PDA

View Full Version : What did we learn from Iowa? How do we improve?




ghengis86
01-04-2012, 07:35 AM
We had a decent showing last night, though disappointing to most (myself included). The next step is to objectively analyze what went right and what went wrong and how we improve. The campaign needs to hear some constructive criticism from the grassroots and we need to review the best use of our time, money and tactics. So here are a few observations:

Phone from home - need better monitoring and tracking of people who have been contacted to avoid overlap situation. The campaign must be made aware of the deficiencies of this critical program.

Facebook/Social media - the grassroots ad push on RPF showed how a little money can go a long way; great tactic that should be embraced.

30-45 year olds - Ron did great with the younger generation, but is still lacking with the older people out there. Need to appeal to that demographic mote

Foreign policy - must refine our message to combat the negative attacks and prove Ron is the strongest on defending America



Stay encouraged my friends!! We will learn and adapt. Thus campaign has always been about slow and steady growth; no surges and no declines. Perry and Bachmann are all but finished after last night. Santorum will get crushed in NH and won't survive much longer. Gingrich is on his way down and Huntsman doesn't have the organization or money to last (though I bet he gets pimped next by the media).

We will not be stopped!

tbone717
01-04-2012, 07:40 AM
Foreign policy - must refine our message to combat the negative attacks and prove Ron is the strongest on defending America


Refine and strengthen the message. And stop making it such a focus. PPP showed that only 7% of people considered foreign policy a big issue. The numbers nationally are similar. Yet, the campaign and even more so the grassroots spends far too much time trying to convert the nation to non-interventionism.

We don't spend hours and hours talking about Paul's stance on the 2nd Amendment even though he is head and shoulders above the rest. Why? Because it is not an issue that drives people to the polls. So why do we think we have to talk so much about foreign policy when like the 2nd Amendment it is not a big issue this cycle.

It's cliche, but it truly is "the economy , stupid" - and on that issue Paul dominates.

ghengis86
01-04-2012, 07:43 AM
Perhaps hitting on the economic issues via Facebook ads would spread the message better?

mainstream economist
01-04-2012, 07:43 AM
Also, we never ever have "this thing in the bag". Do not relent. If we are ahead by 1 point, then work like we are 10 points behind.

vita3
01-04-2012, 07:45 AM
I like that the campaign had a soldier in front of the camera & podium defending Dr.Paul's foreign policy.

A military/inteligence team needs to be organized & there message needs to be put out there on foreign policy.

milo10
01-04-2012, 07:47 AM
Complete reevaluation of the Phone from Home Program.

I concur with tbone717 regarding foreign policy. I think this is more of a media-manufacturered issue than something that really motivates people. Votes are more important than pundits.

A simple 30 second, high-quality ad that Ron Paul will not only not touch Social Security, he is the only one who will keep our government solvent so that we can continue to pay into it. That is the easiest low-hanging fruit in this campaign. A good ad along those lines would be a total game changer.

FreeTraveler
01-04-2012, 07:49 AM
Get the word out that we know what's going on and we won't settle.

A Letter to the One Percent re: Ron Paul. Please read, repost and retweet.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?346063-A-Letter-to-the-One-Percent-From-the-Ten-Percent

Kade
01-04-2012, 07:56 AM
That the increase in the caucus turnout was directly related to Ron Paul.
That the liberals/independents are delivering votes directly to Ron Paul.
That social conservatives cannot be convinced to abandon stupidity.

And the real headline last night, Obama wins 2012. There is no galvanization. People's hate for Obama is solely among the people who didn't vote for him. Romney does not get anyone excited, and unfortunately for all of us, we are going to end up with a left leaning statist and a right leaning statist as choices... AGAIN.

Liberty74
01-04-2012, 07:57 AM
Like I said, it's about being competitive with the old people. No one in here listened. Hopefully Paul and his campaign will address this.

Highstreet
01-04-2012, 08:10 AM
Refine and strengthen the message. And stop making it such a focus. PPP showed that only 7% of people considered foreign policy a big issue. The numbers nationally are similar. Yet, the campaign and even more so the grassroots spends far too much time trying to convert the nation to non-interventionism.

