Should Ron Paul Skip South Carolina?

[Paul4Prez]

Romney and Huntsman are "skipping" Iowa, because they want to downplay any potentially negative results there. Should Ron Paul consider the same tactic in South Carolina? Last time around, the campaign focused a lot of resources there, only to finish in 5th place with 3.6% of the vote.

Other early states where resources might be better spent, and the voters might be more receptive, include:

New Hampshire -- strong libertarian/independent streak
Iowa -- caucus state, plays to our organizational strength
Nevada -- 2nd place last time
West Virginia -- state convention, ripe for the taking
Wyoming -- county conventions, same
Maine -- caucuses, 18% last time
Louisiana -- split caucus/primary

On the other hand, "skipping" any state makes a campaign look weak, and with more Republicans now agreeing with Ron Paul on the wars, he may do better this time around. He certainly received a better reception at the first debate in South Carolina.

[KCIndy]

I think South Carolina would be more favorable to RP if the campaign can present him in the right way. His pro-life views can only help. Huckabee's not a factor this time. As mentioned, more Republicans are starting to come around to Dr. Paul's way of thinking on foreign wars. And Ron Paul, being from Texas, might appeal more as a "Southerner" in contrast to Michelle (Minnesota) Bachmann and Mitt (Massachusetts) Romney.

[libertybrewcity]

No way. He might be able to cut back a little bit if he wins Iowa and NH. That will give him some momentum so he can focus a lot on Florida. South Carolina is important as it is still an early state.

[LatinsforPaul]

How about if Dr. Paul gets a Jim Demint endorsement for President. No skipping S.C. then, right?

[Maximus]

Win Iowa and we have all the momentum in SC so long as we get a strong showing in NH

[sailingaway]

We don't know anything about what the shape of the contest would be. What if Ron was doing well and Haley endorsed him, or DeMint did? They only would if he obviously was doing well elsewhere, but it still could happen. The problem is, all the southern states are less good for him than states that come later. Maybe he shouldn't spend as much on it but I don't think they have the knowledge to decide that. Now Nevada, he should definitely spend time on.

[1836]

Looks like I am the only person who voted "yes."

What you need to think about is this: if we do not do well in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, our campaign will fail regardless, and the other states become irrelevant to our winning the nomination.

Think about John McCain in 2007-08. The man hardly spent any time anywhere BUT New Hampshire after his campaign basically fell apart in the summer of 2007. And yet, winning New Hampshire gave him the momentum to be able to win the nomination and the states that followed.

Why is this? Because most voters, even primary voters (who tend to be a pretty educated subset compared to general election voters), focus on the campaign in the final few weeks before the election. Many voters are not sure who they are going to vote for until days before the election. It is very basic election science.

What this means for us is that, even many who find Ron Paul repugnant and/or undesirable as a candidate NOW, might support him as primaries approach if he has the momentum and has proven his ability to do well in other early contests.

So let's forget about some of these later states and bet the farm on Iowa and New Hampshire, but most particularly Iowa. If we can finish second or third in Iowa even, and second or third in New Hampshire, then the two or three remaining candidates will provide voters with a real choice as to who they mostly agree with. If we get to that position, Ron Paul may just start appealing to those who like much of what they hear but think him kooky or unelectable. Just like John McCain. The same paradigm applies now.

[sailingaway]

I cannot get my mind around the idea of Ron being like McCain. And McCain won Florida which isn't better than SC. I think if Ron does well enough to get DeMint's endorsement in SC, he has a better chance there than Florida, but it is way too early to decide that.

[1836]

We don't know anything about what the shape of the contest would be. What if Ron was doing well and Haley endorsed him, or DeMint did? They only would if he obviously was doing well elsewhere, but it still could happen. The problem is, all the southern states are less good for him than states that come later. Maybe he shouldn't spend as much on it but I don't think they have the knowledge to decide that. Now Nevada, he should definitely spend time on.

You make a great point about Nevada, and I will admit I forgot it. As a caucus state, the campaign should certainly think about spending a bit of time there and getting a competent organization on the ground. It is likely that Ron Paul would finish second in Nevada to Romney again, but it is worth considering that a strong second-place finish could count towards some real momentum points.

As regards DeMint, I would bet on him endorsing Bachmann if she wins Iowa, which is looking rather probable. He is, however, a wild card who has in the past courted libertarians (and he has used that term, even) and I think that if he were to surprise with an endorsement that it would prove significant to our ability to place in the top three in South Carolina.

I simply do not see us winning South Carolina unless we were to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and that is itself terribly unlikely. However, finishing strong in a few early contests, even without winning, would give us some degree of momentum to emerge as the chief "challenger" or the "third way" fairly early on.

