom bom"
2. address all the silly questions post debate in a press release

This way he can use the air time to have his really important points broadcasted and also address the silly question to prevent someone accusing him of evading.


If I were Ron that's what I'd do.

That's sort of what I was trying to get at. However, I would not specifically state that you are not answering the question. So, for your example he could answer "People asked Senator Obama if he was electable. He talked about how people wanted change. He didn't bring change. My opponents will not bring change. They still .. support bailouts, support foreign empire that bankrupts the country .... etc. etc. etc..

If he admits that he will not answer the questions, then he can get called out on it and he looks like he's dodging the questions. If he just ignores the question ... they don't have must they can say about it.

[RabbitMan]

I agree with one of the previous posters; the most important thing Ron can do in the debates(and speaking in general) is have clear and concise answers. There have been countless times when an edited speech or debate clip of his have looked awesome on youtube, whereas the raw footage shows a sometimes incoherent, unconfident, or meandering speaker. I pray its not his age creeping up on him(he seemed much more charismatic in his youth), but in the meantime his message tends to get lost to the average joe.

[Dave Aiello]

I agree with one of the previous posters; the most important thing Ron can do in the debates(and speaking in general) is have clear and concise answers. There have been countless times when an edited speech or debate clip of his have looked awesome on youtube, whereas the raw footage shows a sometimes incoherent, unconfident, or meandering speaker. I pray its not his age creeping up on him(he seemed much more charismatic in his youth), but in the meantime his message tends to get lost to the average joe.

It's obvious that he's getting a bit senile. His thoughts run away on him sometimes, and he struggles to organize and plan his dialog. This is very evident in his recent speech to Iowa bible-thumpers. An article was quoted as saying "in one of Paul's more coherent moments, he stated....". His age is beginning to become a problem, unfortunately; an insurmountable hurdle.

[anaconda]

The big problem is, they always seem to ask different questions to each of those in the debate. If they don't ask each person the same questions, it isn't really a debate, but an attempt to discredit some individuals.

But a candidate can simply ignore the question and answer something else. Palin made good use of this against Biden.

[Dr.3D]

But a candidate can simply ignore the question and answer something else. Palin made good use of this against Biden.

Okay, I hope he does that.

[Deborah K]

Any reader of these boards knows that I'm no fan of Ron's performance in debates (or in any public speaking for that matter). But all criticism aside, there's one thing Paul should capitalize on from the 2007 debate season...the numerous times he called out that the economy was faltering and due for a collapse. Not only did he call it out, but all of the other candidates (including 2 of the "big 4" this time around - Romney & Huckabee) laughed it off and proclaimed how great the economy was. Paul can and should throw that in their face.

Not only that, but he should address the complaints about his lack of debate style, etc. He should ask the question: "Does the country need style....or substance? If you want substance, just take a look at my experience and record and compare it to everyone else on stage. If you want style, go hire a hollywood actor."

[limequat]

I hope Ron just goes balls to the wall. Start calling people on their BS. Remind people about McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". Ask Romney why he instituted Obama care before Obama did. Ask Huckabee why he was on Judicial Watch's list of must corrupt politicians. String 'em all up for supporting the Patriot ACT and supporting the bailouts. There's enough ammo to seriously blow up the stage.
Ron doesn't have much time left on this earth, let alone in the congress. Let it all hang out. Either they will love him for his frankness or he'll have some fun as he makes his way to the exit.

[Nathan Hale]

Not only that, but he should address the complaints about his lack of debate style, etc. He should ask the question: "Does the country need style....or substance? If you want substance, just take a look at my experience and record and compare it to everyone else on stage. If you want style, go hire a hollywood actor."

Well, that's problematic. He can't overhaul people's expectations in one fell swoop. People want style with their substance, it's sad but true. And unfortunately it's a need we can't ignore. Ron can't just say the right thing, he has to say the right thing in the right way, and all the while sending nonverbal cues that exude confidence, capability, and strength.

