Gaps in the Ron Paul campaign? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 08:19 AM

LEK

01-13-2012, 09:12 AM

Ron Paul told the Judge that he will let his supporters argue for him - something to that effect:
http://www.dailypaul.com/203587/ron-paul-on-freedom-watch-1-12-12

Here are some ads from Santa Rita Super Pac airing in SC: http://www.santaritasuperpac.org/

These touch on the points you mentinoed.

Crystallas

01-13-2012, 09:15 AM

Because we're running a grass roots campaign here. We have to pick our battles on how the money is spent because we're going to be around for longer than just the 50 state primary.

The banker backed candidates can blow cash wherever they want. We can't, and we have to assume that we'll be in it for the general as well.

FreeTraveler

01-13-2012, 09:20 AM

For one thing, all #4 does is paint somebody different with the same brush they used on Ron Paul. There's no more proof that guy wrote the "racists" newsletters than there is about Dr. Paul, and there's at least one contract writer who was working on the newsletters at that time whose style is much closer than his. I lost all faith in Ben Swann after he made that unbelievably huge leap in logic and smeared someone else's good name in defense of Dr. Paul. WWRPD?? Not that, for sure.

As for #7 and #*, it's too early in the game. We're picking off the birds at the back of the flock first.

The campaign knows what it's doing.

Unknown.User

01-13-2012, 09:22 AM

kylejack

01-13-2012, 09:41 AM

2. Does the Paul campaign have Psychologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?
I don't know if we need psychologists, but they're definitely doing better in this department. Tom Woods, Bruce Fein, Michael Scheuer, and Doug Wead have all been writing great articles in support of Ron this year, something that was sorely lacking last time.

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.
They do a good job of controlling the BS. Can't get nasty with every interviewer or they'll stop giving us interviews. We need the media, so we have to generally treat them with respect until they get way out of line.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).
I like what Swann is doing, but I don't find his newsletter bit helpful to our cause.

ZanZibar

01-13-2012, 10:01 AM

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 10:59 AM

Ron Paul told the Judge that he will let his supporters argue for him - something to that effect: These touch on the points you mentinoed.
His supporters cannot do that because they are not interviewed on the major channels like him.

We have to pick our battles on how the money is spent because we're going to be around for longer than just the 50 state primary.
True but the "electability" battle is in my view one of the top three, alongside Foreign Policy and overspending.

For one thing, all #4 does is paint somebody different with the same brush they used on Ron Paul. There's no more proof that guy wrote the "racists" newsletters than there is about Dr. Paul, and there's at least one contract writer who was working on the newsletters at that time whose style is much closer than his. I lost all faith in Ben Swann after he made that unbelievably huge leap in logic and smeared someone else's good name in defense of Dr. Paul. WWRPD?? Not that, for sure.... The campaign knows what it's doing.
The proof is not definitive for all the articles, but we now know for a fact that James B. Powell wrote at least one of the offending articles since his name was on it and to report that he wrote it is not smearing him at all. At the very least, this adds a lot of weight to Paul's statements that he never wrote the stuff.

I don't know if we need psychologists, but they're definitely doing better in this department. Tom Woods, Bruce Fein, Michael Scheuer, and Doug Wead have all been writing great articles in support of Ron this year, something that was sorely lacking last time. They do a good job of controlling the BS. Can't get nasty with every interviewer or they'll stop giving us interviews. We need the media, so we have to generally treat them with respect until they get way out of line. I like what Swann is doing, but I don't find his newsletter bit helpful to our cause.
I think you need psychologists because they can tune the message for maximum impact using important phrases/keywords. You do not have to get nasty but you can be firm like the 911 conspiracy theory interview where RP was not nasty but was very firm. Swann is very useful because he reported what no one else would and exposed the identity of one of the ghost writers which can counter the belief many people have that RP wrote the things himself.

No campaign is ever perfect and no campaign is ever able to do everything it really should do. But you can still win in spite of being imperfect. Not only that, but not everything above is necessary or even a good idea.
You do not have to be perfect to realize that if people are refusing to vote for Dr Paul because they think he cannot beat Obama, you have to dispel the myth vigorously. In my view, this is even more important than going after the other candidates to knock them out because even if it comes down to Romney Versus Paul, more voters will gravitate towards Romney because they believe he is stronger than Paul against Obama, even if they know in their hearts that Paul is the better candidate. Isn't this just common sense?

