[Poll] Win the election or educate the people?

[realtonygoodwin]

Do you want to win the 2012 GOP nomination and general election, or are you someone who would rather just spread the message of liberty throughout America? Do you think Dr. Paul should run to win, or run to educate?

[nayjevin]

false dichotomy

[realtonygoodwin]

false dichotomy

Not really. I believe if he becomes popular and known enough to win the election, the people will become more educated as a result of his winning. :)

[nayjevin]

Not really. I believe if he becomes popular and known enough to win the election, the people will become more educated as a result of his winning. :)

So if there were a way to hypnotize the populace into voting for him, we should do it?

I'd say it requires education to convince voters, and even if the education doesn't result in victory, the education is still there.

The other way, if there's no victory, there's nothing to fall back on.

[mport1]

Run to educate. Winning means nothing if people don't accept the ideas of liberty.

[MelissaCato]

Run to win.

[LeJimster]

You have to run to win, especially since I think he has a real shot if we get everything right. But the effect of winning would be a massive education, because just learning about Ron Paul's libertarian views is an educational process in it's self. And if post-win success occurs you would hope more people will follow Ron Paul's lead.

I would say 2008's campaign was run to educate more than anything, now it's time to win.

[trey4sports]

It has to be both. We can look to two extremes, either he can turn into Mitt Romney and make generic soundbites that appease the people and say nothing contreversial or he can be the ron paul of 08, and have no regard for winning but merely educating. I think the best bet would be somewhere in the middle. Dont compromise the message but turn it into well-worded soundbites and easy-to-understand phrases.

[nayjevin]

the effect of winning would be a massive education

Totally agree with this. Also, I sure like the way 'Run to Win' sounds a lot better than the alternative - particularly with the smear campaign against so-called 'educational campaigns' of late. But the presumption that they are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy.

[realtonygoodwin]

Well, I don't mean for them to appear to be exclusive. More like, what should the main focus be?

[realtonygoodwin]

It has to be both. We can look to two extremes, either he can turn into Mitt Romney and make generic soundbites that appease the people and say nothing contreversial or he can be the ron paul of 08, and have no regard for winning but merely educating. I think the best bet would be somewhere in the middle. Dont compromise the message but turn it into well-worded soundbites and easy-to-understand phrases.


Well, yes. Exactly. That would be running to win. ;)
Nobody said anything about watering down the message. It's all about packaging.

[nayjevin]

Well, I don't mean for them to appear to be exclusive. More like, what should the main focus be?

Then I'd say educating enough voters to win :)

[Dreamofunity]

Education should be the primary goal. If winning comes from it, awesome, but principles should never be compromised (I'd say even in message, as long as we're talking about presidential run and being the standard-bearer of liberty -- senate, house, etc, I understand marketing) in order to win.

[Michael Landon]

Why not both? Run to win but hope you educate people in the process and if you do win then the people will get educated for 4 years.

- ML

[Paul4Prez]

Run like you're trying to win. Raise money like you're trying to win. Volunteer like you're trying to win.

If you don't win, people will be educated, and other pro-liberty candidates will find an easier path in the future.

[ivflight]

I voted run to educate which will ultimately mean a win (hopefully wins). We should not go for a win by other means. If we win the election through some kind of deception or half-truths or delightful flip remarks during debate, then liberty ideas might bounce instead of sticking. People need to understand freedom so they'll give it a fighting chance. Winning just one election doesn't come close to changing everything that needs to be changed.

[devil21]

I voted Other. Both! We can do both. We must do both.

[BlackTerrel]

Win. 100%


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRxm0oGbnRI

[hazek]

Accidentally clicked other when I meant to click "Run to win"

[TortoiseDream]

If we succeed in educating the people, then we should win.

[libertybrewcity]

Let's win dis shiiizzzz

[showpan]

I see this next election as a must win. It's either now or never because at the present rate at which democracy, liberty and freedom is being stripped away....talk of such things will be reduced to bed time stories told to our grandchildren.

[BlackTerrel]

Accidentally clicked other when I meant to click "Run to win"

You know you just fucked up don't you?

[ronpaulitician]

The realist in me sees a doubling or tripling of his 2007-2008 vote totals as a win. It'll mean that the effect he had on the battle for ideas will likely quadruple compared to the effect he had in 2007-2008. And that effect was nothing to sneeze at already.

Run to educate, hope to win.

[sailingaway]

Other: both.

[Zack]

Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to educate. What I think you're asking is perhaps more a question of chronological order. Education is the only thing that can lead to the revolution which is the goal of most of us. So what political posture can RP take in the short term (this campaign) to help get us there?

So the question might look like this:

A) Run to win -> then to educate -> then to revolution

or

B) Run to educate -> then to win -> then to revolution (the last two could be reversed) (As nayjevin put it: "educating enough voters to win")

Option A is the typical, status quo, conventional wisdom aproach that RP rejected in 2007/8. The fact that he rejected it is honestly the reason most of us are even here, if you think about it. Option B is obviously aiming waaay higher, but if ethics is a concern for you, option A requires evasiveness, which is a form of insincerity, i.e., dishonesty.

So he should run to educate, because after all, it's RP we're talking about, but every bit of "curriculum" should be tailored to the Republican primary voter and their cultural vocabulary, until he he is nominated. And that nomination is still part of the 2011 Ron Paul education plan.

We have to make that happen. It looks like Paul is going to agree to be our President very soon. We have to jump through the hoops and play games. Ron Paul is a game-changer, not a game-player.

[Aratus]

could we have Dr. Robert Paul run to educate in 2016 most totally?
also Senator Rand Paul weighing the odds thereto of as to who
gets the veep position in terms of his election + re!election
chances in both 2020 and 2024? this is RON PAUL's year!