We don't spend hours and hours talking about Paul's stance on the 2nd Amendment even though he is head and shoulders above the rest. Why? Because it is not an issue that drives people to the polls. So why do we think we have to talk so much about foreign policy when like the 2nd Amendment it is not a big issue this cycle.

It's cliche, but it truly is "the economy , stupid" - and on that issue Paul dominates.

You make a good point, but what you also might think about is that the "electability" issue is only brought up because of the misperception of his Foreign Policy. That is why the media stays on the mantra of "isolationism" despite our efforts. They only need to keep the populace from understanding for a few months more.

newbitech
01-04-2012, 08:32 AM
I hate to say, but what I am slowly coming to accept is that people are still apethic and completely closed to civics and the process of choosing representitive government. The vote turnout tells me that just as many people showed up to vote this year as in 2008, with only a slight bump up. Take a look.

2008 vs 2012 Iowa Republican Primaries

Total = 119,188 vs Total 122,224 || Difference of 3,036 (2.5% increase)

Ron Paul = 11,841 (9.9%) vs Ron Paul = 26,219 (21.4%) || Difference of 14,378 (121% increase)

Mitt Romney = 30,021 (25.2%) vs Mitt Romney = 30,016 (24. 6%) || Difference of -5 (%unch%)

All Others = 77,326 (64.9%) vs All Others = 65,990 (54%) || Difference of -11,336 (14.5% decrease)


At this point, the idea that Ron Paul expands the Republican base is NOT supported by these numbers. Or do they?

We have to make several assumptions in order to imagine up some scenarios. Let's take a look at some constraints and make some assumptions, shall we?

Assumptions (A#)

#1 People who voted for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney in 2008, showed up in 2012 and cast the same ballot.
#2 All of the new votes for Ron Paul were people who did NOT vote in 2008.
#3 The incerease of 3,036 new voters this year all voted for Ron Paul.
#4 ... Add more as the scenarios play out.

Constraints (C#)

#1 Based on A1 + A2, at most Ron Paul brought in 14,378 NEW voters in 2012 (11.76% of Total)
#2 Based on A1 + A2 + A3, at least 11,342 who voted in 2008 for someone OTHER than Ron Paul, did not show up to vote in 2012 (9.27% of Total)

Scenarios (S#)

#1 Based on C1 + C2, The MOST Ron Paul could have expanded the voting base in Iowa is almost 12%, with about 9% leaving the base. This is a swing of nearly 21% or about 25,500 voters.

Conclusions (CL#)

#1 Based on S1, Ron Paul has done a remarkable job in swinging the disaffected vote to the tune of 21% of Total votes cast. That 21% represents a group of people who could NOT find anyone to represent them PLUS a group of people who only want RON PAUL to represent them.

This is how I am building my conclusions. There is a lot to digest, lots of assumptions yet to be made, many contraints on the data, but in my opinion, CL1 is the absolute BEST possible conclusion to come out of this. THAT is the ceiling at least as far as Iowa is concerned.

21% is nothing to sneeze at. Ron Paul and his activist ought to look for opportunity to pick up on some of the people turning apathetic. Why are those people NOT finding anywhere in the conservative platform to vote?

What are their issues? What is turning them off? I can only agree that Ron Paul is expanding the base by admitting the base is also shrinking away from the other end. TO me this is not expanding, simply shifting.

Bergie Bergeron
01-04-2012, 08:36 AM
Attacking Huntsman before he's the next CNN darling.

ghengis86
01-04-2012, 08:51 AM
I like the expanding the base angle. From the GOP mindset, we'll need all the votes we can get to beat Obama. Mittens is Obama-lite and is not expanding the base and won't beat Obama. Paul is the only one for the GOP to rally around to win.

FlatIron
01-04-2012, 08:52 AM
Don't use attack ads. thats my suggestion

Jingles
01-04-2012, 08:59 AM
The thing I learned is how willfully people follow whatever the media tells them. The "Do whatever the media tells us" voting block is going to be the most annoying and important obstacle to overcome.

ghengis86
01-04-2012, 09:00 AM
Don't use attack ads. thats my suggestion

I agree but they work. I think we should highlight differences in positions and try not to focus on other candidates. It gives them a platform to respond.

