Chasing Democrats & Liberals For RP2012 = FAIL!

[Napoleon's Shadow]

I spoke to someone recently who was around in 2008. Apparently the official campaign gave an all-out effort in some specific localities in Iowa to turn out Democrats and liberals to the caucuses for Ron Paul. They said their results were essentially zero. They have tested this and realize that it is a complete and utter waste of time to attempt to convert Democrats and liberals who support Ron Paul into votes. Less than 2% of Democrat Ron Paul supporters will actually make the transition to the Republican caucus or primary to vote for Ron.

And this makes perfect sense. There are some Republicans around here who like some of the things Dennis Kucinich stands for. However how many of them would actually switch parties to vote for him? Almost none.



This race will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron Paul. Our universe for electoral victory is ONLY those Republicans who will likely vote in the primary and attend the caucus.

[sevin]

Maybe.

But this time there are a lot of anti-war Democrats who are angry with Obama and might switch parties to vote Ron Paul just for the sake of ending the wars.

However, I agree it's still probably not worth the campaign's time. But don't stop trying to convince your Democrat friends.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Come here to Boulder, and I will show you how well it works.

[Yieu]

null!

Oops, wrong thread. I mean to say, that there are many things different about this election than last. Last time, we were coming out of 8 years of a Republican War President. Now we're coming out of 4 years of a Democrat War President. True, a hardcore Democrat is not likely to change their party, but last election there were some who thought since a Republican had us at war for so long, maybe a Democrat would get us out (most of us saw through the pandering and knew we'd get more war). But by now some of them might be disaffecting -- that is, the ones that are more-so independent than Democrat as far as party affiliation goes.

So, I'm not going to tell people how to find new votes, but I just wanted to point out that there are many who swing their vote from party to party, and they tend to change their vote from one party to the other after having experienced a few years of one. But as far as primary votes go, perhaps independents and registered republicans might be more likely? I'm not an expert, I just wanted to inject some devils advocate arguments into the thread.

[Razmear]

http://rp4.us/ftp/pub/poll726.png
Democrats and Independents are who will win us the Nomination, especially if Obama is not challenged in the primary. Dems will have the choice to stay home or vote for the anti-war Republican. Even a 5% turnout would be huge.

eb

[justinpagewood]

Come here to Boulder, and I will show you how well it works.

Agreed. I think it really depends on the city you're based in.

[sailingaway]

I spoke to someone recently who was around in 2008. Apparently the official campaign gave an all-out effort in some specific localities in Iowa to turn out Democrats and liberals to the caucuses for Ron Paul. They said their results were essentially zero. They have tested this and realize that it is a complete and utter waste of time to attempt to convert Democrats and liberals who support Ron Paul into votes. Less than 2% of Democrat Ron Paul supporters will actually make the transition to the Republican caucus or primary to vote for Ron.

And this makes perfect sense. There are some Republicans around here who like some of the things Dennis Kucinich stands for. However how many of them would actually switch parties to vote for him? Almost none.



This race will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron Paul. Our universe for electoral victory is ONLY those Republicans who will likely vote in the primary and attend the caucus.

2008 was when Obamamania was in full swing. I don't see a lot of that around any more, do you?

I'm against the rp2012 phone bank thing because it steps on what the campaign is doing. But you don't have to work on outreach, those of us who value it can.

[Invi]

I can't possibly see this being a waste in states with open primaries. Otherwise? Eh. Tough call.
I've convinced several rather liberal people I know from MO to turn out for the Republican primary to vote for Paul. I don't see that as a waste of energy, even though others I have talked to will have none of it.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Democrats and Independents are who will win us the Nomination, especially if Obama is not challenged in the primary. Dems will have the choice to stay home or vote for the anti-war Republican. Even a 5% turnout would be huge.

ebThis has been proven wrong. As mentioned, the campaign did it last time and tested it thoroughly.


2008 was when Obamamania was in full swing. I don't see a lot of that around any more, do you?

I'm against the rp2012 phone bank thing because it steps on what the campaign is doing. But you don't have to work on outreach, those of us who value it can.Why waste the time and squander the resources on something that is guaranteed not to work? :confused:


So, I'm not going to tell people how to find new votes, but I just wanted to point out that there are many who swing their vote from party to party, and they tend to change their vote from one party to the other after having experienced a few years of one. But as far as primary votes go, perhaps independents and registered republicans might be more likely? I'm not an expert, I just wanted to inject some devils advocate arguments into the thread.You're right. There are many swings, but not during the primaries, only the general.


Come here to Boulder, and I will show you how well it works.How many Democrats vote in a Republican primary in Boulder? :confused:

How well did RP do in that county in 2008?

[RonPaulVolunteer]

How many Democrats vote in a Republican primary in Boulder? :confused:

How well did RP do in that county in 2008?

This is not 2008, and we don't have primaries.

[TheTyke]

Nap's Shadow is absolutely right about this. Democrats & liberals do not win Republican primaries. Rand won in KY by contacting and courting every likely Republican voter. That's how you win. As someone who PERSONALLY tried to get people to switch and vote for him, I can tell you that only a completely insignificant number bothered to switch.

I even think these well-publicized movements to get Democrats to vote will drive off more Republican votes than they attract. At any rate, contact all the millions of Republicans before spending time on desperate strategies.

[MJU1983]

I'd say yes and no. I've seen TONS of people who voted for Obama that have written him off completely and are now fully on board with Ron Paul, and no one else.

Any and all votes can be helpful in the primary, especially if the state has an open primary where people don't have to change party affiliation. But even there I've explained the process in an easy to understand manner and have seen people switch to being registered Republican just so they can vote for Dr. Paul in their closed state primary.

[trey4sports]

I spoke to someone recently who was around in 2008

Matt Collins possibly?

[Razmear]

This has been proven wrong. As mentioned, the campaign did it last time and tested it thoroughly.



Last time there was also a tight democratic race, this time Obama will likely run unopposed leaving dems with the choice of staying home or voting for the only anti-war Republican running, even if only as a spoiler.
There is no comparison between last election and this one so courting democrats to come vote in the primaries makes perfect sense and is not a Fail.

[trey4sports]

Nap's Shadow is absolutely right about this. Democrats & liberals do not win Republican primaries. Rand won in KY by contacting and courting every likely Republican voter. That's how you win. As someone who PERSONALLY tried to get people to switch and vote for him, I can tell you that only a completely insignificant number bothered to switch.

I even think these well-publicized movements to get Democrats to vote will drive off more Republican votes than they attract. At any rate, contact all the millions of Republicans before spending time on desperate strategies.


Agreed



It simply doesn't work guys. You can come up with your subjective reasons why folks should crossover and vote in the GOP primary but objective evidence would say that doesn't happen and is not a winning strategy.

[sailingaway]

This has been proven wrong. As mentioned, the campaign did it last time and tested it thoroughly.

Why waste the time and squander the resources on something that is guaranteed not to work? :confused:

You're right. There are many swings, but not during the primaries, only the general.

How many Democrats vote in a Republican primary in Boulder? :confused:

How well did RP do in that county in 2008?

2008 had the bright and shiny Obama-dream beckoning. 2008 is not persuasive to me regarding 2012. What IS persuasive to me is a poll that was done here a couple of months ago asking people what party they were before they became Ron Paul supporters. The largest chunk was GOP, but there were as many independents as Dems as libertarians as I recall, which is about half each as many as had been GOP. And there were peace and freedom people. The only party NOT represented was the Green Party.

[sailingaway]

Nap's Shadow is absolutely right about this. Democrats & liberals do not win Republican primaries. Rand won in KY by contacting and courting every likely Republican voter. That's how you win. As someone who PERSONALLY tried to get people to switch and vote for him, I can tell you that only a completely insignificant number bothered to switch.

I even think these well-publicized movements to get Democrats to vote will drive off more Republican votes than they attract. At any rate, contact all the millions of Republicans before spending time on desperate strategies.

That is how you win IN KENTUCKY. And I agree Ron needs to do that, too.

And I am not suggesting a well publicized effort, just individual outreach to people you know care about the issues Ron represents, enough that they might question their vote for Obama.

Ron DOMINATES with independents. It isn't switching, they vote for one party then the next depending on the issues of the day. I am not sure that we can win without them, and if the GOP wants to win the general, they should be EAGER to go for the candidate independents like.

[jmdrake]

This has been proven wrong. As mentioned, the campaign did it last time and tested it thoroughly.

Last time there was a contested democratic presidential primary.

[goRPaul]

Did any of us switch parties to vote for Kucinich? Even if you did, it wasn't enough to make an impact.

A lot of the "anti-war" Democrats now defend Obama's "surgical strikes" where "nobody dies that doesn't have to".

I agree- the majority of time and money courting Democrats is wasted. It should be a last resort, not a first option. They'll come if they see the bigger picture, but they won't be convinced by you.

[libertybrewcity]

RP will NOT win if he tries to persuade Democrats to vote for him. This strategy has failed many many times before. John Dennis in San Francisco? Just look at the vote count.

