PDA

View Full Version : Should Ron Paul Move to New Hampshire?




KingTheoden
10-24-2007, 09:48 AM
There are rumors that the campaign is looking at acquiring a house for staff and extended stays by Ron Paul in New Hampshire. With the primary likely to take place the second week of December, the time is now for hardcore action.

A strong victory in New Hampshire will shock the world and propel Ron Paul firmly to sole front runner status. We could win in Iowa, and follow up with solid victories in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. But I know the people up in the Granite State: they like old-style campaigning a whole lot.

So I think that after Halloween, Ron Paul should announce a move to New Hampshire and walk the state for November. Opinions?

jgmaynard
10-24-2007, 10:01 AM
I'm all in favor of it - matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that we can garner enough people in Texas to pack his truck for him and enough people in NH to unpack his truck so he and Carol won't have to do anything but talk to the press. :D

JM

Blowback
10-24-2007, 10:06 AM
He needs to win other states as well.

paulitics
10-24-2007, 10:13 AM
He needs to win other states as well.

which is why he needs to win NH. There is some time between Nh and Super Tuesday. A win in NH could lead a win to MI, which would set us up nicely for the other states. Without Nh, none of that is possible Im afraid. Most people won't vote unless they think their guy can win. All of the diehards are already on board, the less active voters that we need to win will come with a NH victory. Without Nh, they will stay home.

uncloned21
10-24-2007, 10:23 AM
maybe spend a lot more time there, i dunno about moving there

jgmaynard
10-24-2007, 10:24 AM
He DOES need to win other states, and that is why, I believe, that the campaign has him spending so much time in other states. However, NH is the "lowest-lying fruit" so to speak. An early win here and the "long shot" tag goes right out the window. Ron + NH win = frontrunner.

JM

mavtek
10-24-2007, 10:29 AM
Well if you buy, buy something modest, and then resale after the campaign at a discounted rate to a free stater :)

KingTheoden
10-24-2007, 01:34 PM
If he were to move there, he would still be able to travel to other states, but his focus would be New Hampshire. I am a strong advocate of such a strategy; live in New Hampshire and journey to other important states a handful of times up to December 11th.

A grand slam in the Live Free or Die State on December 11 would allow him to win states like Iowa that we had written off as a first place showing possibility.

JenHarris
10-24-2007, 01:49 PM
Well if you buy, buy something modest, and then resale after the campaign at a discounted rate to a free stater :)

There's this thing called rent... :)

Shink
10-24-2007, 01:54 PM
I vote no, but he NEEDS to get over there! I don't know what kind of weirdness may occur if a congressman moves, even if short-termed.

Blowback
10-24-2007, 02:18 PM
I just think we need to make sure we aren't a one-hit-wonder. Others have won NH and then lost. We need to focus on winning all of the early states. If NH really is the low-hanging-fruit then why are we so worried about not winning it?

I'm fine with him moving there as long as he spends a shit load of time in other places as well.

LibertyEagle
10-24-2007, 02:25 PM
I vote no, but he NEEDS to get over there! I don't know what kind of weirdness may occur if a congressman moves, even if short-termed.

He's not "moving". Just like he didn't "move" to D.C. It's only going to be for 6 weeks or so. They'll rent a place instead of staying in hotels. It's much cheaper.

LibertyEagle
10-24-2007, 02:26 PM
I just think we need to make sure we aren't a one-hit-wonder. Others have won NH and then lost. We need to focus on winning all of the early states. If NH really is the low-hanging-fruit then why are we so worried about not winning it?

I'm fine with him moving there as long as he spends a shit load of time in other places as well.

Because he hasn't campaigned there NEAR enough. People still don't kinow enough about his stances. From what I understand, you have to work for the votes in NH. That means he needs to be going around meeting and greeting people.

KingTheoden
10-24-2007, 02:26 PM
I just think we need to make sure we aren't a one-hit-wonder. Others have won NH and then lost. We need to focus on winning all of the early states. If NH really is the low-hanging-fruit then why are we so worried about not winning it?

I'm fine with him moving there as long as he spends a shit load of time in other places as well.

But I think the predicted move up date is the miracle we were so coveting. It would allow a solid three weeks up to Iowa and the other primaries. We should remember that Ron Paul is very strong in Michigan as it is (perhaps helped by its enormous college population and Arab community).

Think of it this way: a relocation away from DC to New Hampshire is not going to detract from other keys states as far as I see it.

paulitics
10-24-2007, 02:27 PM
I just think we need to make sure we aren't a one-hit-wonder. Others have won NH and then lost. We need to focus on winning all of the early states. If NH really is the low-hanging-fruit then why are we so worried about not winning it?

I'm fine with him moving there as long as he spends a shit load of time in other places as well.

yeah, we need MI which is possible if Ron wins NH.

Eric21ND
10-24-2007, 03:16 PM
He needs to go up there and flip some pancakes and deliver some babies.

JMann
10-24-2007, 03:27 PM
He needs to spend a lot of time there but he has to be careful not to wear out his welcome. I would recommend spending a couple days a week for the next two weeks. Bumping that up to 3 days by mid-November and no more than 4 or 5 days a week leading up to the final day before the primary. He needs to attract large crowds so he needs to be careful not to overexpose himself to early.

Blowback
10-24-2007, 03:33 PM
The one problem with winning a December NH primary is that it will provide the neocons with the time to recoordinate their numbers. It will also rally their base to go vote and possibly to consolidate behind one candidate.

I'm not trying to say it's bad at all. I'm just trying to be realistic and look at both sides with a focus on the future.

We obviously need to take what is given to us and move forward but let's try to look at it from both the positive and negative perspective if we can so that we aren't blindsided.

McDermit
10-24-2007, 03:37 PM
I think it's a good idea. Even if he is "living" in NH, he can still make a few trips out to other states when needed. But much of his time should definitely be spent in NH in the next month or two.

smtwngrl
10-24-2007, 03:41 PM
He needs to go up there and flip some pancakes and deliver some babies.

lol

Kregener
10-24-2007, 04:06 PM
You were serious?

No...no, not no...but HELL NO.

This would send a "Hillary Clinton"-type message to the good folks in NH. NEw Yorkers bought her false concern, and then bought it again, but Ron Paul has no need to stoop. He stands head and shoulders above the statists.