The Path to the Nomination

[realtonygoodwin]

PATH TO THE NOMINATION

1. We have to win South Carolina. The way to do this is to do very well in Iowa (preferably first place), and a strong second in New Hampshire.
a. Remember, this is a race for the GOP nomination, first and foremost.
b. We need to reach out to the elderly, women, and social conservatives.
2. We need to make this a race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Position Ron Paul as the only viable alternative to Mitt Romney. If we can get all the anti-Mitt sentiment coalesced on one candidate, we can win.
3. The vast majority of voters polled in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Arizona say they will not vote for a candidate who supports an individual healthcare mandate. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both support an individual healthcare mandate. Yet Romney is leading in all three states.
a. Voters are not yet aware of Romney’s and Gingrich’s position on this.
b. Once they are, they will need a new candidate.
4. Emphasize Ron Paul polling best among GOP contenders in a head to head matchup against President Obama.
5. Online polls do not matter. Only scientific polling by reputable companies matter. You can find most of these on RealClearPolitics.com
6. Now that UBL is dead, we have completed our mission in Afghanistan. Several GOP congresspeople have heard from their constituents that they are ready for us to leave Afghanistan.
a. Recent polls PRIOR to UBL’s death show 56% of Americans believe we should come home from Afghanistan
b. Over 70% of Americans believe we should come home from Iraq.
7. If Ron can do well in Ames, win Iowa, get a solid second second in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina, he can ride that momentum to the nomination.
8. Canvassing and phone-banking in those three states are crucial. Ask people for referrals to friends who may be willing to donate or vote for Dr. Paul. Ask for their donation, and their vote.
9. In 2007, Ron’s name recognition was in the single digits. Now it is above 70%. Back then, it was a question of getting people to know who he is. Now, it is a question of getting their votes.
10. Don’t waste time spamming online polls, comment sections of articles, or emailing journalists who ignore Ron.
11. It is great to convert people to a Constitutional point of view. It is more helpful to get them to realize that if Ron Paul is not the nominee, Mitt Romney will be.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Edit:

I especially like:

#3) Attack ads on Mandate Mitt
#4) Dr. P's ability to beat Obama

[ForLibertyFight]

Ron Paul practices what he preaches. No more voting for empty suits and self-serving politicians. Vote for a real statesman with integrity.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost" - John Adams

[Pseudolus]

The fact that Americans agree with Ron Paul about coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan is meaningless if Ron Paul insists on making political gaffs without cause. When 90% of Americans think it's good that we killed Osama Bin Laden, there's no reason for Ron Paul to say he wouldn't have killed him. When the majority of Americans think Pakistan's military knew about OBL in their borders, there's no reason for Ron Paul to say he'd have worked with Pakistan to get OBL. It makes Ron Paul look naive and out of touch, which validates the critics who claim Ron Paul's other non-mainstream stances on drugs, the Fed, etc. are from the mind of a looney who doesn't understand reality.

You got to go along to get along. Ron Paul doesn't need to go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot. When they ask, "Would you have ordered the kill on Osama Bin Laden?" Ron Paul can simply say, "I'm happy Osama Bin Laden is no longer a threat to the United States, and if I were President I would have likely neutralized the threat of Osama much sooner and without years of war and bloodshed draining our resources, destroying our dollar, and killing our troops. Osama's gone, but we're not much safer; because we've created a lot of enemies over the past decade of war in 5 countries and possibly more in the future. I'd have gotten Osama much sooner, at much lower cost, and without fostering an entire generation of Osama followers." And then if they ask "How?" he can go into his writ of marquee explanation. Isn't that a better answer than 90% of Americans are wrong for supporting the kill on Osama?! It shares information that everyone agrees with, it satisfactorily answers the question, it makes him look in touch and intelligent while leading the conversation away from that which is concerning (i.e., letting Osama live and relying on untrustworthy foreign countries) to that which is intriguing (i.e., a method for fighting the war on terror while maintaining peace in the world).