Bergie Bergeron
01-04-2012, 09:01 AM
Don't use attack ads. thats my suggestion
Worked quite well to bring down Newt.

Liberty74
01-04-2012, 09:07 AM
Don't use attack ads. thats my suggestion

Having an intellectual attack on issues is all fine by me. people need to own their views and be exposed like Santorum wants to start WWIII which would bankrupt us further, create mass poverty, and SS will no longer exist for those currently on the program. Bringing the troops home and stop policing the world is the only way to take care of our own. This is agreed by the vast majority. Get the message out. Don't let the media own the message of you to fit their narrative.

lib3rtarian
01-04-2012, 09:21 AM
We need to start attacking Romney in NH. We made a serious mistake by underestimating Romney in IA and spending all our energy on Newt. That "serial hypocrisy" ad should have been a "serial hypocrite and flip-flopper" ad covering both Newt and Romney. Attacking Romney in NH will bridge the gap between us and him and allow us a strong 2nd. My only fear is the media hyping Huntsman up and drive him to 2nd place ahead of us in NH. That would be devastating.

brooks009
01-04-2012, 09:25 AM
Learn from this - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ron-pauls-great-expectations_616016.html


We lost votes at the caucus when candidates and people spoke out against Paul ... and most of what they said was misinformed.

Kevin Smyth
01-04-2012, 09:29 AM
We were wrong by expecting that Democrats would cross over and abandon Obama for Paul, there was no evidence of that last night. I wonder if the newsletters scared them away?

TheDriver
01-04-2012, 09:30 AM
We lost the information war. Ron needs to use his time on national TV more wisely. We need to double our efforts to combat the main-stream-media lies, and smears by reaching voters. We need to fund Ron's and RevPac's TV, radio and mail ads. And, oh yea, I almost forget about the other candidates--as the media is the biggest competition--we need to expose, on the internet and local news outlets, their lack of conservative principles and their advocation for bigger government.

cynic
01-04-2012, 09:34 AM
If we want the support of older folks, we need to appeal to their pocket book by explaining how RP can protect their fixed incomes and savings that are being slaughtered by low interest rates.

bpitas
01-04-2012, 09:39 AM
I like that the campaign had a soldier in front of the camera & podium defending Dr.Paul's foreign policy.

A military/inteligence team needs to be organized & there message needs to be put out there on foreign policy.

I saw a couple of tweets last night that it's a big no-no for a soldier in uniform to appear in anything related to politics. Can anyone confirm that? Because if it's not a big deal, then I think it would DEFINITELY help push the foreign policy message forward and defuse one of the major objections against Ron Paul's campaign.

TheDriver
01-04-2012, 09:40 AM
I saw a couple of tweets last night that it's a big no-no for a soldier in uniform to appear in anything related to politics. Can anyone confirm that? Because if it's not a big deal, then I think it would DEFINITELY help push the foreign policy message forward and defuse one of the major objections against Ron Paul's campaign.

Confirmed!

bpitas
01-04-2012, 09:59 AM
I think there were two main things that I feel I learned yesterday/last night.

First Ron Paul needs to figure out a way to get more air-time for Jesse Benton and Rand. I really hadn't seen many interviews with those two previous to yesterday, and I hate to say it, but they actually articulate Ron Paul's positions better than Ron does sometimes. If that can't happen, then we need to take what those two do better than Ron does and coach him to do those things. What I noticed was that Jesse Benton is very compelling when he talks about the positives in Ron Paul's campaign. When a hostile reporter says something negative about Dr. Paul, Jesse instantly takes control of the conversation and stresses the positives on that subject, disarming the interviewer before they can go too far. If Ron Paul had done this in the Candy interview, there never would have been a "Ron Paul stormed out of interview" story, and it probably would have shortened the burn time of the racist newsletters article too.

