Parallels between Reagan campaign and RP campaign

[Heman5up]

I read that Reagan had grassroots support and was considered unelectable after 1976 attempt. He obviously went on to win in 1980 against better judgement of pundits. There are also parallels between Obama and Jimmy Carter loosing popularity which lead to Reagan victory in 1980.

Has anyone considered drawing parallels between Reagan campaign and Ron Paul campaign to address electability issue? I feel it will make sell easier whenever people warm up to Ron Paul ideas but dismiss the campaign on electibility grounds.
Hemant

[pipewerKz]

Welcome to the forums.

I think there are plenty of parallels as well, Reagan even won his 3rd time running. I see it mentioned in a few of the grassroots videos.

Edit: remembered the campaign video, bluesc already had it covered.

[bluesc]

Campaign got it covered :)

I use it all the time, and always mention Obama/Carter vs Paul/Reagan.

Welcome btw!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDBp1OrCwI

[revgen]

One problem.

Reagan was an excellent speaker. He also accepted corporate donations.

Paul is a master of the written word, but average when it comes to speaking. And when your message involves complex details and outside the box philosophy, it's imperative that you have the speaking skills to deliver the message.

That's why he's dependent upon his supporters to help him spread the message and donate to his campaign.

[Heman5up]

Great! Thanks. I discovered Ron Paul revolution just a month back and just starting to get involved. This weekend I plan to slip super brochures in each apartment in my building complex... That's about 500 educated families who can make serious donations if they convert!

[Revolution9]

Great! Thanks. I discovered Ron Paul revolution just a month back and just starting to get involved. This weekend I plan to slip super brochures in each apartment in my building complex... That's about 500 educated families who can make serious donations if they convert!

Welcome and thank you.

Rev9

[icon124]

Great! Thanks. I discovered Ron Paul revolution just a month back and just starting to get involved. This weekend I plan to slip super brochures in each apartment in my building complex... That's about 500 educated families who can make serious donations if they convert!

Welcome, and may I ask which state you are in out of curiosity? :-D

[KramerDSP]

The one thing I would love to see is video or radio footage of the media smearing Reagan and calling him "old", "crazy" and "unelectable". A one-minute video of Reagan and Paul smears together, ending with celebratory poses from each of them could go a long way in setting off light bulbs and bringing the Reagan coalition into the fold.

[sofia]

Reagan was never the rock solid conservative that Ron Paul is. He welcomed neo-cons into his orbit which is why the GOP Establishment warmed up to him.

The GOP will NEVER support Ron Paul. If Ron got the GOP nomination, they'd run a third Party stooge.

[LibertyEagle]

Reagan was never the rock solid conservative that Ron Paul is. He welcomed neo-cons into his orbit which is why the GOP Establishment warmed up to him.

The GOP will NEVER support Ron Paul. If Ron got the GOP nomination, they'd run a third Party stooge.

Stop confusing the GOP establishment with the men and women within the Republican Party. They are quite different. Ron Paul CAN win the hearts and minds of the everyday Republican.

We can either help or sit around here hand-wringing .

[kylejack]

I read that Reagan had grassroots support and was considered unelectable after 1976 attempt. He obviously went on to win in 1980 against better judgement of pundits. There are also parallels between Obama and Jimmy Carter loosing popularity which lead to Reagan victory in 1980.

Has anyone considered drawing parallels between Reagan campaign and Ron Paul campaign to address electability issue? I feel it will make sell easier whenever people warm up to Ron Paul ideas but dismiss the campaign on electibility grounds.
Hemant
Reagan also ran in 1968 and won the popular vote, but Nixon beat him out for the nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_ primaries,_1968

[Verrater]

A video of what the op suggested would be amazing.

[Heman5up]

Welcome, and may I ask which state you are in out of curiosity? :-D

New York. To be honest, I don't see RP campaign winning new York state but campaign contributions would definitely help. Thanks.

[Inny Binny]

Well, using Reagan in a Republican primary is obviously a good thing, but I hope there aren't too many parallels - because otherwise we're only going to see a continuation of massive state expansion.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, using Reagan in a Republican primary is obviously a good thing, but I hope there aren't too many parallels - because otherwise we're only going to see a continuation of massive state expansion.

The difference is that Ron Paul will walk what Reagan only talked about.

[scrosnoe]

First of all 'second' to all the welcomes to the forums and Second -- I was thinking about this very thing just the other day. Reagan was my first presidential vote and I cut my political teeth on Ron Paul's first congressional race. The parallels are huge in what the media/elite did/does between then and now. There is a feel that we are at the same point and have the same possibilities with this campaign. One of the big differences is in some people's willingness to engage in the Republican party in order to take the primary. We had a different scenario in the Reagan days. We had to convert Democrats to Republicans to take the primary. In Texas we literally changed from a one party state to a two party state in that election cycle (of course that is over simplification, I am sure many laid a lot of groundwork!).

We also didn't have the internet back then which is both a blessing and a curse. People are going to have to get out of their comfort zone and take the campaign to the precincts and phone banks if we are going to do this thing. But I am seeing some encouraging signs. There is much work to be done, but the parallels are there for sure.