The anti-war message is only a fraction of his overall message. Democrats may like that, but they take one look at everything else and they are out.

Guess who votes in Republican Primaries? REPUBLICANS! And they will be coming out in droves in 2012. RP has more in common with the biggest pro-war hawk than any democrat out there.

If we are trying to get democrats to vote for RP, we have some serious issues.

Find likely voting Republicans. Go door to door, hand out fliers, volunteer for the campaign, donate money, and get your family and friends to vote. Let's be for real about this.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The "Dennis, 08, Kucinich" issues are missing an important element:

Liberals voted for Pelosi
Liberals voted for Obama
We voted for Ron

This time:

No democratic race or primaries
Nobody for them to vote for
Ron is still around

It should not be a focus of the official campaign, but those at the grassroots level who are more comfortable speaking to liberals and democrats - especially in open primary states - should do just that. Let's be honest, people who are better able to speak the liberal language aren't going to be any more successful talking to red meat republicans than they are getting democrats to vote in an open primary.

TL;DR

Division of labor.

[SilentBull]

Agree 100%! I can't believe there are supporters entertaining this idea.

[sailingaway]

RP will NOT win if he tries to persuade Democrats to vote for him. This strategy has failed many many times before. John Dennis in San Francisco? Just look at the vote count.

The anti-war message is only a fraction of his overall message. Democrats may like that, but they take one look at everything else and they are out.

Guess who votes in Republican Primaries? REPUBLICANS! And they will be coming out in droves in 2012. RP has more in common with the biggest pro-war hawk than any democrat out there.

If we are trying to get democrats to vote for RP, we have some serious issues.

Find likely voting Republicans. Go door to door, hand out fliers, volunteer for the campaign, donate money, and get your family and friends to vote. Let's be for real about this.

John Dennis was not Ron Paul, and didn't have Ron Paul's record, or really any record at all. John Dennis is one of my favorite candidates, but I wouldn't expect him to get the independents Ron would get based on Ron's long record. And there is a difference between independents and Democrats as well. Independents have no particular 'party loyalty' to Obama.

And at this point there are more independents in the US than there are registered Republicans.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

This thread is such a classic case of "those who say it can't be done should not get in the way of those doing it".

[brushfire]

Use the previous election footage to show liberals how much Ron Paul is despised by the establishment politicians.

Wanna pi$$ a republican off? Grab a republican ballot this primary -vote RP.

[Razmear]

This thread is such a classic case of "those who say it can't be done should not get in the way of those doing it".

Thank You! and +rep for stating the obvious so well.
I'm in SC, going after Dem's here is pretty pointless, but anyone in a northern or liberal state should run with the Blue Republican meme.

[LatinsforPaul]

Democrats and Independents are who will win us the Nomination, especially if Obama is not challenged in the primary. Dems will have the choice to stay home or vote for the anti-war Republican. Even a 5% turnout would be huge. eb

I agree 100%. There will be no Democrat Primaries in any state. The antiwar vote from Independents and even some Democrats will come and vote for Paul in the OPEN primaries. Just look at RPF and see how many former Democrats are now Dr. Paul supporters.

[AJ Antimony]

OP, you're absolutely right! I agree completely!

Some people here are just obsessed with losing. I mean shit, do they have any historical evidence at all that shows converting Dems and Indys works better than converting Reps?

And then I love how they confuse "the campaign shouldn't go after Dems and Indys" with "nobody should take to their Dem and Indy friends"

Let me explain the best strategy to everyone:
- When you're chilling with your Dem and Indy friends and politics comes up, feel free to try to convert them
- When you decide to take a good chunk out of your day to go out and recruit for Ron Paul, specifically target likely Republican voters or caucus-goers.

[LatinsforPaul]

This is not 2008, and we don't have primaries.

+1

[AJ Antimony]

I agree 100%. There will be no Democrat Primaries in any state. The antiwar vote from Independents and even some Democrats will come and vote for Paul in the OPEN primaries. Just look at RPF and see how many former Democrats are now Dr. Paul supporters.

No they won't! A Republican primary is called a Republican primary because it's the primary for Republicans. Imagine that!

Unless you can show us some electoral history where a presidential primary was decided by the other party's voters, then your theory is completely ludicrous.

Sorry, but Republicans pick their nominee, not Democrats or Independents.

[LatinsforPaul]

No they won't! A Republican primary is called a Republican primary because it's the primary for Republicans. Imagine that!

Unless you can show us some electoral history where a presidential primary was decided by the other party's voters, then your theory is completely ludicrous.

Sorry, but Republicans pick their nominee, not Democrats or Independents.

Have you ever heard of an "OPEN" primay? All voters can take part in an open primary, but the party may require them to express their support to the party's values and pay a small contribution to the costs of the primary.


We must organize and put the strongest efforts in these states to encourage Democrats and Independents to vote for Ron Paul and capture all the Delegates of these Open Republican Primary States:

Alabama (50)
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters, except for the Libertarian primary.)(57)
Arkansas (36)
Georgia (75)
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)(20)
Idaho (32)
Indiana (46)
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)(41)
Michigan (59)
Mississippi (37)
Missouri (53)
South Carolina (50)
Tennessee (58)
Texas (152)
Vermont (17)
Virginia (49)
Wisconsin (42)

There might be some that I am missing.

Total delegates for our taking in these Open Republican Primaries: 874 (1,212 needed to win) http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Unless you can show us some electoral history where a presidential primary was decided by the other party's voters, then your theory is completely ludicrous.

Read as: Unless you can show us some electoral history where Ron Paul won the Presidency, then your theory he can win is completely ludicrous.

Same diff. So why are you here again?

[speciallyblend]

I spoke to someone recently who was around in 2008. Apparently the official campaign gave an all-out effort in some specific localities in Iowa to turn out Democrats and liberals to the caucuses for Ron Paul. They said their results were essentially zero. They have tested this and realize that it is a complete and utter waste of time to attempt to convert Democrats and liberals who support Ron Paul into votes. Less than 2% of Democrat Ron Paul supporters will actually make the transition to the Republican caucus or primary to vote for Ron.

And this makes perfect sense. There are some Republicans around here who like some of the things Dennis Kucinich stands for. However how many of them would actually switch parties to vote for him? Almost none.



This race will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron Paul. Our universe for electoral victory is ONLY those Republicans who will likely vote in the primary and attend the caucus.

if it is a fail. then i guess i can leave the gop and let you replace me with someone else, thanks ;)

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?301331-Who-did-you-vote-for-in-2004&highlight=vote+2004

[amy31416]

Napoleon's Shadow is a new member, he doesn't know shit and could be an agent provocateur. If you're good at converting liberals and independents, keep it up.

[BUSHLIED]

Maybe Ron can start by getting to IOWA more so that he can win the straw poll...

A look at IOWA"

Tim Pawlenty
Days in IOWA: 37
Events: 83

Rick Santorum
Days: 37
Events: 80

Newt Gingrich
Days:28
Events: 51

Michele Bachmann
Days: 25
Events: 43

Herman Cain
Days:27
Events: 43

Ron Paul
Days: 19
Events: 29

Mitt Romney
Days: 3
Events: 8

Jon Huntsman
Days:0
Events: 0

Gary Johnson
Days: 3
Events: 3

Thaddeus McCotter
Days: 1
Events: 1

Buddy Roemer
Days: 2
Events: 2

[Karsten]

It depends on which state you're in and if the primaries are open or closed.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

There are more threads here it seems sometimes about winning over leftists/liberals/progressives than conservatives. In a Republican primary, in which many states have closed primaries.

Do you think conservatives, the ones that will decide the nominee, will like Ron Paul supporters suggesting this stuff if it ever got reported on by a major media outlet?

[LatinsforPaul]

Maybe Ron can start by getting to IOWA more so that he can win the straw poll...


Remember Paul, Bachmann and McCotter are the only candidates that are in Congress. The only reason Bachmann has more appearances than Paul is because she's missed so many votes (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173441-bachmann-skips-40-percent-of-votes-since-launching-bid).

[trey4sports]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?301331-Who-did-you-vote-for-in-2004&highlight=vote+2004

that's indicative of the grassroots, not primary/caucus voters.

[trey4sports]

There are more threads here it seems sometimes about winning over leftists/liberals/progressives than conservatives. In a Republican primary, in which many states have closed primaries.

Do you think conservatives, the ones that will decide the nominee, will like Ron Paul supporters suggesting this stuff if it ever got reported on by a major media outlet?

no, and targeting R's (and in some places I's) will be much easier than getting crossover votes.

[Jandrsn21]

I've had personal success with disenfranchised "liberals." Making this strategy a focal point of our campaign is probably foolish, however, if you can spread the message of liberty, by all means do your best! I've seen many post regarding reaching out to liberals and many of them are negative. I say, reach out to as many as you can, liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, who gives a flying f!@#, if they will switch parties, talk you f!@#$ng A$$ off!

[Jandrsn21]

Whoever made this thread = fail! Talk to anyone who will listen!!!!

[LibertyEagle]

Whoever made this thread = fail! Talk to anyone who will listen!!!!