Loose lips sink ships, as well as presidential campaigns. Newt Gingrich's campaign is over before it even gets started because Newt can't keep his mouth shut. Learn from Newt's mistakes. Adapt answers for survival. Ron Paul does not need to compromise his views, but he does need to avoid pouring acid on his campaign. There's almost never a reason to answer a question with "90% of Americans are wrong" (or anything that similarly implies it). It just doesn't help in any way. It confuses many of Ron Paul's supporters who are in the 90%, it causes those who don't know Ron Paul to stop listening, and it's fodder for the media who paint Ron as a loon. If Ron keeps causing his campaign to meltdown while the media spreads his toxic radiation, there will be no President Ron Paul. Newt just inadvertently gave Ron Paul the clearest and best advice: when you see someone die, don't jump off the same bridge expecting to live. Learn from Newt!

[realtonygoodwin]

So, how do we get this info out there? These are important talking points, but they need to get out there.

On a separate note, who is running the national campaign?

[realtonygoodwin]

Guess it is Jesse, thanks.

[Teaser Rate]

I generally agree with most suggestions, especially the one about not spamming online polls anymore.

The only disagreements I have are with points 1 and 2. I believe New Hampshire is a better target state than South Carolina because it has a smaller population, a history of voting for unlikely primary candidates (McCain in 2000, Buchanan in 1996) and a larger group of libertarian activists due to the free-state project. Secondly, I don’t think we should target Mitt Romney, as the frontrunner he’s going to be attacked by everyone else; I think we’re better off letting others do our dirty work for us and focus on targeting former Huckabee/Palin supporters.

[realtonygoodwin]

Romney will most likely win in New Hampshire...I don't see a scenario where he runs and doesn't win NH...

Also, and people don't seem to understand this, the winner of the GOP primary in South Carolina is always the nominee. Notice McCain in 2000 and Buchanan in 1996 did not win the nomination. Yes, we could put ALL our chips into the NH basket, and win...but for what? The goal is to get the nomination.

[HarryBrowneLives]

The fact that Americans agree with Ron Paul about coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan is meaningless if Ron Paul insists on making political gaffs without cause. When 90% of Americans think it's good that we killed Osama Bin Laden, there's no reason for Ron Paul to say he wouldn't have killed him. When the majority of Americans think Pakistan's military knew about OBL in their borders, there's no reason for Ron Paul to say he'd have worked with Pakistan to get OBL. It makes Ron Paul look naive and out of touch, which validates the critics who claim Ron Paul's other non-mainstream stances on drugs, the Fed, etc. are from the mind of a looney who doesn't understand reality.

You got to go along to get along. Ron Paul doesn't need to go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot. When they ask, "Would you have ordered the kill on Osama Bin Laden?" Ron Paul can simply say, "I'm happy Osama Bin Laden is no longer a threat to the United States, and if I were President I would have likely neutralized the threat of Osama much sooner and without years of war and bloodshed draining our resources, destroying our dollar, and killing our troops. Osama's gone, but we're not much safer; because we've created a lot of enemies over the past decade of war in 5 countries and possibly more in the future. I'd have gotten Osama much sooner, at much lower cost, and without fostering an entire generation of Osama followers." And then if they ask "How?" he can go into his writ of marquee explanation. Isn't that a better answer than 90% of Americans are wrong for supporting the kill on Osama?! It shares information that everyone agrees with, it satisfactorily answers the question, it makes him look in touch and intelligent while leading the conversation away from that which is concerning (i.e., letting Osama live and relying on untrustworthy foreign countries) to that which is intriguing (i.e., a method for fighting the war on terror while maintaining peace in the world).

Loose lips sink ships, as well as presidential campaigns. Newt Gingrich's campaign is over before it even gets started because Newt can't keep his mouth shut. Learn from Newt's mistakes. Adapt answers for survival. Ron Paul does not need to compromise his views, but he does need to avoid pouring acid on his campaign. There's almost never a reason to answer a question with "90% of Americans are wrong" (or anything that similarly implies it). It just doesn't help in any way. It confuses many of Ron Paul's supporters who are in the 90%, it causes those who don't know Ron Paul to stop listening, and it's fodder for the media who paint Ron as a loon. If Ron keeps causing his campaign to meltdown while the media spreads his toxic radiation, there will be no President Ron Paul. Newt just inadvertently gave Ron Paul the clearest and best advice: when you see someone die, don't jump off the same bridge expecting to live. Learn from Newt!