When I saw Rand interviewed with his Dad, what struck me is that Rand very confidently pointed out, very succinctly, exactly what Rick Santorum had voted for that made him less conservative. He said in about 15 seconds what Ron Paul would have taken a minute to say, even though I'm SURE they both knew the exact same facts. The quicker Ron responds to questions, the more chance he has to get past the "gotcha" questions and get a chance to talk about important stuff.

Secondly, Ron Paul needs to stop thinking of interviews on television as a chance to get his word out, because they are not. The MSM is purposely making sure they do NOT talk about the issues where Ron Paul excels over the other candidates. I think the campaign should figure out a way to inject into interviews some sort of a reference to unbiased sources of information and beat the media at their own game. For example, what if when Candy asked about the newsletters Ron Paul answered "Well, if you want to see what people think about that, I'd suggest you go to YouTube and look up 'NAACP Ron Paul' and you'll see what people think". That disarms the media because it may push some people AWAY from using MSM to get their information, and once people get to something like YouTube, the chances of them hitting positive videos on Dr. Paul are high. I think eventually that will push the media to interview Ron Paul less, but it might be worth it.

Lastly, there were alot of surprises from a demographic perspective last night. I think everyone knew Ron Paul was going to get the young voters, but did anyone predict he was going to get more evangelical votes than Santorum? And we all knew Ron Paul was going to dominate with independents and democrats, but I think Ron Paul needs to take that and RUN with it. He should say it in EVERY interview and totally push how that makes him far more electable than Romney or Santorum. The media will try to say that the democrats who voted for Ron Paul were just trying to sabotage the election, and Ron Paul should have a killer response to that, memorized in advance of the interview. Something to the effect of "Actually I think what we're seeing is that people don't care so much about party lines anymore - they just want to see someone get nominated who can actually save the country". If he keeps repeating that with conviction and talks over any interviewer that tries to interrupt him, i think that message has legs.

xFiFtyOnE
01-04-2012, 10:00 AM
Ron needs to talk jobs and the economy on a level that your average Fox viewer can understand and be a little more careful on what he says so it can't be twisted against him. Try to move away from the foreign policy stuff, show the sheep how he can make their lives personally better. Just my thoughts. :P

EBounding
01-04-2012, 10:17 AM
The biggest failure is that Paul did not re-frame his foreign policy message to appeal to mainstream conservatives. Yes, the economy is the number one issue, but foreign policy is linked to trust. The link between overall trust and foreign policy is not reflected the polls. If Republican voters do not trust him, they won't vote for him.

It's obvious middle-aged conservatives do not trust him, which is why they defaulted to either Romney or "the-flavor-of-the week" (Santorum). Yes, the media is not on Paul's side, but that's a reality we have to deal with which is actually surmountable. Paul has been very clear about what he WON'T do in terms of foreign policy and defense (stop nation building, end the wars, end foreign aid), but he does not often say what he will DO for defense instead.

He can easily re-frame his foreign policy to appeal to conservatives without compromising any principles. He doesn't even need to bring up war mongering hypotheticals like, "he would go to war with Iran if they were a threat and it was declared". He just needs to talk up investing in military technology instead of the old fashioned ideas of occupation, foreign bases and undeclared wars. He needs to get specific. No one else is talking up military technology. He could OWN this issue and become the leader.

For instance, last week my mother (a Romney supporter) was saying how Ron Paul is nuts and that he wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I of course corrected her, but she still insisted that Iran is crazy and will pursue and use nukes and that Paul just wants to gut our defense. I told her that the West has given Iran two paths:

1) If they pursue a nuclear weapon, they will get sanctions and get bombed.
2) If they don't pursue a nuclear weapon, they will get sanctions and get bombed.

Which path do you think a radical Islamist country is going to take? Or any country for that matter? I also went on to explain how he supports investing in military technology for defense such as submarines, hypersonic weapons, and missile defense like the SDI initiative he supported in the 80's.

Her response was, "Well, I've never heard Ron Paul say it like that." And she's right, he hasn't. He's said all these things in different interviews, but not succinctly like he does when he talks about ending the wars and nation building.


Talking up military technology and getting specific about what he would do to build our defense not only would appeal to conservatives, but it is perfectly consistent with his message of peace. I hope he does this soon.