He's just saying to talk to the Republicans FIRST and I think he is right.

I have seen several Dems who say they will vote for Ron Paul in the general, if he makes it, but not one is willing to change parties to vote in the primary. Of course, this is going to differ by state a bit.

[BUSHLIED]

Remember Paul, Bachmann and McCotter are the only candidates that are in Congress. The only reason Bachmann has more appearances than Paul is because she's missed so many votes (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173441-bachmann-skips-40-percent-of-votes-since-launching-bid).

I know. Ron has some votes that he can miss before it will be seen negatively...he still has weekends too...he needs to spent at least another 10 days in IOWA, yet he only has like 17 days until the straw poll...this is the make it or break event, he should not worry about Congress right now, after the straw poll he can get back ton congress for a bit

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

It is stupid for the campaign to go after Democrats and Independents. It would be a waste of time and resources for the campaign to even attempt it. Now it is the exact opposite when it comes to the grassroots. We are the ones who should be hammering on the Democrats and Independents to get out the vote for Ron.

[Jandrsn21]

He's just saying to talk to the Republicans FIRST and I think he is right.

I have seen several Dems who say they will vote for Ron Paul in the general, if he makes it, but not one is willing to change parties to vote in the primary. Of course, this is going to differ by state a bit.

We disagree here, talk your A$$ off, if they have ears, and they can comprehend the English language, talk until your jaw is swollen!

[LibertyEagle]

We disagree here, talk your A$$ off, if they have ears, and they can comprehend the English language, talk until your jaw is swollen!

It's more important to LISTEN to people and hear what their major concerns are, rather than just talking until your jaw is swollen. Because if you listen, then you will have to talk much less and have a much better chance of targeting your message.

[Jandrsn21]

It is stupid for the campaign to go after Democrats and Independents. It would be a waste of time and resources for the campaign to even attempt it. Now it is the exact opposite when it comes to the grassroots. We are the ones who should be hammering on the Democrats and Independents to get out the vote for Ron.

Yep!

[LibertyEagle]

It is stupid for the campaign to go after Democrats and Independents. It would be a waste of time and resources for the campaign to even attempt it. Now it is the exact opposite when it comes to the grassroots. We are the ones who should be hammering on the Democrats and Independents to get out the vote for Ron.

BEFORE we do same for REPUBLICAN voters????? Don't you think that is kind of nuts? We are talking about the Republican primary, here.

The "campaign" doesn't have the manpower to canvass all of the Republicans in the country. That is where volunteers come in. ie. US. How did you think the "campaign" was going to do all that by themselves? Or, am I misunderstanding you?

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

BEFORE we do same for REPUBLICAN voters????? Don't you think that is kind of nuts? We are talking about the Republican primary, here.

The "campaign" doesn't have the manpower to canvass all of the Republicans in the country. That is where volunteers come in. ie. US. How did you think the "campaign" was going to do all that by themselves? Or, am I misunderstanding you?

I never said before Republican voters and not sure why you think I did. I am simply saying that it is stupid for the campaign to even bother with appealing to people who are not GOP voters. It is our job, as grassroots supporters, to be hammering on them. Of course we go after Republicans but we as the grassroots have the luxury of being able to attempt persuasion with Democrats and Independents as well. When I talk to someone about Ron, I don't think I have ever asked what their party affiliation is first, I just know they are a human and somewhere inside them is a desire for freedom. Will a lot of Democrats switch over? No, probably not but I know some who I have convinced to switch parties just to vote for Ron. So to summarize.. It is stupid for the campaign to try to convince everyone and it is stupid for us as the grassroots to ignore who the campaign is not targeting. What the campaign cannot do- we can (and should) be doing.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

We disagree here, talk your A$$ off, if they have ears, and they can comprehend the English language, talk until your jaw is swollen!

I am kind of trying to say what he/she is saying. We should be targeting anyone who will listen. Yes, we will find the greatest success with GOP voters but we can also persuade some Democrats and a LOT of Independent voters to our side if we just try.

NOTE: "We" in this instance means the grassroots and NOT the official campaign.

[Revolution9]

I am standing on a street corner passing out literature. A crowd of people amble by. They are young and old, one has a mohawk, one is obviously grandma, one is in USMC uniform, Mr Dad and a knockout blonde that may be his wife or not, some teenagers and an Uncle Bob type who may be liberal or hardcore conservative. One side says talk to them. The other side says only talk to republicans. Just how in the frakkin heck am I gonna do that...ya know, take half of the bunch and separate them as possible republicans. It just does not make any sense. You cannot possibly know someones party affiliation just by seeing them on the street. You can make a good guess at best.

Rev9

[Slutter McGee]

For the life of me, I can not figure out why people are getting upset, as long as this is not well publicized in a way that runs conservatives off. The compairisons made are not even close to the current situations,

I don't think it is likely to work real well, but it will work at least a little. Thats more votes for Paul, and it aint being done by this official campaign. Which means I dont have to waste any money if I don't believe in it.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

I spoke to someone recently who was around in 2008. Apparently the official campaign gave an all-out effort in some specific localities in Iowa to turn out Democrats and liberals to the caucuses for Ron Paul. They said their results were essentially zero. They have tested this and realize that it is a complete and utter waste of time to attempt to convert Democrats and liberals who support Ron Paul into votes. Less than 2% of Democrat Ron Paul supporters will actually make the transition to the Republican caucus or primary to vote for Ron.

And this makes perfect sense. There are some Republicans around here who like some of the things Dennis Kucinich stands for. However how many of them would actually switch parties to vote for him? Almost none.



This race will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron Paul. Our universe for electoral victory is ONLY those Republicans who will likely vote in the primary and attend the caucus.

Sorry, the conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence.

1) The places where Dem crossover votes would be the most significant are the ones where they significantly outnumber Republicans, not Iowa.

2) The places where Dem crossover votes would be the most significant are the ones that have open primaries (i.e. you don't have to be registered for a party). In Iowa you have to be a registered Republican to participate in the Republican caucuses.

3) The election years where Dem crossover votes would be the most significant are ones where they have little incentive to vote in their own party's primary. 2012 is one those, 2008 wasn't.

4) The best people to do this are actual Democrats or people whose spheres of influence are Democrats, acting outside the official campaign.

5) I don't know what happened in Iowa. But I do remember when the official campaign sent one of their staffers to help in Michigan in 2008, and one of the things that staffer was to work on was reaching out to clergy in black churches. And from my recollection, that was an utter failure, but it was mainly because the staffer doing it was so awful that everything they touched got worse.

6) Whether crossover votes helped RP in 2008 or not, there's plenty of other data out there from other campaigns, and there have clearly been some cases where crossover voters made a difference of who won certain primaries. McCain beat Bush in Michigan in 2000 because of Dems crossing over, and that was due to a concerted effort involving unions, any role McCain's official campaign had in that was hidden way deep behind the scenes. Hillary beat Obama in a lot of the later primary states in 2008 because of Republicans crossing over. I personally spoke to many die-hard Republicans here in Indiana who voted for Hillary in the primary just because they thought it would put a bump in the road for Obama. I believe she wouldn't have won the state without those votes. It happens. It's not at all unheard of, or even that rare. But the circumstances have to be right for it.

[sailingaway]

There are a bunch of open primaries. Ron does well with independents and even draws some Dems who really care about civil liberties and wars. Ignoring them seems silly to me.

[sailingaway]

It's more important to LISTEN to people and hear what their major concerns are, rather than just talking until your jaw is swollen. Because if you listen, then you will have to talk much less and have a much better chance of targeting your message.

Well, that is certainly true. Which is why you are supposed to ask what the other person's big issue is, rather than lead with the most important one to you. They may not care about the federal reserve but may care about the Patriot Act and TSA, or whatever.

[Krugerrand]

Well, that is certainly true. Which is why you are supposed to ask what the other person's big issue is, rather than lead with the most important one to you. They may not care about the federal reserve but may care about the Patriot Act and TSA, or whatever.

A great leading question would probably be "what did you hate most about George Bush?" Odds are pretty good there is no difference between Bush and Obama on the issue, which leads well into Ron Paul.

[erowe1]

Well, that is certainly true. Which is why you are supposed to ask what the other person's big issue is, rather than lead with the most important one to you. They may not care about the federal reserve but may care about the Patriot Act and TSA, or whatever.

I agree, but even at this I think people are oversimplifying it.

It probably is the case that most of us will get the most bang for our buck by concentrating our campaigning on likely Republicans, rather than blindly going door-to-door. I count myself in that number, and I hope most others do. We should try to use our time the most efficiently we can, and most of the time, that will be the way to do it.

But that doesn't mean that rule has to apply to every single supporter out there. There are some people in some places who will get much bigger payoff than others by reaching outside the party. And I don't see why so many comments keep popping up trying to discourage that. Those folks will help RP win, so make the most of it.

[acptulsa]

And the fact that in '08 they had not yet seen Obama's true colors and now they have means nothing?