+1777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 7777776

[Qdog]

I think Ron Paul is doing a great job! The Campaign seems to be really on top of their game! We are going to win this time! :)

[civusamericanus]

PATH TO THE NOMINATION

1. We have to win South Carolina. The way to do this is to do very well in Iowa (preferably first place), and a strong second in New Hampshire.
a. Remember, this is a race for the GOP nomination, first and foremost.
b. We need to reach out to the elderly, women, and social conservatives.
2. We need to make this a race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Position Ron Paul as the only viable alternative to Mitt Romney. If we can get all the anti-Mitt sentiment coalesced on one candidate, we can win.
3. The vast majority of voters polled in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Arizona say they will not vote for a candidate who supports an individual healthcare mandate. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both support an individual healthcare mandate. Yet Romney is leading in all three states.
a. Voters are not yet aware of Romney’s and Gingrich’s position on this.
b. Once they are, they will need a new candidate.
4. Emphasize Ron Paul polling best among GOP contenders in a head to head matchup against President Obama.
5. Online polls do not matter. Only scientific polling by reputable companies matter. You can find most of these on RealClearPolitics.com
6. Now that UBL is dead, we have completed our mission in Afghanistan. Several GOP congresspeople have heard from their constituents that they are ready for us to leave Afghanistan.
a. Recent polls PRIOR to UBL’s death show 56% of Americans believe we should come home from Afghanistan
b. Over 70% of Americans believe we should come home from Iraq.
7. If Ron can do well in Ames, win Iowa, get a solid second second in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina, he can ride that momentum to the nomination.
8. Canvassing and phone-banking in those three states are crucial. Ask people for referrals to friends who may be willing to donate or vote for Dr. Paul. Ask for their donation, and their vote.
9. In 2007, Ron’s name recognition was in the single digits. Now it is above 70%. Back then, it was a question of getting people to know who he is. Now, it is a question of getting their votes.
10. Don’t waste time spamming online polls, comment sections of articles, or emailing journalists who ignore Ron.
11. It is great to convert people to a Constitutional point of view. It is more helpful to get them to realize that if Ron Paul is not the nominee, Mitt Romney will be.
You make a lot of great points, the points that supporters need to take to heart are in bold.

[DXDoug]

nice post . i like it

[LatinsforPaul]

11. It is great to convert people to a Constitutional point of view. It is more helpful to get them to realize that if Ron Paul is not the nominee, Mitt Romney will be.

And Romney would definitely lose to Obama where Ron Paul can definitely beat Obama because he is the only GOP candidate that can pull the Independent voter away from Obama. ;)

[realtonygoodwin]

More great info here: http://www.redstate.com/morton_c_blackwell/2010/10/01/the-real-nature-of-politics/

[TheJeffersonian]

I do want to add that, as awful as it sounds, I wish Ron was a little more comfortable with prepared statements. He does get a bit excited and comes off like a crazy grandpa which is charming but voters will see that as not being "presidential."

Also, I wish Ron would use his voluminous knowledge more... swing voters being introduced to a new ideology are going to want to hear pragmatic arguments against the statism they are used to (inflation, medical costs) and how libertarian ideas can be an antidote to what ails them. I still can't believe he didn't bring up Portugal when the whole "legalize heroin" thing came up over and over in the debate and later in the media.

Ah well. I hope he polishes up a bit as time goes on. Its exciting that people are really hearing him now and he's getting tons of face time.

[realtonygoodwin]

I hear him talk about what he would idealistically do. It would be helpful if he could lay out a simple plan of what he would do. Preferably without using the term "sound money." The average voter hears that and their brain hits the snooze button.

[Liberty Shark]

A couple of things to consider:

Judging by the early polls it is clear that Huckabee dropping out is a major benefit for RP, as shown in a recent PPP Poll:
http://http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0510925.pdf

If you look at the crosstabs on the last page (13), you see that without Huckabee, Trump, & Palin, Ron gets 30% of GOP voters age 18-29. Incredible.

[S.Shorland]

That pdf link doesn't work for me.I'd like to think that freedom and reason will win out but with the vested interests in play,it will be tough for RP.Maybe the World will get a happy break for once? It's not as though we don't deserve it!

[trey4sports]

Romney will most likely win in New Hampshire...I don't see a scenario where he runs and doesn't win NH...

Also, and people don't seem to understand this, the winner of the GOP primary in South Carolina is always the nominee. Notice McCain in 2000 and Buchanan in 1996 did not win the nomination. Yes, we could put ALL our chips into the NH basket, and win...but for what? The goal is to get the nomination.