If, as is likely, Bachmann and Romney capture Iowa and New Hampshire respectively, but RP is able to finish in the top three in both contests, then take a strong second in Nevada (or surprise with a win there), then RP's vote share might jump into the 20 percent range, at which point winning some states in the Super Tuesday contest (whenever that is this year) becomes very possible.

IF we are going to win, that really would be the most likely – growing our momentum in the first few states and peaking during the national primary. If we peak too early, that does us no good.

[1836]

I cannot get my mind around the idea of Ron being like McCain. And McCain won Florida which isn't better than SC. I think if Ron does well enough to get DeMint's endorsement in SC, he has a better chance there than Florida, but it is way too early to decide that.

Don't worry, I can't either! I meant the campaign. Which is to say, if Ron Paul is focused on Iowa and to a lesser extent New Hampshire, as McCain was so solely focused on New Hampshire, that has greater ramifications for the entire race.

As opposed to last time, where our campaign got entangled in plenty of OTHER states way, way too early. Frankly, the way we did it last time was almost presumptuous. We have to focus like a laser on finishing in the top three in both New Hampshire and Iowa, and you are correct about Nevada being a card up our sleeve. Nevada's caucus is so poorly attended that we could conceivably organize our way to a surprise win there.

[sailingaway]

You make a great point about Nevada, and I will admit I forgot it. As a caucus state, the campaign should certainly think about spending a bit of time there and getting a competent organization on the ground. It is likely that Ron Paul would finish second in Nevada to Romney again, but it is worth considering that a strong second-place finish could count towards some real momentum points.

As regards DeMint, I would bet on him endorsing Bachmann if she wins Iowa, which is looking rather probable. He is, however, a wild card who has in the past courted libertarians (and he has used that term, even) and I think that if he were to surprise with an endorsement that it would prove significant to our ability to place in the top three in South Carolina.

I simply do not see us winning South Carolina unless we were to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and that is itself terribly unlikely. However, finishing strong in a few early contests, even without winning, would give us some degree of momentum to emerge as the chief "challenger" or the "third way" fairly early on.

If, as is likely, Bachmann and Romney capture Iowa and New Hampshire respectively, but RP is able to finish in the top three in both contests, then take a strong second in Nevada (or surprise with a win there), then RP's vote share might jump into the 20 percent range, at which point winning some states in the Super Tuesday contest (whenever that is this year) becomes very possible.

IF we are going to win, that really would be the most likely – growing our momentum in the first few states and peaking during the national primary. If we peak too early, that does us no good.

It would be nice if Huntsman and Romney cannibalized their vote in Nevada, wouldn't it?

[1836]

To put it a different way:

Imagine if we finished third in Iowa and third in New Hampshire, but we were the only candidate to do that. Let's play hypotheticals here:

Iowa:
Bachmann 1st, 30%
Cain 2nd, 20%
Paul 3rd, 18%
Romney 4th, 12%
Pawlenty 5th, 10%
Santorum 6th, 5%
Others less

New Hampshire:
Romney 1st, 40%
Huntsman 2nd, 20%
Paul 3rd, 15%
Bachmann 4th, 10%
Pawlenty 5th, 5%
Cain 6th, 5%


THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL PREDICTION, JUST FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. THIS IS NOT WHAT I THINK WILL OCCUR.

Now, given, that kind of scenario, Ron Paul actually emerges as a credible second or third place in this nomination fight. If you coupled that with a second place finish in Nevada and some national momentum, our possibilities increase dramatically.

If we could be the only candidate to do well in both of the main early states, we would be in a hell of a position going forward. And best of all, this is a realistic possibility if we work hard enough.

[tangent4ronpaul]

A number of the things being brought up here were brought up in a previous thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299450-Plotting-r3VOLution-%E2%80%93-a-long-view-of-the-road-ahead

Paul came in 10th in SC's Straw Poll. It would have helped if he hadn't blown off attending it. (but so did all but one of the candidates who was rewarded for showing up with a landslide win)
He came in 7th in a PPP poll of SC voters earlier this month.

There are 2 "Super Tuesdays" this cycle, the first is 11 states, the second a month later is 9 states.

-t

[Zachary]

All the South looks grim for Paul if Perry gets in, but otherwise he should do well, particularly with some momentum. Iowa must be won!! If he cannot defeat two turkeys like Bachmann and Pawlenty the whole thing is hopeless anyway.

[BUSHLIED]

The early primaries are proportional so unless 'we' think we can't meet the threshold to acquire delegates in SC..a significant amount of money invested in SC is ill-advised. However, my take is that regardless of how Ron Paul performs in the early primary states and Super Tuesday, he must be on the ballot in all 50 states. Which reminds me, does the campaign have to acquire ballot signatures this time around? He already ran and was on ballots in 2007...does he have to do this again or does he get a pass?