How reassuring it is when we see those who purport to be 'of our own' and 'on our side' trying to torpedo useful efforts which are working. Our efforts to get the media to report on He Who Must Not Be Named in '08 amounted to essentially zero as well, but I don't see you trying with a straight face to tell us that this hasn't changed. So why are you trying to tell us that the progress we see with our own eyes is no more than what we got in '08 when the love affair with the 'man of peace Obama' (who has since started a few more wars that he hadn't started then) was still in full flower?

I recommend that this troll thread be closed immediately.

[acptulsa]

Go tell Athena she's not worth my time, Matt:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305047-How-to-win-support-from-the-pissed-off-left

Tell her to her face that her passion and her friends' votes don't count. I weary of pwning you on this subject. We'll let her have a turn--if she considers you worthy of the effort.

[erowe1]

I recommend that this troll thread be closed immediately.

I don't think threads like this should be closed. People keep saying these things because there are folks out there who think it. We need to have the debate and air the arguments so that RP supporters can have an educated opinion about this, and see why the crowd saying "Don't ever under any circumstances try to get a Democrat to support Ron Paul." is wrong.

[acptulsa]

I don't think threads like this should be closed. People keep saying these things because there are folks out there who think it. We need to have the debate and air the arguments so that RP supporters can have an educated opinion about this, and see why the crowd saying "Don't ever under any circumstances try to get a Democrat to support Ron Paul." is wrong.

Well, you're right of course.

But I still think it's a troll thread.

[LibertyEagle]

Napoleon's Shadow is a new member, he doesn't know shit and could be an agent provocateur. If you're good at converting liberals and independents, keep it up.

I will vouch that he is not a troll.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

This is not 2008, and we don't have primaries.What data do you have to support the theory Democrats will switch over and vote for RP in a Republican primary / caucus? :confused:

I'd say yes and no. I've seen TONS of people who voted for Obama that have written him off completely and are now fully on board with Ron Paul, and no one else.Yes of course. But almost none of them will cross over to vote for Ron.

[erowe1]

What data do you have to support the theory Democrats will switch over and vote for RP in a Republican primary / caucus?

What? You can't do 5 minutes of research? You can't pull up the old threads where you asked that same question and it was already answered? Do you need help wiping your nose too?

Seriously, give this topic a rest. If there are other people who want to have a serious discussion about it, then we can have a good discussion. But if you're just going to ride it as a hobby horse and not pay attention to what others say or run what you yourself are saying through a basic sieve of critical thinking, then why not just bump one of your old threads?

[LibertyEagle]

I never said before Republican voters and not sure why you think I did. I am simply saying that it is stupid for the campaign to even bother with appealing to people who are not GOP voters. It is our job, as grassroots supporters, to be hammering on them. Of course we go after Republicans but we as the grassroots have the luxury of being able to attempt persuasion with Democrats and Independents as well. When I talk to someone about Ron, I don't think I have ever asked what their party affiliation is first, I just know they are a human and somewhere inside them is a desire for freedom. Will a lot of Democrats switch over? No, probably not but I know some who I have convinced to switch parties just to vote for Ron. So to summarize.. It is stupid for the campaign to try to convince everyone and it is stupid for us as the grassroots to ignore who the campaign is not targeting. What the campaign cannot do- we can (and should) be doing.

Okey dokey, but you know as well as I do, that some people put going after Dems with fliers OVER canvassing REPUBLICAN VOTERS, in the last election's REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. Canvassing, going to Republican meetings, becoming delegates, etc. were outside of a lot of people's comfort zone, so they convinced themselves that sign-waving was just as beneficial. It wasn't. That is not to say that there isn't benefit in it, or in going after Democrats, but if we do not at the very minimum do the things that have been proven over and over and over again, that win elections, we will most certainly lose. After we have those things covered, then everything else is gravy and hell yes, we should do it. :D

[acptulsa]

What data do you have to support the theory Democrats will switch over and vote for RP in a Republican primary / caucus? :confused:
Yes of course. But almost none of them will cross over to vote for Ron.

Go tell Athena we don't want her support. Go do it. I want to see this in public.

We're on the ground talking to people. We know what reaction we're getting. You just simply refuse to believe us. Well, sir, I am not a liar, and every little bit helps. We are doing good here, just like having a band helps get young people on the bandwagon. You keep calling these unproven tactics. Well, not only are they NOT unprecedented, but we're proving you wrong every day.

If you actually want to help the campaign, why don't you tell us how to win over neocons, instead of telling us not to do what we're doing and know for a fact is working? Because I have personally gotten Democrats to change their registrations here where I live. And I am not alone.

And I won't stop on your say so, either. Forget it.

Trying to get someone's supporters to stop doing what is working and working well. Boy, wouldn't Nixon have been proud if he could have figured out how to do that to an opponent?

[VegasPatriot]

What data do you have to support the theory Democrats will switch over and vote for RP in a Republican primary / caucus? :confused
Look at Nevada in 2008. The hundreds of newly registered republicans gave RP a slim majority at the Nevada state convention. Enough to win the majority of delegates to national(if the convention was not illegality ended by the old school GOP).

[acptulsa]

Look at Nevada in 2008. The hundreds of newly registered republicans gave RP a slim majority at the Nevada state convention. Enough to win the majority of delegates to national(if the convention was not illegality ended by the old school GOP).

And that was just independents. That was before the Democrats got backstabbed by their Monsanto-loving, warmongering 'messiah'. Now we have more than double the potential. Well more than double.

[erowe1]

Okey dokey, but you know as well as I do, that some people put going after Dems with fliers OVER canvassing REPUBLICAN VOTERS, in the last election's REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. Canvassing, going to Republican meetings, becoming delegates, etc. were outside of a lot of people's comfort zone, so they convinced themselves that sign-waving was just as beneficial. It wasn't. That is not to say that there isn't benefit in it, or in going after Democrats, but if we do not at the very minimum do the things that have been proven over and over and over again, that win elections, we will most certainly lose. After we have those things covered, then everything else is gravy and hell yes, we should do it. :D

I definitely agree that sign waving is less effective than traditional campaign methods. But for a lot of those people who are out of their comfort zones around Republicans, there are important reasons for that. Some of those people are not the people I would want standing next to me when I'm talking to another Republican about Ron Paul. Those people should work in whatever their niche is. Also, when some volunteer is excited about helping in some specific way, and they get told that the only way they can help is by doing something they would not at all enjoy doing, then that can do more harm than good. When we have volunteers like that, we need to put their enthusiasm to use.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

And then I love how they confuse "the campaign shouldn't go after Dems and Indys" with "nobody should take to their Dem and Indy friends"

Let me explain the best strategy to everyone:
- When you're chilling with your Dem and Indy friends and politics comes up, feel free to try to convert them
- When you decide to take a good chunk out of your day to go out and recruit for Ron Paul, specifically target likely Republican voters or caucus-goers.
Probably the best post of this thread! (including my OP)

[LibertyEagle]

The moral of the story is to please not forget about covering the Republicans. It is their primary, after all. After we have them covered, then go after anyone you want. Well, please do not be photographed standing next to CP-USA in a rally like last time. It kinda sends the wrong message, if ya know what I mean. :p

[Napoleon's Shadow]

It is stupid for the campaign to go after Democrats and Independents. It would be a waste of time and resources for the campaign to even attempt it. Now it is the exact opposite when it comes to the grassroots. We are the ones who should be hammering on the Democrats and Independents to get out the vote for Ron.



It should not be a focus of the official campaign, but those at the grassroots level who are more comfortable speaking to liberals and democrats - especially in open primary states - should do just that. Let's be honest, people who are better able to speak the liberal language aren't going to be any more successful talking to red meat republicans than they are getting democrats to vote in an open primary.

TL;DR

Division of labor.Why not instead focus on votes we are more likely to win than the hard-to-get votes? :confused: Why waste time and resources on votes that we'll probably never get?

[Napoleon's Shadow]

I am standing on a street corner passing out literature.

A crowd of people amble by. They are young and old, one has a mohawk, one is obviously grandma, one is in USMC uniform, Mr Dad and a knockout blonde that may be his wife or not, some teenagers and an Uncle Bob type who may be liberal or hardcore conservative. One side says talk to them. The other side says only talk to republicans. Just how in the frakkin heck am I gonna do that...ya know, take half of the bunch and separate them as possible republicans. It just does not make any sense. You cannot possibly know someones party affiliation just by seeing them on the street. You can make a good guess at best.

Rev9
Our universe is small, it only consists of likely Republican voters. How do you know who is a likely Republican voter? Get your county voter rolls (they are not expensive). Get involved in your local Republican Party and get access to Voter Vault or become a precinct chairman. The Party has identified likely Republicans and knows who they are. You just have to go door-to-door with the right literature to put in their hands.

[LibertyEagle]

I definitely agree that sign waving is less effective than traditional campaign methods. But for a lot of those people who are out of their comfort zones around Republicans, there are important reasons for that. Some of those people are not the people I would want standing next to me when I'm talking to another Republican about Ron Paul. Those people should work in whatever their niche is. Also, when some volunteer is excited about helping in some specific way, and they get told that the only way they can help is by doing something they would not at all enjoy doing, then that can do more harm than good. When we have volunteers like that, we need to put their enthusiasm to use.