There is a correlation but that doesn't mean that winning S.C. will win you the nom. besides, one of Rons biggest problems is people dont think he can win..... so we will need to win earlier than S.C to get rid of that meme

[PaleoForPaul]

The fact that Americans agree with Ron Paul about coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan is meaningless if Ron Paul insists on making political gaffs without cause. When 90% of Americans think it's good that we killed Osama Bin Laden, there's no reason for Ron Paul to say he wouldn't have killed him. When the majority of Americans think Pakistan's military knew about OBL in their borders, there's no reason for Ron Paul to say he'd have worked with Pakistan to get OBL. It makes Ron Paul look naive and out of touch, which validates the critics who claim Ron Paul's other non-mainstream stances on drugs, the Fed, etc. are from the mind of a looney who doesn't understand reality.

I thought the same thing when I heard it.


You got to go along to get along. Ron Paul doesn't need to go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot. When they ask, "Would you have ordered the kill on Osama Bin Laden?" Ron Paul can simply say, "I'm happy Osama Bin Laden is no longer a threat to the United States, and if I were President I would have likely neutralized the threat of Osama much sooner and without years of war and bloodshed draining our resources, destroying our dollar, and killing our troops. Osama's gone, but we're not much safer; because we've created a lot of enemies over the past decade of war in 5 countries and possibly more in the future. I'd have gotten Osama much sooner, at much lower cost, and without fostering an entire generation of Osama followers." And then if they ask "How?" he can go into his writ of marquee explanation. Isn't that a better answer than 90% of Americans are wrong for supporting the kill on Osama?! It shares information that everyone agrees with, it satisfactorily answers the question, it makes him look in touch and intelligent while leading the conversation away from that which is concerning (i.e., letting Osama live and relying on untrustworthy foreign countries) to that which is intriguing (i.e., a method for fighting the war on terror while maintaining peace in the world).

Yup. He could have certainly said "I'm happy Osama is dead, but I'm unhappy with the amount of tax payer money spent and more importantly the lives lost of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I voted to authorize the troops to go into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden in 2001, I never thought it would turn into a ten year occupation, and it wouldn't have if I were president. Did you know in 2003 I said Bin Laden was in Pakistan?


Loose lips sink ships, as well as presidential campaigns. Newt Gingrich's campaign is over before it even gets started because Newt can't keep his mouth shut. Learn from Newt's mistakes. Adapt answers for survival. Ron Paul does not need to compromise his views, but he does need to avoid pouring acid on his campaign. There's almost never a reason to answer a question with "90% of Americans are wrong" (or anything that similarly implies it). It just doesn't help in any way. It confuses many of Ron Paul's supporters who are in the 90%, it causes those who don't know Ron Paul to stop listening, and it's fodder for the media who paint Ron as a loon. If Ron keeps causing his campaign to meltdown while the media spreads his toxic radiation, there will be no President Ron Paul. Newt just inadvertently gave Ron Paul the clearest and best advice: when you see someone die, don't jump off the same bridge expecting to live. Learn from Newt!

Rand Paul does this so well, and I wish Ron would.

[PaleoForPaul]

Romney will most likely win in New Hampshire...I don't see a scenario where he runs and doesn't win NH...

Also, and people don't seem to understand this, the winner of the GOP primary in South Carolina is always the nominee. Notice McCain in 2000 and Buchanan in 1996 did not win the nomination. Yes, we could put ALL our chips into the NH basket, and win...but for what? The goal is to get the nomination.

Regarding Buchanan in 1996, the party rallied around Dole. I think it was to the point were the party insiders wanted Dole to win the nomination more than they ever wanted to win the white house from Clinton. A Buchanan nomination would have changed the party significantly.

With McCain in 2000, the Bush team played some dirty pool against McCain in South Carolina. It's a great read if anyone is unfamiliar with the story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#2000_presidential_campaign

The Arizona Republic would write that the McCain–Bush primary contest in South Carolina "has entered national political lore as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns", while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics".[125][135][136] A variety of interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past ran negative ads.[125][137] Bush borrowed McCain's earlier language of reform,[138] and declined to dissociate himself from a veterans activist who accused McCain (in Bush's presence) of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues.[125][139]
John McCain's Gallup Poll favorable/unfavorable ratings, 1999–2009[140]

Incensed,[139] McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton, which Bush said was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary".[125] An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, and audience plants.[125][141] The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.[125][135] The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with the attacks.[135]

McCain lost South Carolina on February 19, with 42 percent of the vote to Bush's 53 percent,[142] in part because Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters[125][143] and outspent McCain.[144] The win allowed Bush to regain lost momentum.[142] McCain would say of the rumor spreaders, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."[88] According to one report, the South Carolina experience left McCain in a "very dark place".[135]

But Your point is well taken regarding not putting all our efforts into one place.