The idea for a video is a good one. Everything we can do to tie to the Reagan wing of the party helps us and must not be viewed as a negative or talked down here. In fact the Gingrich alignment with Rockefeller and Paul with Reagan is classic party alignments. Gingrich has cleverly tried to muddy that but his history is clear on the topic. People supporting him need to be called on it.

I keep trying to stress to everyone that we are ambassadors for Ron Paul here and we are being judged by many lurkers and watchers by what we say and do here. Many not even commenting just W A T C H I N G us to see what we think and say and do. So best behavior please. Ask every candidate and potential voter that does not support us now to make us their second choice and let us know when they are ready to help, because there is room in this camp for everyone who loves this country and supports the Constitution.

I would also like to see some pressure exerted on candidates supporting some other presidential contender. We need to get them to remain neutral or recruit someone to run against them. We are coming up on some filing deadlines rather rapidly.

Step by step...

Blessings all~

[scrosnoe]

The difference is that Ron Paul will walk what Reagan only talked about.

bingo!

[milo10]

Lots of parallels with Reagan and Carter/Obama, as mentioned. Carter came to office as the anti-politician, the beginning of a new wave in Washington. While Carter was incompetent, he was more genuine than Obama. Even while things deteriorated, we did not have anything like today's worries of a police state.

As mentioned, Reagan was an exceptionally good speaker. Carter was actually a charismatic man, but completely overshadowed by Reagan in the debates. This is one of Ron's failings.

One thing that Ron has that Reagan didn't is Ron is much more well-liked by the left. Reagan was really hated by much of the left, and there weren't a lot of exceptions to that.

It will be very, very important that Ron keep up a good communication with progressives and individuals like Kucinich.

I frankly hope his administration has a lot more vision than his campaign.

[LibertyEagle]

Lots of parallels with Reagan and Carter/Obama, as mentioned. Carter came to office as the anti-politician, the beginning of a new wave in Washington. While Carter was incompetent, he was more genuine than Obama. Even while things deteriorated, we did not have anything like today's worries of a police state.

As mentioned, Reagan was an exceptionally good speaker. Carter was actually a charismatic man, but completely overshadowed by Reagan in the debates. This is one of Ron's failings.

One thing that Ron has that Reagan didn't is Ron is much more well-liked by the left. Reagan was really hated by much of the left, and there weren't a lot of exceptions to that.

It will be very, very important that Ron keep up a good communication with progressives and individuals like Kucinich.



Actually, that is not true at all. The Reagan Revolution pulled from across the political spectrum. There were a large number of Democrats that even crossed over and became Republicans during that time.

Just fyi, this is where the neo-conservatives came from.


I frankly hope his administration has a lot more vision than his campaign.
And you are basing that on what, exactly?

[mwkaufman]

Reagan also ran in 1968 and won the popular vote, but Nixon beat him out for the nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_ primaries,_1968

I think this is a bit dishonest, California didn't have Nixon's name on the ballot and thus Reagan got 100% of the vote. It was the only state he won.

Back to the topic, there are a lot of similarities, and some great advertisements could be constructed with the right source material. Don't forget Carter and Obama's peace prizes IMO.

[kylejack]

I think this is a bit dishonest, California didn't have Nixon's name on the ballot and thus Reagan got 100% of the vote. It was the only state he won.
My point was more to draw a parallel as Reagan and Ron both ran for President three times before [potentially, in the case of Ron] winning.

[Paulitics 2011]

The one thing I would love to see is video or radio footage of the media smearing Reagan and calling him "old", "crazy" and "unelectable". A one-minute video of Reagan and Paul smears together, ending with celebratory poses from each of them could go a long way in setting off light bulbs and bringing the Reagan coalition into the fold.

Yes

[Carole]

Welcome Heman. :)

It is difficult to believe that the man who made the speech below did not actually govern as he spoke.

"A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

This speech, perhaps the greatest of the twentieth century, articulates the things for which Dr. Paul stands and fights. This speech is what Americans have supported and what Americans want. If only Reagan had stayed the course, we would not be so greatly in need of Dr. Paul today. But the fact remains, we do need him.

I do not agree with all his views on war, but otherwise, it was a great speech.
Thanks to all who work so hard to support the man who will become the greatest president of the twenty-first century. :)

[Fredom101]

I read that Reagan had grassroots support and was considered unelectable after 1976 attempt. He obviously went on to win in 1980 against better judgement of pundits. There are also parallels between Obama and Jimmy Carter loosing popularity which lead to Reagan victory in 1980.

Has anyone considered drawing parallels between Reagan campaign and Ron Paul campaign to address electability issue? I feel it will make sell easier whenever people warm up to Ron Paul ideas but dismiss the campaign on electibility grounds.
Hemant

I'm no fan of Reagan but part of what helped him become popular was his great speaking ability. Ron Paul has better ideas than Reagan, but let's face it he can't deliver speeches anywhere near as eloquently as Reagan could.