Agreed. But, I also believe that a number of us are going to need to push ourselves outside of our comfort zones. I mean, who in hell looked forward to calling people for Rand when he was running for office? I certainly didn't. But, you know what? After the first few, it became easier. After about 100, it became a lot easier. After a few hundred, it was like... this is a piece of cake. Life is all about stepping outside of our comfort zones. And if Ron Paul isn't a good enough reason to push ourselves a bit, I don't know what else would ever be. :)

We simply have to cover the basics. I don't care what it takes, or what comfort zones we each have to jump out of. We somehow have to do it. If we don't, Ron Paul simply will not win.

[acptulsa]

Why not instead focus on votes we are more likely to win than the hard-to-get votes? :confused: Why waste time and resources on votes that we'll probably never get?

What part of we're getting those votes do you not understand?

Tell you what I'll do. I'll use your tactics and see how you like it. I hate to do it, but you leave me no choice but to help the people who are doing good for Ron Paul understand why they shouldn't worry about your negativity:

Why not instead focus on the peace vote, as we are more likely to win it than the hard-to-get neocon AM radio votes? :confused: Why waste time and resources on warmonger votes that we'll probably never get?

Now, I'm actually smart enough to understand that I didn't exactly peg each and every individual G.O.P. voter with the tripe I just spewed, and I apologize to any Republican to whom that sounded offensive (and I know there are a lot of you). I just needed to find a way to defang this counterproductive propaganda, that's all. So thank you all for your patience.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

1) The places where Dem crossover votes would be the most significant are the ones where they significantly outnumber Republicans, not Iowa.This test I referred to in the OP was conducted by the '08 campaign in a largely Democrat area in Iowa.



4) The best people to do this are actual Democrats or people whose spheres of influence are Democrats, acting outside the official campaign.Democrats with spheres of influence within the Democrat Party are NOT going to be caught dead telling Dems to vote for a Republican candidate.




6) Whether crossover votes helped RP in 2008 or not, there's plenty of other data out there from other campaigns, and there have clearly been some cases where crossover voters made a difference of who won certain primaries. McCain beat Bush in Michigan in 2000 because of Dems crossing over, and that was due to a concerted effort involving unions, any role McCain's official campaign had in that was hidden way deep behind the scenes. Hillary beat Obama in a lot of the later primary states in 2008 because of Republicans crossing over. I personally spoke to many die-hard Republicans here in Indiana who voted for Hillary in the primary just because they thought it would put a bump in the road for Obama. I believe she wouldn't have won the state without those votes. It happens. It's not at all unheard of, or even that rare. But the circumstances have to be right for it.
Perhaps, but this election will not be won by chasing Democrats. A Republican primary will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron.

[erowe1]

Here are some links that might be of interest to some people.

Feb. 8, 2000

Touching on themes more common in Democratic primaries than Republican ones, Senator John McCain campaigned today in auto factory towns in Michigan, praised unions, called his rival's tax plan too generous to the rich and said he welcomed the support of independents and Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/08/us/2000-campaign-union-vote-copying-reagan-s-strategy-mccain-courts-democrats.html

Feb. 23, 2000

McCain racked up a 6 percent margin of victory in Michigan, 50- to-44 percent over Bush; Engler had promised a "firewall" to protect Bush's support.

But just 47 percent of Michigan's voters identified themselves as Republicans; McCain won over the majority of veterans, union members and first-time GOP primary voters, even as Bush took three-quarters of the Republican vote there.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-02-23/news/17639491_1_mccain-majority-senator-john-mccain-republican-reformers/2

And who can forget Operation Chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos)?

[erowe1]

This test I referred to in the OP was conducted by the '08 campaign in a largely Democrat area in Iowa.


Democrats with spheres of influence within the Democrat Party are NOT going to be caught dead telling Dems to vote for a Republican candidate.


Perhaps, but this election will not be won by chasing Democrats. A Republican primary will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron.

So your argument is that just because the official campaign did something stupid in Iowa in 2008, that means that any time anyone tries to get Dems to crossover and vote for RP in any place, that it must be equally stupid?

Is there seriously a way that makes logical sense in your mind?

[erowe1]

A Republican primary will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron.

There are hundreds of discrete congressional districts that could result in RP getting delegates if he won them. Some of them will be won solely because of the Republican vote. Some of them won't be won without crossover votes. That's a guarantee. It's practically impossible for it not to be true. Why you would not want RP to get those delegates I can't fathom.

Democrat crossover votes will be a factor in some places, and they will help some Republican win in those places. Which Republican do you think that should be?

[acptulsa]

This test I referred to in the OP was conducted by the '08 campaign in a largely Democrat area in Iowa.

The word is Democratic and you still haven't addressed why you think the Democratic world hasn't changed significanly since '08, or why you think those of us who are reporting success on the ground are lying to you.


Democrats with spheres of influence within the Democrat Party are NOT going to be caught dead telling Dems to vote for a Republican candidate.

Tell it to columnist Ted Rall. He has already expressed sympathy for libertarians in a nationally syndicated column.


Perhaps, but this election will not be won by chasing Democrats. A Republican primary will be won by convincing Republicans to vote for Ron.

And I have created Republicans. Republicans who are now registered republican because they want to vote for a man of peace for a change.

Bah! I have more productive things to do than bash my head against a brick wall trying to get you to acknowledge that success is success. If you don't want us to pursue successful strategies, then I don't know whose side you're on. But I have better things to do than this. Like winning Republican registrations for Ron Paul.

[VegasPatriot]

With the new "binding delegate rule" in Nevada in 2012, it is even more important to convince non-republicans to become RP-republicans. Otherwise Romney will dominate the delegate count in 2012(Romney won in 2008 with about 50 percent of the caucus straw poll vote).

http://www.lvrj.com/news/gop-making-caucus-matter-110086509.html

[erowe1]

Democrats with spheres of influence within the Democrat Party are NOT going to be caught dead telling Dems to vote for a Republican candidate.


Of course! I mean who can imagine such a ridiculous thing? That would be almost like Rush Limbaugh telling Republicans to vote in a Democrat primary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos).

[LibertyEagle]

Our universe is small, it only consists of likely Republican voters. How do you know who is a likely Republican voter? Get your county voter rolls (they are not expensive). Get involved in your local Republican Party and get access to Voter Vault or become a precinct chairman. The Party has identified likely Republicans and knows who they are. You just have to go door-to-door with the right literature to put in their hands.

Geez guys, all Napoleon is saying is to please make sure you have the basics covered first. This is how to win elections 101.

After you do that, knock your socks off.

[acptulsa]

Geez guys, all Napoleon is saying is to please make sure you have the basics covered first. This is how to win elections 101.

After you do that, knock your socks off.

But he isn't. He's saying don't do this other thing.

Reagan wasn't afraid to make the G.O.P. grow. And look where that attitude got him. Did he grow the party by converting people who weren't already Republicans? Or did he create Republicans out of thin air?

Napoleon's Shadow's coming across as saying don't work to grow the G.O.P. This isn't polysci 101. It's foolishness.

[erowe1]

Geez guys, all Napoleon is saying is to please make sure you have the basics covered first. This is how to win elections 101.

After you do that, knock your socks off.

Napoleon has been on this hobby horse again and again, and that's not all he's saying. You can hardly get a person to come on the forum and say, "I found a great way to get my Democrat friends to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary!" without him coming on and telling them not to do it.

The guy's entire base of knowledge about politics doesn't extend back any further than 2008, and he wants people to defer to him like some kind of expert.

[LibertyEagle]

But he isn't. He's saying don't do this other thing.

Reagan wasn't afraid to make the G.O.P. grow. And look where that attitude got him.
It brought us the Neocons. :p :)

Yes and Reagan won.


Did he grow the party by converting people who weren't already Republicans? Or did he create Republicans out of thin air?

Matt's coming across as saying don't work to grow the G.O.P. This isn't polysci 101. It's foolishness.

I get your point and I agree that we should do both. Just please, please, don't forget about the likely Republican voter identification, the canvassing, the becoming a Republican delegate, etc. Those are the basics that we simply have to cover. It will not matter how many Dems we get to crossover, if we do not have the Republican delegates, we most certainly will lose.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Ron DOMINATES with independents. It isn't switching, they vote for one party then the next depending on the issues of the day. I am not sure that we can win without them, and if the GOP wants to win the general, they should be EAGER to go for the candidate independents like.They are INDEPENDENT for a reason. That means they don't identify in Republican or Democrat parties, meaning they don't vote in their primaries / caucuses in any large or quantifiably relevant amounts.


And at this point there are more independents in the US than there are registered Republicans.Of course, but they don't vote in primaries or caucuses.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Matt Collins possibly?
No, it was someone who worked for the campaign in 2008.

[acptulsa]

They are INDEPENDENT for a reason. That means they don't identify in Republican or Democrat parties, meaning they don't vote in their primaries / caucuses in any large or quantifiably relevant amounts.