[PaleoForPaul]

reach out to the elderly, women, and social conservatives.

Here is a good question, how?

[rp08orbust]

Romney will most likely win in New Hampshire...I don't see a scenario where he runs and doesn't win NH...

Also, and people don't seem to understand this, the winner of the GOP primary in South Carolina is always the nominee. Notice McCain in 2000 and Buchanan in 1996 did not win the nomination. Yes, we could put ALL our chips into the NH basket, and win...but for what? The goal is to get the nomination.

It's possible for a national frontrunner like Bush or McCain to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and then pull off a victory in South Carolina, but not for someone like Ron Paul, who is plagued with doubts about his electability. Yes, Ron Paul needs to win South Carolina, but he can only do so if he has already won Iowa or New Hampshire. He can probably only win New Hampshire if he has already won Iowa, simply because the national frontrunner Mitt Romney is weaker there and a caucus is more favorable to Ron Paul than a primary. And finally, he can only win the Iowa caucus if he can win the Ames straw poll, because the Ames straw poll is his only chance before the Iowa caucus to demonstrate that he can win. So, all of his chips should be in Ames until he wins it, then most of his chips should be in Iowa until he wins the IA caucus, then all of his chips should be in New Hampshire until he wins it, etc. That is the only way an underdog like Ron Paul is going to win.

[libertybrewcity]

The only path to the nomination: physical activism.

door to door talking to people
phone calls
donating money for ads

[Pseudolus]

It's possible for a national frontrunner like Bush or McCain to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and then pull off a victory in South Carolina, but not for someone like Ron Paul, who is plagued with doubts about his electability. Yes, Ron Paul needs to win South Carolina, but he can only do so if he has already won Iowa or New Hampshire. He can probably only win New Hampshire if he has already won Iowa, simply because the national frontrunner Mitt Romney is weaker there and a caucus is more favorable to Ron Paul than a primary. And finally, he can only win the Iowa caucus if he can win the Ames straw poll, because the Ames straw poll is his only chance before the Iowa caucus to demonstrate that he can win. So, all of his chips should be in Ames until he wins it, then most of his chips should be in Iowa until he wins the IA caucus, then all of his chips should be in New Hampshire until he wins it, etc. That is the only way an underdog like Ron Paul is going to win.
Michele Bachmann is from Iowa. Iowa is a lost cause. Time to move the campaign's focus to another state and dismiss Bachmann's win as a hometown favorite.

[BucksforPaul]

Michele Bachmann is from Iowa. Iowa is a lost cause. Time to move the campaign's focus to another state and dismiss Bachmann's win as a hometown favorite.

Wrong and thank God you are not involved in the official campaign.

[Pseudolus]

Wrong and thank God you are not involved in the official campaign.We'll see. But I seriously Ron Paul as the crazy outsider can steal enough votes to overcome the leader of the Tea Party caucus and hometown hero.

I think Ron Paul is better off focusing on NH. That state is where he announced his campaign, their state flag and license plate is the "Don't Tread On Me" message that resonates with Ron Paul's campaign, the Free State project is based in NH, and Romney already lost there once before. New Hampshire is vastly more important than Iowa with Bachmann in the race.

[BucksforPaul]

Being the leader of the of the tea party caucus is not the same as being the Father of the modern day tea party movement. The former being a handful of elected "officials" while the latter consists of millions of everyday average Americans. Huge difference in my opinion and we will definitely see what happens.

[rp08orbust]

We'll see. But I seriously Ron Paul as the crazy outsider can steal enough votes to overcome the leader of the Tea Party caucus and hometown hero.

I think Ron Paul is better off focusing on NH. That state is where he announced his campaign, their state flag and license plate is the "Don't Tread On Me" message that resonates with Ron Paul's campaign, the Free State project is based in NH, and Romney already lost there once before. New Hampshire is vastly more important than Iowa with Bachmann in the race.