So why on earth does the campaign not deal with this critical issue urgently and forcefully? If they could spend so much money hitting Romney/Gingrich/Santorum, why can't they spend on an ad to convince voters that RP is electable and thereby bring in possibly millions more into the fold and knock out Romney?

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 11:08 AM

centure7

01-13-2012, 11:25 AM

You raise a lot of good points. A few responses can't seem to accept constructive criticism.

1. Why has the Paul campaign not yet put out a TV advert that debunks the "unelectable" myth with polls showing the head-to-head matchups with Obama? In IA and NH, many voters chose Romney precisely because they falsely believe he has the best chance against Obama. So why has the campaign apparently not addressed this issue aggressively when it is clearly hurting Ron Paul?Ron Paul needs to do exactly that, but has not yet. Everyone knows Romney does well against Obama, but nobody seems to know that Paul does well against Obama.

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?I don't know, but it should put a psychologist in its ranks as a consulting. Contact the campaign about that... why ask us?

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.This conflicts with your point #6. Paul should as you put it so well, "calmly challenge with facts". That is basically what he does.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).So ask the campaign to do it. I'm not going to.

5. Do Paul supporters ever write directly to the journalists who write trash to calmly challenge them with facts? Most journalists complain that RP supporters write them hate-mail.I do, and let me be the first to say that insults and hate as a response to insulting and hateful remarks by the media are ABSOLUTELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!

6. Is there a campaign to phone in to news stations over biased reporting and mis-representations? If there is, how come I never see retractions or acknowledgments, except when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul to explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" (he said he gets hammered by Ron Paul supporters)?There are few people who want to put them self into the spotlight like that. I'm certainly not one of them.

7. Why has the Paul campaign apparently failed to clearly and precisely show that a vote for Romney is as good as a vote for Obama?They are busy attacking Sanatorum and Gingrich to get into position for that. Its a strategy that I strongly approve of!

8. Why isn't the link between Romney and the corrupt bankers not being fully exploited?What link?

hueylong

01-13-2012, 11:30 AM

Negative negative negative. Tsk Tsk.

BUSHLIED

01-13-2012, 11:40 AM

No campaign is ever perfect and no campaign is ever able to do everything it really should do. But you can still win in spite of being imperfect.

Not only that, but not everything above is necessary or even a good idea.

The campaign can still improve and MUST improve if they want to WIN and go heads up against Romney. Ron is grabbing 20% based on his sheer message and appeal BUT Romney gets 30%+ because of his operation and GOTV...he has no inherent appeal, no draw like Paul has, they are not enthusiastic about Romney BUT he is able to overcome that and win....

This becomes critically important in LARGE PRIMARY STATES with hundreds of thousands if not millions of voters...

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 12:16 PM

From my reading of the various comments in many threads and my exchanges so far, I cannot shake the feeling that there are too many naive Ron Paul supporters who are living in a Matrix-type dream world. They seem to believe that just because there is a movement against big government and RP is doing better this time round, therefore he will win. Sorry but it simply does not automatically follow. To win, no stone should be left unturned, no argument left "unmade", no group left "untalked" to and no powerful advert left "unaired". This blind belief that the Paul campaign "knows what they are doing" and cannot be wrong and we should therefore not urge them on with constructive criticism is just plain silly (sorry people, no disrespect intended).

We all want Dr Paul to win and fix America. The road to the White House is long and perilous and full of pitfalls and the Ron Paul campaign cannot afford to be lax or negligent on anything that they can do something about. I have written to them a couple of times (though never received any response) and I even post on their FB page (I am probably not the only one). The campaign is way better than in 2008 but there is a lot of room for improvement and I do not understand why for example "hueylong" says I am being negative when I only want things polished up.

The forces arrayed against this campaign are vast and innumerable and every little thing that CAN be done SHOULD be done to give any small advantage (of course assuming there is no significant downside). As I said in another thread I started, I feel the campaign botched the Iowa caucus when RP was in pole position with their slow response to go after Santorum when he started rising in the polls (NH campaign was much better). I disagree with the current strategy of going after the other candidates first instead of Romney. Pointing these things out should not make me an enemy.

Unlike many people in here, I am very realistic about what is really going on and have no grand illusions. If RP does not do well in SC, I do not see a clear path to the nomination and all the effort made destroying Gingrich and Santorum will have been for naught if in the end Romney keeps winning and looking unstoppable. Which is why I believe - and you can disagree with me strongly on this - the best strategy is to hit Romney NOW with tough adverts and deal with the electability issue as I suggested at the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, this would be a one-two combination that Romney will not be able to recover from if it is executed with clinical precision.