Of course, but they don't vote in primaries or caucuses.

How often do they have someone in a primary to be enthusiastic about? Do you really contend that Ron Paul isn't worth being enthusiastic about?

What you are saing is Growing The G.O.P.=FAIL. I strongly disagree. And so did Ronald Reagan, the fortieth president of the United States of America.

I'm not saying don't win over existing Republicans. Why are you saying don't win over new Republicans? Why? They're both proven tactics. They're both age old. Reagan did both. Now why the hell are you trying to tell us growing the party means FAIL?

Excuse me if I believe Reagan's success, which I saw with my own eyes, over you.

[erowe1]

They are INDEPENDENT for a reason. That means they don't identify in Republican or Democrat parties, meaning they don't vote in their primaries / caucuses in any large or quantifiably relevant amounts.

Of course, but they don't vote in primaries or caucuses.

Yes they do. It happens all the time. It is guaranteed to happen in 2012, and it's guaranteed to help some Republican candidate get some delegates.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Why not instead focus on the peace vote, as we are more likely to win it than the hard-to-get neocon AM radio votes? :confused: Why waste time and resources on warmonger votes that we'll probably never get?

You're right. But most Republican voters are not strongly ideological. Therefore we don't have to change their ideaology, we just need to convince them to vote for Ron.

That's easier than convincing someone to change parties AND vote for Ron. Not only that but there are a lot more non-ideological voters in the Republican Party who would be an easy conversion to vote for Ron than there are Democrats that are going to be willing to vote for Ron AND do so in a Republican primary or caucus.


The Republican primary voters are fertile ground to get votes for Ron. The liberals, independents, and Democrats are not, at least in regards to a primary / caucus.

[acptulsa]

Yes they do. It happens all the time. It is guaranteed to happen in 2012, and it's guaranteed to help some Republican candidate get some delegates.

What can you say to someone who refuses to believe us when we tell him the truth, and calls us liars because what we know doesn't fit in his elementary-grade polisci book? What can you say to someone who refuses to learn from Reagan? What do you say to someone who looks at all the converted Democrats on these very boards, and refuses to believe his own eyes?

I think we've discredited this troll thread. What say we stop bumping it?


You're right. But most Republican voters are not strongly ideological.

So first you say we need only the base to win, and then you proceed to insult the base. Slick. The ones I know sure do believe deep in their Christian hearts that they're idealogical, son.

With friends like you...

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Tell it to columnist Ted Rall. He has already expressed sympathy for libertarians in a nationally syndicated column.And a lot of Republicans have started to sour on the war recently, but that doesn't mean they are going to vote in a Democrat primary for Kucinich now does it? :rolleyes:



And I have created Republicans. Republicans who are now registered republican because they want to vote for a man of peace for a change.That's awesome. But it takes much more effort to do that than it does to convince people who are already Republican to just simply vote for Rron.


Convincing a Republican to vote for Ron is a lot less effort than getting a Democrat to vote in a Republican primary / caucus for Ron.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

We're on the ground talking to people. We know what reaction we're getting. You just simply refuse to believe us. Well, sir, I am not a liar, and every little bit helps. We are doing good here, just like having a band helps get young people on the bandwagon. You keep calling these unproven tactics. Well, not only are they NOT unprecedented, but we're proving you wrong every day.

You are using anecdotal evidence as opposed to statistical evidence.


If you actually want to help the campaign, why don't you tell us how to win over neoconsThe neocon influence on the GOP is waning a bit. But regardless, you have to identify likely Republican voters, figure out which issues are important to them, and then sell Ron to them based upon their issues.

[erowe1]

Convincing a Republican to vote for Ron is a lot less effort than getting a Democrat to vote in a Republican primary / caucus for Ron.

In some cases that is the case, in other cases the opposite is the case. I don't see why we should think that the same rule that applies in one case has to be adopted by everyone nationwide.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

What can you say to someone who refuses to believe us when we tell him the truth, and calls us liars Uhh, now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said you were a liar, just that you are factually incorrect. That's not the same thing.





So first you say we need only the base to win, and then you proceed to insult the base. Saying a group of people is not hard ideological is not an insult. :rolleyes:


How old are you, and what is your level of education? I am curious? :confused:

[erowe1]

You are using anecdotal evidence as opposed to statistical evidence.

Do you think that the story you keep going back to about what you heard the campaign did in 2008 is something other than anecdotal evidence? Have you even bothered looking for statistical evidence about crossover voting in primaries? If so, please share it.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

What you are saing is Growing The G.O.P.=FAIL. Of course we should try and grow the GOP with our people. I am a very big proponent of that. It's a long term strategy to steer the GOP in a different direction which in the short term will not achieve electoral victory.

[Badger Paul]

"Less than 2% of Democrat Ron Paul supporters will actually make the transition to the Republican caucus or primary to vote for Ron."

Maybe, maybe not. It should be pointed out in 2008 there was Democratic primary going on at the same time and nobody knew who he was. So there is a possibility such support good grow, especially if leftists disatisfied with Obama on the war/civil liberties issue feel Paul has a serious chance of winning.

And I hope when you "court Republicans" you are not forgetting about moderates and liberals within the party. Yeah, they still exist and actually their support can decisive when the conservative vote is split into itsy-bitsy pieces. Right now Romney would seem to be their candidate but Paul does very well among such voters as polling shows.

And even if such Democratic support never grew beyond 2%, that 2% could make the difference between winning and losing primaries and caucuses. You think about that.

[LibertyEagle]

How old are you, and what is your level of education? I am curious? :confused:

Do NOT go there!! Seriously. That is hugely insulting.

[Krugerrand]

They are INDEPENDENT for a reason. That means they don't identify in Republican or Democrat parties, meaning they don't vote in their primaries / caucuses in any large or quantifiably relevant amounts.

Of course, but they don't vote in primaries or caucuses.

This is not universally true for all states - as was already pointed out in previous posts.

[sailingaway]

But he isn't. He's saying don't do this other thing.

Reagan wasn't afraid to make the G.O.P. grow. And look where that attitude got him. Did he grow the party by converting people who weren't already Republicans? Or did he create Republicans out of thin air?



Of course, Reagan started as a Democrat himself, so perhaps he knew the value of it.

[sailingaway]

They are INDEPENDENT for a reason. That means they don't identify in Republican or Democrat parties, meaning they don't vote in their primaries / caucuses in any large or quantifiably relevant amounts.

.
Yet

And say in Texas and New Hampshire, you are dead wrong.

[TruckinMike]

Note: I have not read this entire thread, anyway, here goes...

TruckinMIke's proper demographic sales approach:

If you come from the left or have friends on the left, then sell Ron Paul to the left
If you come from the right or have friends on the right then sell Ron Paul to the right.



And for the folks that do not want Ron Paul supporters campaigning to the left take this fact in consideration:


95% of Ron Paul supporters came from the right/center right.

That should ease your concerns about this whole thread. Any action is better than NO action! Whats important is action. If you dissuade Ron Paul supporters from campaigning to their leftist friends, family, and acquiescences most likely they may not campaign at all.

TMike

[ronpaulitician]

I spoke to someone recently who was around in 2008. Apparently the official campaign gave an all-out effort in some specific localities in Iowa to turn out Democrats and liberals to the caucuses for Ron Paul. They said their results were essentially zero. They have tested this and realize that it is a complete and utter waste of time to attempt to convert Democrats and liberals who support Ron Paul into votes. Less than 2% of Democrat Ron Paul supporters will actually make the transition to the Republican caucus or primary to vote for Ron.
Ron who?

By which I mean to say that in 2008, Republican voters barely knew who Ron Paul was. Let alone Democrat and/or independent voters.

[Badger Paul]

Independents can vote in the New Hampshire GOP primary and we will not win without them. Period.

[Sweman]

This thread is such a classic case of "those who say it can't be done should not get in the way of those doing it".
I didn't know that there was such a saying, but I have always thought there should be one. +rep

[erowe1]

I didn't know that there was such a saying, but I have always thought there should be one. +rep

I'm encouraged by the reactions I have seen so far in this thread.

[Sweman]

Do you think that the story you keep going back to about what you heard the campaign did in 2008 is something other than anecdotal evidence? Have you even bothered looking for statistical evidence about crossover voting in primaries? If so, please share it.
I'm writing this without reading the remaining posts and still I dare to bet that he hasn't replied to this.:cool:

Edit: I was right

[VegasPatriot]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Napoleon's Shadow http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=3423186#post3423186)
How old are you, and what is your level of education? I am curious? :confused:

Do NOT go there!! Seriously. That is hugely insulting.
So LE, this is the person you send me a PM about telling me he is on our side?

Now you see what I meant in my response to your PM.

MC or NS or whoever this person is... is deliberately being divisive... and is NOT helping "our" cause.

[AJ Antimony]

Have you ever heard of an "OPEN" primay? All voters can take part in an open primary

Because a primary is open does not mean other party voters will vote in it. Because all voters COULD take part in an open primary does not mean they WILL. Again, I'm sorry to be the bearer of the truth, but Republicans voters pick the Republican nominee, not Democrats.