[Deborah K]

Well, that's problematic. He can't overhaul people's expectations in one fell swoop. People want style with their substance, it's sad but true. And unfortunately it's a need we can't ignore. Ron can't just say the right thing, he has to say the right thing in the right way, and all the while sending nonverbal cues that exude confidence, capability, and strength.

I agree with you. My quote suggestion was full of sarcasm, but I do believe he should address people's concerns over wanting an empty headed hollywood star (Romney) over someone who can actually lead the country out of this mess. Romney is the pick for tptb. He is the one Dr. Paul will have to contend with.

[TomtheTinker]

Honestly I think Ron should blow the lid off things and tell people the truth.

[Sola_Fide]

It's obvious that he's getting a bit senile. His thoughts run away on him sometimes, and he struggles to organize and plan his dialog. This is very evident in his recent speech to Iowa bible-thumpers. An article was quoted as saying "in one of Paul's more coherent moments, he stated....". His age is beginning to become a problem, unfortunately; an insurmountable hurdle.

Booooooooooo

-1

[Paul4Prez]

Ron Paul's debate performance in 2007 was fantastic -- it attracted many new supporters to his campaign and to his ideas. That being said, he should hire a professional debate coach and practice, practice, practice. Not someone to tell him what to say, but to coach him on the non-verbal cues and staying on message. I don't think his meanderings are a sign of age at all -- Ron Paul is sharper mentally than anyone else running -- he just has a lot of ideas and jumps around a bit, sometimes stating his points without the underlying assumptions that are obvious to his supporters but not to everyone else.

He improved dramatically on his television interviews over the course of the last campaign, and appears much more presidential now in one-on-one interviews and committee hearings. I expect him to make the same sort of gains in his debate performances this time around.

[Deborah K]

Ron Paul's debate performance in 2007 was fantastic -- it attracted many new supporters to his campaign and to his ideas. That being said, he should hire a professional debate coach and practice, practice, practice. Not someone to tell him what to say, but to coach him on the non-verbal cues and staying on message. I don't think his meanderings are a sign of age at all -- Ron Paul is sharper mentally than anyone else running -- he just has a lot of ideas and jumps around a bit, sometimes stating his points without the underlying assumptions that are obvious to his supporters but not to everyone else.

He improved dramatically on his television interviews over the course of the last campaign, and appears much more presidential now in one-on-one interviews and committee hearings. I expect him to make the same sort of gains in his debate performances this time around.

This^

[ronaldo23]

Ron Paul's debate performance in 2007 was fantastic -- it attracted many new supporters to his campaign and to his ideas. That being said, he should hire a professional debate coach and practice, practice, practice. Not someone to tell him what to say, but to coach him on the non-verbal cues and staying on message. I don't think his meanderings are a sign of age at all -- Ron Paul is sharper mentally than anyone else running -- he just has a lot of ideas and jumps around a bit, sometimes stating his points without the underlying assumptions that are obvious to his supporters but not to everyone else.

He improved dramatically on his television interviews over the course of the last campaign, and appears much more presidential now in one-on-one interviews and committee hearings. I expect him to make the same sort of gains in his debate performances this time around.


yeah good point. He said in a recent WSJ interview that he thinks Rand is a better public speaker and less "rambunctious"

[nayjevin]

I would like to see him make the point that he wouldn't have ever had a chance if it hadn't been for the utter failure of his 'distinguished colleagues' to lead the G.O.P. to truth. The farther they stray the better off he is. He hasn't moved in 30 years, and the rest of them aren't laughing anymore. There's a better way to say it though I'm sure.

[Havax]

The best way Ron can get more votes from the debates is by putting a huge emphasis on the fact that he wants a "strong" national defense like Rand did. The vast majority of neo-cons that "like" Ron Paul but don't "love" him is 99% to do with the fact that they think he's "weak" on national defense.