Would anti-Romney/Huck/Palin signs be more effective than Ron Paul signs?

[DeadheadForPaul]

Many voters have no clue about the political positions of their favorite candidate.

To many, Romney is "good with money"
Huckabee is "friendly and moral"

While Paul signs are HUGE for name recognition, I also wonder if we should undercut the support of other candidates by making their positions known

For example, would a sign "Romney Signed Universal Healthcare into Law in Massachusetts in 2006" do more good for us than a Paul sign?

Or how about Huck wanting to ban smoking (though for all I know, that may be popular). How about his taxes?

Sometimes trying to chip away at another candidate's base is more effective than anything else

So sometimes we could have "anti-Romney" poster waves at intersections rather than RP ones

[heavenlyboy34]

My first instinct is to avoid giving opponents free advertising/publicity. However, if the ads specifically address issues, it may work. /shrugs

[gerryb]

Ron Paul never attacks people, but rather ideas. I agree this is more effective at building the Liberty movement.

[DeadheadForPaul]

My first instinct is to avoid giving opponents free advertising/publicity. However, if the ads specifically address issues, it may work. /shrugs

You raise a good point

However, Romney also has huge name recognition thanks to the media putting the crown on him early

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ron Paul never attacks people, but rather ideas. I agree this is more effective at building the Liberty movement.

Hmm, you are right that Ron never directly addresses a person. Just thought I would float the idea

I don't think this is attacking their character or lying, but rather using non-MSM avenues to inform the public.

[Zatch]

Anti signs may be more effective against Romney and Huckabee but not Palin because her supporters are more emotionally attached to their candidate. She probably won't run anyway and neither will Huckabee. They're both making money with books and shows.

[nayjevin]

Signs, I don't know, it's probably a different answer than for facebook ads, TV ads, etc. Any attacks should not be tied to Ron, IMO. PAC's often run attack ads without saying they are for any candidate, but against a particular candidate.

I have the impression that a traditional campaign approach is 'attack when behind, ignore when ahead' but I might be making that up. Name recognition is an issue if the candidate has none, but our likely opponents have huge name recognition, so I would think that point is of minimal importance in our case.

I think there would be some value to the concept, but very important to do in the right way. Seems like the right ones could be very effective, and the wrong ones result in blowback.

[MRoCkEd]

Signs as a whole are barely effective in the grand scheme of things... Door to door and phonebanking are where it's at.

[gerryb]

Anti signs may be more effective against Romney and Huckabee but not Palin because her supporters are more emotionally attached to their candidate. She probably won't run anyway and neither will Huckabee. They're both making money with books and shows.

I think people have an emotional attachment to Huckabee as well. Don't ask me how, I always think he is a Sociopath whenever I see him speak (probably because I know a lot of what he is saying is a lie). Someone I know voted for Huckabee in 2008 because of his endorsement by the Home Schoolers Association. At the time, they were not aware of Ron Paul's superior and genuine stance and record on home schooling compared to Huckabee's disingenuous stance and bad voting record.

In that case, I think it's good to counter with the positive's of your candidate, and if there is hard evidence such as youtubes or voting record against another candidate that a group or individual prefers... then you should use it.

I don't think just creating campaigns against candidates is good, unless it is targeted like that

[libertybrewcity]

drop the signs, pick up literature, and go knock on doors. this method has proven to win campaigns for a long, long time.

[BarryDonegan]

Never do dirty work yourself that someone else will do for you. Those issues will be brought up throughout the primary by various opponents. No need to go out of your way pushing one or another candidates vote totals down when you don't necessarily know who their vote will go to instead. It is better to spend all of our energy increasing the votes to Ron Paul.

[Carehn]

drop the signs, pick up literature, and go knock on doors. this method has proven to win campaigns for a long, long time.
Yep. This is how its done. Know what your talking about and never lie if you don't. Talking to people and writing down names, numbers, emails, stuff like that helps. Know who your friends are on certain issues and get them to act by voting or running or making signs and other stuff lol.

Connect and own your county. That all you can do.

[cindy25]

negative ads only work in a two way race

but there is a need to clarify the Paul message; otherwise Trump will end up the anti-war candidate as McCain did last time.

[ForLibertyFight]

Going door to door and talking to voters directly is the most effective way.

[Ekrub]

Front page of dailypaul there is a video on how to deal with people in regards to converting them to Ron Paul. I don't know that the guy is an expert, but he brings up several good points. I suggest heading over there and watching it. His #5 (don't-do list) was "Don't talk about other candidates." Try and bring everything back to liberty and Ron Paul and discuss their hot button issues. Not everyone cares about Romney passing universal health care in Massachusetts, so try and sell Ron paul instead.

[TheTyke]

drop the signs, pick up literature, and go knock on doors. this method has proven to win campaigns for a long, long time.

Quoted for much agreement.

One idea of the OP's that I like though... if you HAVE to bash candidates (and some people can't seem to hold themselves back) - don't mention Ron's name. It just creates blowback against Ron. Criticism should not be associated with a candidate - that's why PAC/3rd party attacks are successful.