You raise a lot of good points. A few responses can't seem to accept constructive criticism. Ron Paul needs to do exactly that, but has not yet. Everyone knows Romney does well against Obama, but nobody seems to know that Paul does well against Obama.... This conflicts with your point #6. Paul should as you put it so well, "calmly challenge with facts". That is basically what he does.
You can calmly challenge interviewers/panelists with a bit of passion. There is no contradiction. Gingrich has already done it in debates with great success.

What link?
Romney's biggest contributors are the bankers such as Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, etc. They got corruptly bailed out using firstly TARP and then the $16trillion that the Fed secretly created out of thin air and loaned to them at 0.1% interest, only for them to buy govt bonds at 3% and make a very tidy $13billion profit. Corrupt corporations only back equally corrupt candidates.

The campaign can still improve and MUST improve if they want to WIN and go heads up against Romney. Ron is grabbing 20% based on his sheer message and appeal BUT Romney gets 30%+ because of his operation and GOTV...he has no inherent appeal, no draw like Paul has, they are not enthusiastic about Romney BUT he is able to overcome that and win....
Great Point.

Eleutheros

01-13-2012, 01:49 PM

Lethalmiko, while I think you make a very compelling argument with the points you discussed, what I don't think you (fully) realize is that the campaign simply does not have the money or resources to attack the MSM and the other candidates in the way you think they should. Because of this, they must pick their battles wisely, and in order to do that, they realize that while this has been an uphill battle, it has been a very positive and progressive one, but at the same time, some issues that we may think is important in being addressed must be pushed to the back burner in favor of more pressing matters that will garner much more favorable results. I really think the campaign is doing great in this regard.

I disagree with the current strategy of going after the other candidates first instead of Romney. Pointing these things out should not make me an enemy.

I'm sure you do disagree, but it's for the best. We are fighting this battle on three fronts (four if you count Obama): fighting the weaker candidates, fighting Romney, and fighting the MSM spin propaganda. If we try to aggressively fight all three at once, it will prove to be counterproductive, we'll get battle fatigue, and nothing will get accomplished. Fighting the weaker candidates first not only will put them out of commission, but it will also help damage the MSM credibility and making their negative RP propaganda harder to spin. So will effective kill/cripple two birds with one stone.

Unlike many people in here, I am very realistic about what is really going on and have no grand illusions. If RP does not do well in SC, I do not see a clear path to the nomination and all the effort made destroying Gingrich and Santorum will have been for naught if in the end Romney keeps winning and looking unstoppable. Which is why I believe - and you can disagree with me strongly on this - the best strategy is to hit Romney NOW with tough adverts and deal with the electability issue as I suggested at the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, this would be a one-two combination that Romney will not be able to recover from if it is executed with clinical precision.

First of all, short of another unforeseen MSM spin propaganda, there is nothing that suggests that RP won't do well in SC. His rise in the polls has been simply phenomenal. Believe it or not, we really don't need to attack Romney anyway. Let the weaker candidates and the MSM with the Bain Capital story do the dirty work for us, then all we have to do is nail in the coffin, and dine off Romney's candidate carcass. Why do we have to expend more effort than we need to? I understand your point, but it sounds like you're making the campaign do too much unnecessary work at this point in time. We will go full force on Romney when the field has been cleared out of the other candidates.

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 02:59 PM

Eleutheros, you have made very good points and in principle I agree with you. My unresolved problems are as follows:

1. You say "some issue that we may think is important in being addressed must be pushed to the back burner in favor of more pressing matters that will garner much more favorable results". I have trouble believing that dealing with the Electability issue is less pressing than the other goals of the campaign. According to exit polls in both Iowa and NH, a third of voters said electability was their biggest issue and these are the people that gave Romney his win in both states.

Now, compare the electability issue on one hand with fighting the other weaker candidates, the MSM, Obama and Romney on the other. If the electability argument is won, it immediately kills all four birds with a single shot because it translates into significantly more votes for Paul. The more people vote for him, the weaker the other candidates (including Romney) get, the less room for the media to spin and the weaker Obama becomes. Tell me how I am wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/early-nh-exit-polls-voters-look-for-electability/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/voters-in-nh-highlight-economy-and-are-mostly-unmoved-by-ads-according-to-early-exit-polls/2012/01/10/gIQAV807oP_story.html

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/iowa-caucus-entrance-polls-electability-tops-the-list/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-polls-show-sharp-divide-among-voters.html

2. Time is running out. Achieving the other goals may create space to manoeuvre, but if Romney has an unassailable lead by then, what is the point? Again, how am I mistaken here?