Also, you really need to double check that list of yours because I know for a fact Arizona is closed for presidential primaries.

[AJ Antimony]

Read as: Unless you can show us some electoral history where Ron Paul won the Presidency, then your theory he can win is completely ludicrous.

Same diff. So why are you here again?

Well, you read it wrong. I'm here to point out the stupidity of believing that a Republican presidential candidate can be nominated by Democratic voters. And the reason I want to see some electoral history is to prove to people like you that candidates aren't nominated by the other party. All I ask is that some of you do some research before making such mind-blowing statements like Democrats and Independents can nominate a Republican, Santa Claus is real, Elvis is alive, etc.

[Razmear]

Lets see, last election we spent how much on a freaking blimp, but going after democratic voters this cycle is a waste of time and resources?
Go after any citizen over the age of 18 who can get to a polling place on primary day. Ron's message is universal and crosses party lines.
Telling people not to reach out to others with Ron's message is counter-productive!

eb

[AJ Antimony]

Lets see, last election we spent how much on a freaking blimp, but going after democratic voters this cycle is a waste of time and resources?
Go after any citizen over the age of 18 who will get to a Republican polling place on primary day. Ron's message is universal and crosses party lines.
Telling people not to reach out to others with Ron's message is counter-productive!

eb
Fixed it.

[ronpaulitician]

Fixed it.
There's nothing to fix.

Heck, I can't even vote, but am already maxed out. Even if you reach out to non-Republicans who won't show up at those Republican polls, there's still no harm done. They may very well talk to their friends and relatives, and some of those may be Republican. In the end, many Republicans will vote for the person they think will be able to beat Obama. If they hear many of their non-Republican friends speak highly of Ron Paul (and not quite so highly of Obama), that may convince a few more Republicans to cast their vote for Paul. And even if all you accomplish is a few more polls to reveal that Paul would run competitively against Obama, that is still a win.

Trying to keep people from doing something that you KNOW they will not stop simply because you say so-- now THAT seems like a real waste of time.

[acptulsa]

Fixed it.

Do they really have segregated polling places where you live? I guess the Democrats vote in gay bars and the Republicans in Masonic temples? Because here we all vote in the same precincts. And in open primary states, people vote in the party primary they have the most interest in that day.

Oh, and Matt: I matriculated at the University of Chicago before you were born. So, you see, I'm not only old enough to know better than to listen to you, I'm smart enough to know better.

[erowe1]

Because a primary is open does not mean other party voters will vote in it. Because all voters COULD take part in an open primary does not mean they WILL. Again, I'm sorry to be the bearer of the truth, but Republicans voters pick the Republican nominee, not Democrats.

Also, you really need to double check that list of yours because I know for a fact Arizona is closed for presidential primaries.

You are incorrect. The fact that other party voters can vote in the Republican primary does mean that some of them will, and in some places a lot of them will. It always has been that way, and it always will be. 2012 won't be some magical election where all of a sudden crossover votes cease to be a factor.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Lets see, last election we spent how much on a freaking blimp, but going after democratic voters this cycle is a waste of time and resources? People went after Democrats last time too, see how well that worked out? :rolleyes:


Go after any citizen over the age of 18 who can get to a polling place on primary day. Ron's message is universal and crosses party lines. Obviously you have not been involved in any winning campaigns. Winning campaigns go after a much smaller universe - specifically the likely voters in that particular party.

Start here to see more of what I'm talking about:
http://training4liberty.org/facl/important_info.html

[Revolution9]

Fixed it.

That is entirely rude to do. You altered someone else's quote and inserted your own words. You fixed nothing except fixing in some minds your inability to formulate a proper response in your own words.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

People went after Democrats last time too, see how well that worked out? :rolleyes:

[/url]

People went after republicans the last time..See what happened, to use your poor analogy.

Rev9

[Echoes]

It's all about Iowa, the campaign must focus in on there like a laser beam. Ron must emphasize his conservative and constitutional values, that's his ticket to victory.

if individuals want to 'convert' liberals/democrats locally and family/friends, fine. But that's gonna come into play later on, if he does bad in Iowa you can kiss the whole race good-bye !

[erowe1]

It's all about Iowa, the campaign must focus in on there like a laser beam. Ron must emphasize his conservative and constitutional values, that's his ticket to victory.

if individuals want to 'convert' liberals/democrats locally and family/friends, fine. But that's gonna come into play later on, if he does bad in Iowa you can kiss the whole race good-bye !

Very good point. There's no disputing it.

On the other hand, even if he wins Iowa, he will need to be able to keep on racking up delegates across the nation. If there's one thing that will make the Republican primary battle go all the way to the convention, it's having RP be a contender. No matter how well he does, the establishment will go right up to the end trying to find ways to knock him out. And we can't afford to wait until after the Iowa caucuses to get that network of support in place.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Napoleon's Shadow http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=3423186#post3423186)
How old are you, and what is your level of education? I am curious? :confused:

So LE, this is the person you send me a PM about telling me he is on our side?

Now you see what I meant in my response to your PM.

MC or NS or whoever this person is... is deliberately being divisive... and is NOT helping "our" cause.

Yes, he is on our side. I disagreed with his comment to AcpTulsa. He's human. So what?

Oh, and by the way, disclosing PRIVATE messages on the forum is in extremely poor taste and everyone here should take note that you did so.

[VegasPatriot]

Yes, he is on our side. I disagreed with his comment to AcpTulsa. He's human. So what?

Oh, and by the way, disclosing PRIVATE messages on the forum is in extremely poor taste and everyone here should take note that you did so.
Thanks for the -rep. You are the first person to give me -rep. Your private message simply stated Collins err NS was on our side... nothing you needed to make private. -rep right back at you.

[AJ Antimony]

Even if you reach out to non-Republicans who won't show up at those Republican polls, there's still no harm done.

That depends. If you're just hanging out and talking with your non-Republican friends about Ron Paul, then there's no harm done. But if you're out knocking on doors, committing a lot of time to talk to non-Republican voters, then in this case you'd be wasting time thus harm would be done.


If they hear many of their non-Republican friends speak highly of Ron Paul (and not quite so highly of Obama), that may convince a few more Republicans to cast their vote for Paul.

So let me see if I get this straight... You think a significant amount of center and left voters will speak highly of Republican Ron Paul, not so quite highly of the guy they likely voted for in 2008, and that as a result these centrists and leftists are going to convince their conservative friends to vote for Ron Paul? So you think what will make a conservative voter choose between Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann is the voter's liberal friends? If I'm a conservative and a liberal friend came up to me endorsing Ron Paul, I would think that means Ron Paul is the most liberal GOP candidate and thus not worth my vote. I would be much more inclined to vote for Ron Paul if some fellow conservatives told me that they like him.


And even if all you accomplish is a few more polls to reveal that Paul would run competitively against Obama, that is still a win.

What?

[AJ Antimony]

Do they really have segregated polling places where you live? I guess the Democrats vote in gay bars and the Republicans in Masonic temples? Because here we all vote in the same precincts. And in open primary states, people vote in the party primary they have the most interest in that day.

You know what I meant. I was advising to go after people who WILL take the Republican ballot

[AJ Antimony]

You are incorrect. The fact that other party voters can vote in the Republican primary does mean that some of them will, and in some places a lot of them will. It always has been that way, and it always will be. 2012 won't be some magical election where all of a sudden crossover votes cease to be a factor.

Of course SOME Democrats will vote in the GOP primary, nobody questions that. But you make it sound like at least 20% of all Democratic voters will vote in the GOP primary and thus will have a massive effect on the election. I think it's much more likely that most Democrats stay home and that Republicans will nominate their nominee with or without Democrat support.

[angelatc]

Matt Collins possibly?

Damn! I'm out of rep!

[sailingaway]

It's all about Iowa, the campaign must focus in on there like a laser beam. Ron must emphasize his conservative and constitutional values, that's his ticket to victory.

if individuals want to 'convert' liberals/democrats locally and family/friends, fine. But that's gonna come into play later on, if he does bad in Iowa you can kiss the whole race good-bye !

But Independents and even Democrats can change their registration to GOP right at the caucus in Iowa. So it isn't irrelevant even there. However, I'm not saying go batty, I think Ron's Constitutionalism DOES appeal to certain independents and Jeffersonian democrats.

[BrendanWenzel]

Only people I'm focusing on switching is the young vote. We are many, but most aren't registered Republican.

[erowe1]

Of course SOME Democrats will vote in the GOP primary, nobody questions that. But you make it sound like at least 20% of all Democratic voters will vote in the GOP primary and thus will have a massive effect on the election. I think it's much more likely that most Democrats stay home and that Republicans will nominate their nominee with or without Democrat support.