If Ron Paul loses the Ames straw poll to Bachmann, then you may be right that Iowa is a lost cause. But there would still be six months left to focus on New Hampshire after the Ames straw poll, so if you think Iowa isn't promising, you have to admit that it still makes sense to put all chips in Iowa for now until we see what happens at Ames, because if Ron Paul does win the straw poll, Iowa is surely not a lost cause. And even if you deny that, you can't deny that an Ames straw poll win would help Ron Paul everywhere, including New Hampshire.

[trey4sports]

Get started making phone calls. www.rp2012.org

[ForLibertyFight]

Get started making phone calls. www.rp2012.org

This is a great website. I'll start calling tomorrow

[ForLibertyFight]

Call to Iowa for free.

http://www.icall.com/

[Pseudolus]

If Ron Paul loses the Ames straw poll to Bachmann, then you may be right that Iowa is a lost cause. But there would still be six months left to focus on New Hampshire after the Ames straw poll, so if you think Iowa isn't promising, you have to admit that it still makes sense to put all chips in Iowa for now until we see what happens at Ames, because if Ron Paul does win the straw poll, Iowa is surely not a lost cause. And even if you deny that, you can't deny that an Ames straw poll win would help Ron Paul everywhere, including New Hampshire.
True.

[progressiveforpaul]

I think you are right on all counts but you are missing one critical factor. Warfare corporatists will pump a billion dollars into a single candidate (Romney, Pawlenty or whoever) and spend another billion to slander Ron Paul if he does this well in the first 3 contests. Progressives have to be brought on board to provide the margin needed to fight the the war mongering anti-Ron Paul tsunami that will come roaring at a successful first 3. http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

PATH TO THE NOMINATION

1. We have to win South Carolina. The way to do this is to do very well in Iowa (preferably first place), and a strong second in New Hampshire.
a. Remember, this is a race for the GOP nomination, first and foremost.
b. We need to reach out to the elderly, women, and social conservatives.
2. We need to make this a race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Position Ron Paul as the only viable alternative to Mitt Romney. If we can get all the anti-Mitt sentiment coalesced on one candidate, we can win.
3. The vast majority of voters polled in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Arizona say they will not vote for a candidate who supports an individual healthcare mandate. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both support an individual healthcare mandate. Yet Romney is leading in all three states.
a. Voters are not yet aware of Romney’s and Gingrich’s position on this.
b. Once they are, they will need a new candidate.
4. Emphasize Ron Paul polling best among GOP contenders in a head to head matchup against President Obama.
5. Online polls do not matter. Only scientific polling by reputable companies matter. You can find most of these on RealClearPolitics.com
6. Now that UBL is dead, we have completed our mission in Afghanistan. Several GOP congresspeople have heard from their constituents that they are ready for us to leave Afghanistan.
a. Recent polls PRIOR to UBL’s death show 56% of Americans believe we should come home from Afghanistan
b. Over 70% of Americans believe we should come home from Iraq.
7. If Ron can do well in Ames, win Iowa, get a solid second second in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina, he can ride that momentum to the nomination.
8. Canvassing and phone-banking in those three states are crucial. Ask people for referrals to friends who may be willing to donate or vote for Dr. Paul. Ask for their donation, and their vote.
9. In 2007, Ron’s name recognition was in the single digits. Now it is above 70%. Back then, it was a question of getting people to know who he is. Now, it is a question of getting their votes.
10. Don’t waste time spamming online polls, comment sections of articles, or emailing journalists who ignore Ron.
11. It is great to convert people to a Constitutional point of view. It is more helpful to get them to realize that if Ron Paul is not the nominee, Mitt Romney will be.

[FrankRep]

I think you are right on all counts but you are missing one critical factor. Warfare corporatists will pump a billion dollars into a single candidate (Romney, Pawlenty or whoever) and spend another billion to slander Ron Paul if he does this well in the first 3 contests. Progressives have to be brought on board to provide the margin needed to fight the the war mongering anti-Ron Paul tsunami that will come roaring at a successful first 3. http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

Did you know that Progressives support Big Government? Did you know that Ron Paul supports Limited Government and the Constitution?

[mpdsapuser]

How can someone like myself help when I live all the way in Southern California?

[BrendenR]

How can someone like myself help when I live all the way in Southern California?

Isn't Nevada an early state?

[ForLibertyFight]

How can someone like myself help when I live all the way in Southern California?

www.rp2012.org
call Iowan voters

[realtonygoodwin]

Thanks guys!