Romney is a weak frontrunner/candidate so my guess is that two more candidates could very well jump in the race...my cycnical sense is that the establishment will woo someone to jump into the race in order to pull delegates away and then drop out and give them to Romney so that there is no brokered convention. The entire GOP establishment is against Paul (and probably Bachmann too) so they are going to set-up a way to ensure a certified RINO wins...sadly, my reading between the lines, is that this is the way US politics works...

Ron Paul has got to get to IOWA and campaign so hard its not funny...townhalls, townhalls, townhalls...Rand Paul, Rand Paul, Rand Paul surrogating for Paul...Doug Weed surrogating for Paul...who else are they/could they pick-up to surrogate?

Also, I hope these C4L chapters with district captains are sleepers, working behind the scene and GOTV...

[ronpaulordietrying]

You don't have revolution if we are going to be skipping folks

[libertybrewcity]

There shouldn't be any talk about skipping any states. The campaign needs to go all out. We need to go all out.

[realtonygoodwin]

I think South Carolina is the MOST important state. Iowa and NH are important, but only because they will provide the momentum needed to win in South Carolina. To win the GOP nomination, you must win SC!

[Badger Paul]

Some interesting news today concerning South Carolina. I got this from the Washington Post:

"South Carolina may have to run caucus instead of primary: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) may force the first-in-the-South primary to become the first-in-the-South caucus.

Haley is expected to veto some of the state election commission’s funding, in a move that could prevent it from being able to help the state GOP run a primary. The move would likely force the party to hold a less-expensive caucus, potentially diminishing its importance in the presidential process.

Two of the four designated early states — Iowa and Nevada — run caucuses, while New Hampshire and South Carolina are currently primary states.

“She’s got every right to veto anything she wants,” said new state GOP Chairman Chad Connelly. Connelly added: “We believe the process is in jeopardy. This isn’t about the money as much as it is about the legal issue.”

No candidate has won the GOP nomination without winning this state since 1964. If we do well in New Hampshire, which we have to in order to win this thing, we'll do well in South Carolina. And if its a caucus instead of a primary, so much the better.

In South Carolina, the parties have to pay to have a primary.

[newyearsrevolution08]

We need to campaign everywhere FOR HIM. We need to be like fight club damn it. Get his message to everyone so that IF he can't get to those people WE WILL. We don't need to skip anything, and his campaign needs to stop playing by the same rules as mittens is because that fucker is showboatin now.

He is going to england to fund raise or skipping this and that to remove this sort of buzz. He is playing politics and I think people in south carolina should be made aware of that.

Another thing is, people need to stop classify entire states or districts as reds or blues. All that means is that people haven't been made aware yet and there is only SO MANY PEOPLE voting. Wake the state by waking up the sheep and soon enough they will dust off their voting ability and start voting FOR the constitution.

[pacelli]

How long before we start predicting that the campaign's idea is another brokered convention? How many Paul delegates voted McStain in 08?

[newyearsrevolution08]

How long before we start predicting that the campaign's idea is another brokered convention? How many Paul delegates voted McStain in 08?

I saw that and about threw up, just like those assholes who sold or traded their seats..

why even go and SOME went on our dime.

not trying to rehash 07/08

keep moving forward

Ron Paul or Bust

[sailingaway]

All the South looks grim for Paul if Perry gets in, but otherwise he should do well, particularly with some momentum. Iowa must be won!! If he cannot defeat two turkeys like Bachmann and Pawlenty the whole thing is hopeless anyway.

I don't think Perry is a game changer. He might hurt in Texas because he has a grip on the state party, but people who want what he has will go elsewhere anyhow. He is a Romney type with minimal conservative gloss. I don't think there is any one litmus test, but clearly the the campaign is putting a lot of focus on Iowa and New Hampshire, since this poisonous 'he can't win' meme they throw at Ron would explode if he won one of those states. And that really would be a gamechanger.

[Elwar]

The game changer this time around will be Florida.

They are changing things up a bit. They want to be an early state so they have decided to go with an early "straw poll" where all Republicans in the state vote as though they are voting in a primary but the vote doesn't count toward delegates. Then later in the year they will have the actual vote for delegates.

What sucks about Florida is that it caters toward the establishment. You have a closed primary and a good ol' boy system.

Mitt Romney supported Rubio throughout the campaign so you know that he will get Rubio's endorsement. Rubio has the backing of Fox News.

Florida is also made up of a lot of senior voters. They are still stuck in the old ways and will go with the guy who makes sure that their medicare and social security checks keep flowing.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Some interesting news today concerning South Carolina. I got this from the Washington Post:

"South Carolina may have to run caucus instead of primary: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) may force the first-in-the-South primary to become the first-in-the-South caucus.