No I don't make it sound like that. But there will be a lot of districts where the Democrats who cross over will make up more than 20% of the votes in the Republican primary. In some districts, it will only take 5% of the Democrats to crossover to make up that 20% block of GOP primary voters. Not only that, but in real numbers, that amount of voters in those Democrat heavy districts that RP will need will be a fraction of the number he'll need in Republican heavy districts, even though the number of delegates he'll win from them will be the same. In some districts Democrat crossover votes will decide who wins the Republican primary there. I see no reason that we shouldn't want that to be Ron Paul.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Okey dokey, but you know as well as I do, that some people put going after Dems with fliers OVER canvassing REPUBLICAN VOTERS, in the last election's REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. Canvassing, going to Republican meetings, becoming delegates, etc. were outside of a lot of people's comfort zone, so they convinced themselves that sign-waving was just as beneficial. It wasn't. That is not to say that there isn't benefit in it, or in going after Democrats, but if we do not at the very minimum do the things that have been proven over and over and over again, that win elections, we will most certainly lose. After we have those things covered, then everything else is gravy and hell yes, we should do it. :D

No argument. Going after GOP voters is always going to be a priority but when it comes to just talking to random people I say go after everyone who will listen or who will share their concerns with you regardless of party.

[AJ Antimony]

No I don't make it sound like that. But there will be a lot of districts where the Democrats who cross over will make up more than 20% of the votes in the Republican primary. In some districts, it will only take 5% of the Democrats to crossover to make up that 20% block of GOP primary voters. Not only that, but in real numbers, that amount of voters in those Democrat heavy districts that RP will need will be a fraction of the number he'll need in Republican heavy districts, even though the number of delegates he'll win from them will be the same. In some districts Democrat crossover votes will decide who wins the Republican primary there. I see no reason that we shouldn't want that to be Ron Paul.

Fine. Do what you want. Those of us who want to win and take over the GOP will focus on likely Republican primary voters.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Only people I'm focusing on switching is the young vote. We are many, but most aren't registered Republican.
Most Republican voters are over the age of 50. Those are the people we must try and convince to vote for Ron.

[erowe1]

Fine. Do what you want. Those of us who want to win and take over the GOP will focus on likely Republican primary voters.

I'm one of those people. And I was in 2008. I just don't see why people in a good position to go for crossover votes should be discouraged from doing so.

[amy31416]

Most Republican voters are over the age of 50. Those are the people we must try and convince to vote for Ron.

So what are you doing? I don't think Facebook pages will capture the over-50 vote, and neither will spamming/begging for attention here on the forums and elsewhere. You can't control yourself, much less anyone else, Napoleon.

[FA.Hayek]

I think 2008 settled that argument: it's not time and cost efficient to go after the liberals and expect them to change their vote. Very few of them will actually do so. We need to secure the Republican nomination first, and we need to start with Ames.

[libertarian4321]

I personally know several former Democrats who voted for Ron Paul in the open primary here.

A couple of them not only voted for Ron, but became ACTIVISTS who were very involved with the campaign- doing sign waves, donating money, handing out slim jims, attending rallies, etc. At least one of them still is actively supporting Ron even to this day.

We don't do ourselves any favors when we just ignore a huge pool of potential support (Democrats, Independents, etc). It may be easier to get support from Republicans and Libertarians, but don't ignore everyone else.

[libertarian4321]

I think 2008 settled that argument: it's not time and cost efficient to go after the liberals and expect them to change their vote. Very few of them will actually do so. We need to secure the Republican nomination first, and we need to start with Ames.

How did 2008 "settle the argument?"

If you use the fact that Ron lost to prove that it's not worth going after Dems, you could use the same "logic" to say it isn't worth going after Republicans, because Ron lost.

[speciallyblend]

FA Hayek, if the argument was settled in 2008? Then shouldn't i quit the gop and let you find a republican to take my place since i wasn't a republican in 2006 and became one!! If your reasoning is correct? Then i need to quit the gop. just sayin.

[libertarian4321]

After we have those things covered, then everything else is gravy and hell yes, we should do it. :D

I agree.

But some people, for whatever their reasons, simply WILL NOT canvas, will not make phone calls, will not attend GOP meetings.

We can't control their lives. If they won't do those things, we should willingly accept any help they will give- contributing money, talking to their friends (even the liberal ones), sign waving, whatever.

Sign-waving and talking to liberal friends is better than turning supporters away and getting nothing out of them just because they won't do what some of the self-appointed "leaders" on these boards think they should do.

A person willing to ONLY be a sign-waver/voter may not be as effective as someone who moves to Iowa to canvas 24/7, but that person is still more useful than someone who does nothing.

Any volunteer activity, no matter how small, is better than not doing anything to help.

So wave signs and talk to your Dem friends. It's better than doing nothing.

[libertarian4321]

FA Hayek, if the argument was settled in 2008? Then shouldn't i quit the gop and let you find a republican to take my place since i wasn't a republican in 2006 and became one!! If your reasoning is correct? Then i need to quit the gop. just sayin.

Yeah, that's right- you're one of those G-D libs who supported Ron Paul. :)

[acptulsa]

FA Hayek, if the argument was settled in 2008? Then shouldn't i quit the gop and let you find a republican to take my place since i wasn't a republican in 2006 and became one!! If your reasoning is correct? Then i need to quit the gop. just sayin.

Wow, Kenny! You make an awful lot of noise and sure do an awful lot of good things for the cause for someone that doesn't exist! Are you really a figment of our imaginations? If so, you're sure one convincing mass hallucination...

Thank you for chiming in on this thread. You prove how full of FAIL it is.

[LibertyEagle]

I agree.

But some people, for whatever their reasons, simply WILL NOT canvas, will not make phone calls, will not attend GOP meetings.

We can't control their lives. If they won't do those things, we should willingly accept any help they will give- contributing money, talking to their friends (even the liberal ones), sign waving, whatever.

Sign-waving and talking to liberal friends is better than turning supporters away and getting nothing out of them just because they won't do what some of the self-appointed "leaders" on these boards think they should do.

A person willing to ONLY be a sign-waver/voter may not be as effective as someone who moves to Iowa to canvas 24/7, but that person is still more useful than someone who does nothing.

Any volunteer activity, no matter how small, is better than not doing anything to help.

So wave signs and talk to your Dem friends. It's better than doing nothing.

Of course, I agree.

[erowe1]

I think 2008 settled that argument: it's not time and cost efficient to go after the liberals and expect them to change their vote. Very few of them will actually do so. We need to secure the Republican nomination first, and we need to start with Ames.

That is just ridiculous. There are I don't know how many people who have made careers out of studying how elections are won. They have decades and decades of data from thousands and thousands of elections. Crossover voting has proven to be an important factor in many primary elections (including 2008 for the Dems). If you really researched it, you'd find out that there's a lot to learn about it, including when it's likely to happen, when it's not, when it's worth putting resources into, and when it's not.

And you want to point to one anecdote about one failed campaign from one election and say that it proves that trying to get crossover votes is never cost efficient?

[jmdrake]

RP will NOT win if he tries to persuade Democrats to vote for him. This strategy has failed many many times before. John Dennis in San Francisco? Just look at the vote count.

The anti-war message is only a fraction of his overall message. Democrats may like that, but they take one look at everything else and they are out.

Guess who votes in Republican Primaries? REPUBLICANS! And they will be coming out in droves in 2012. RP has more in common with the biggest pro-war hawk than any democrat out there.

If we are trying to get democrats to vote for RP, we have some serious issues.

Find likely voting Republicans. Go door to door, hand out fliers, volunteer for the campaign, donate money, and get your family and friends to vote. Let's be for real about this.

You know what's wrong with your logic? JOHN DENNIS WON THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY! Right now we are focused on winning the primary. Yes if democrats come out and vote for Ron Paul in the primary there is no guarantee they will vote for him over Obama in the general election but so what? Yes, find all of the likely republican voters you can. Persuade as many as you can to vote for Dr. Paul. But it's an uphill battle. Look at any poll where they ask people who they would vote for with or without Palin in the race or with or without Perry in the race. The Perry/Palin voters never translate to Ron Paul once their favored candidate has dropped out. If we're going to win this thing we will have to do more than win over voters who we agree with on 90% of the issues. Some of the likely republican voters are so stupid that they will vote for a former democrat like Rick Perry over Ron Paul just because Perry says what they want to hear about the "eeevil mooselems".

[sailingaway]

How did 2008 "settle the argument?"




Didn't settle it with me....:p



If you use the fact that Ron lost to prove that it's not worth going after Dems, you could use the same "logic" to say it isn't worth going after Republicans, because Ron lost.


What he said ^^

[Justinfrom1776]

I'm convinced it works well in open primary states, most dems couldn't stomach actually registering republican, just as I couldn't a democrat.

[acptulsa]

I'm convinced it works well in open primary states, most dems couldn't stomach actually registering republican, just as I couldn't a democrat.

You underestimate just how thoroughly Obama and certain members of Congress are turning the stomachs of principled liberals right now. More and more, they are finally waking up to the fact that D is just as scarlet a letter as R. Maybe more so, since the G.O.P. has one honest presidential candidate to offer, and that's more than the Democrats have been able to say in thirty years.