Haley is expected to veto some of the state election commission’s funding, in a move that could prevent it from being able to help the state GOP run a primary. The move would likely force the party to hold a less-expensive caucus, potentially diminishing its importance in the presidential process.

Two of the four designated early states — Iowa and Nevada — run caucuses, while New Hampshire and South Carolina are currently primary states.

“She’s got every right to veto anything she wants,” said new state GOP Chairman Chad Connelly. Connelly added: “We believe the process is in jeopardy. This isn’t about the money as much as it is about the legal issue.”

No candidate has won the GOP nomination without winning this state since 1964. If we do well in New Hampshire, which we have to in order to win this thing, we'll do well in South Carolina. And if its a caucus instead of a primary, so much the better.

In South Carolina, the parties have to pay to have a primary.

This is very interesting.

How soon will we know and how can we best win the state in the 2 scenarios?

-t

[1836]

Some interesting news today concerning South Carolina. I got this from the Washington Post:

"South Carolina may have to run caucus instead of primary: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) may force the first-in-the-South primary to become the first-in-the-South caucus.

Haley is expected to veto some of the state election commission’s funding, in a move that could prevent it from being able to help the state GOP run a primary. The move would likely force the party to hold a less-expensive caucus, potentially diminishing its importance in the presidential process.

Two of the four designated early states — Iowa and Nevada — run caucuses, while New Hampshire and South Carolina are currently primary states.

“She’s got every right to veto anything she wants,” said new state GOP Chairman Chad Connelly. Connelly added: “We believe the process is in jeopardy. This isn’t about the money as much as it is about the legal issue.”

No candidate has won the GOP nomination without winning this state since 1964. If we do well in New Hampshire, which we have to in order to win this thing, we'll do well in South Carolina. And if its a caucus instead of a primary, so much the better.

In South Carolina, the parties have to pay to have a primary.

Well, ****, wouldn't you know it. Just as we are discussing this. Just as I voted "yes" on this poll.

IF South Carolina becomes a caucus state, and that is a big IF, then we should absolutely spend a ton of money and put some serious resources there. I might even argue, actually, that we would need to focus on it as much as or more than New Hampshire if it does become a caucus state.

Caucuses are our best shot, without a doubt.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The game changer this time around will be Florida.

They are changing things up a bit. They want to be an early state so they have decided to go with an early "straw poll" where all Republicans in the state vote as though they are voting in a primary but the vote doesn't count toward delegates. Then later in the year they will have the actual vote for delegates.

What sucks about Florida is that it caters toward the establishment. You have a closed primary and a good ol' boy system.

Mitt Romney supported Rubio throughout the campaign so you know that he will get Rubio's endorsement. Rubio has the backing of Fox News.

Florida is also made up of a lot of senior voters. They are still stuck in the old ways and will go with the guy who makes sure that their medicare and social security checks keep flowing.

This doesn't sound right. FL just went through that delegate selection so those chosen could vote in the P5 straw poll. So it's not all republicans. Someone also wrote that while the RPOF got a certain % of delegates, they were putting their people up for nomination/lottery in competition with the public (registered republicans). So instead of the RPOF haveing something like 15% of "establishment" votes, they will have much more this time - for the straw poll. I think these "delegates" only count for that - but not sure.

Agree with SS/Medicare - what Paul needs to push here is that he's got a plan that will save them, while the others don't.

This should be broken off to the P5 sub-forum as it's off topic here.

-t

[sailingaway]

The game changer this time around will be Florida.



Florida is also made up of a lot of senior voters. They are still stuck in the old ways and will go with the guy who makes sure that their medicare and social security checks keep flowing.

Then they should want Ron Paul. The USSR had guaranteed income and healthcare for seniors and look what happened to it when the didn't run a credible budget....

I really think we could market that point a lot more and better than we are doing now.

[Zarn Solen]

As a caucus, SC become much more achievable. IA, NH, and are all takeable. As stated, the biggest obstacle is FL.

I think if Paul takes IA and takes at least second in NH, FL becomes a little easier. NV and SC become much easier.

[newyearsrevolution08]

If we are still playing the same political game then we are not going to win any of them. We have to change the way people VIEW our president and what they want he/she to do while in office. Many people BELIEVE our president is supposed to take care of the economy, health, cars, roads, EVERYTHING and no amount of money or THE CONSTITUTION is RIGHT is going to change that.

So my question is, what can we do to change the outlook of the presidential role itself in America?

[Badger Paul]

Caucuses in small states like Iowa and Nevada and hopefully South Carolina are very doable. Win or do well in these and we'll be in darn good shape for Florida.