3. Perhaps I can agree with you that "we really don't need to attack Romney anyway", but only if the electability issue has been dealt with since on its own, it would blunt his momentum. I would still favour an attack to bury him for good, just to make sure.

4. From the foregoing, would it not be better if the campaign pulled all the other ads and focused solely on electability ads (thereby dealing with the resources problem)?

Eleutheros

01-13-2012, 03:58 PM

Lethalmiko, your points of contention lies in two major points: electability and Romney's assumed lead. I will address those two points accordingly:

Electability: If you think about it for a moment; this is really a non-issue that has really been a red herring spin by the MSM that is becoming increasingly refuted each election. RP is electable simply by virtue that he is constitutionally eligible for the office of the US presidency. In short, it is a meaningless buzzword that serves no purpose than to discourage voters from voting for RP; it is a perception issue, not a real issue.

Romney's assumed lead: Remember, it is all about the DELEGATES, and less about getting the popular vote. So as far as delegates go, we are in great shape: while Romney has 7 delegates, RP has a lot more, 3 hard and (a maximum of) 21 soft. While the MSM would like for you to believe otherwise, don't let Romney winning the popular vote detract you from the goal: getting the necessary delegates needed to secure the nomination and don't let the MSM spin detract you from the overall goal.

Oukvekpwv

01-13-2012, 04:12 PM

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

One of the reasons why I have a strong distaste, to put it lightly, for Obama and most politicians is because he uses social-psychological phenomina to get people to act without thinking at the same time alienating opposition making it a crime against society to actually think beyond key phrases.. Ron hasn't nor does he need to stoop to that level.. this is what makes him stand apart from everyone else.. Truth speaks for itself..

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 04:28 PM

Electability: If you think about it for a moment; this is really a non-issue that has really been a red herring spin by the MSM that is becoming increasingly refuted each election. RP is electable simply by virtue that he is constitutionally eligible for the office of the US presidency. In short, it is a meaningless buzzword that serves no purpose than to discourage voters from voting for RP; it is a perception issue, not a real issue.
I know it is a red herring but the point is that a large number of voters believe it. Obama won his election purely on perception and not on substance (Ron Paul in an interview with Russia Today expressed serious doubts about Obama even before he took office in January 2009). Therefore, you cannot ignore dealing with a problem just because it is not substantive. As long as enough people believe the BS, Paul is prevented from winning. The corrupt media will keep spinning this narrative endlessly unless the Paul campaign actively diffuses it.

Romney's assumed lead: Remember, it is all about the DELEGATES, and less about getting the popular vote. So as far as delegates go, we are in great shape: while Romney has 7 delegates, RP has a lot more, 3 hard and (a maximum of) 21 soft. While the MSM would like for you to believe otherwise, don't let Romney winning the popular vote detract you from the goal: getting the necessary delegates needed to secure the nomination and don't let the MSM spin detract you from the overall goal.
Voters in upcoming contests do NOT know this fact. But in any case, if Romney starts looking unbeatable, voters in upcoming Winner-Take-All contests will fall in line and vote for him and thus erase any leads Paul may have in delegates up to that point. There is no substitute for outright wins in those kinds of contests and Paul needs to have momentum going into them which he cannot do if people think he is weaker than Romney against Obama. The only scenario where I see Paul overturning this situation is if the totals of new people, Independents and Blue Republicans cancels and neutralizes the traditional neocon Republican voters and so far I see no evidence of this.

Lethalmiko

01-13-2012, 04:43 PM

One of the reasons why I have a strong distaste, to put it lightly, for Obama and most politicians is because he uses social-psychological phenomina to get people to act without thinking at the same time alienating opposition making it a crime against society to actually think beyond key phrases.. Ron hasn't nor does he need to stoop to that level.. this is what makes him stand apart from everyone else.. Truth speaks for itself..
I was not suggesting that Paul's campaign resorts to dirty propaganda that stops people thinking. You can give the exact same truths in better packaging, so to speak. For example, instead of Paul saying that Iran is nowhere near developing a nuke (which makes it sound like it is his crazy opinion), why can't he emphasize the fact that his position is based on the reports of the CIA/DOD/911 Commission? He sometimes mentions it in passing but fails to show its significance. If he said something like:

"Do you really think that the CIA has a bunch of kooky fools writing their reports?"

it would carry far more impact. Even when he mentions what Benjamin Netanyahu said in Congress last year, it still comes off very weak because it lacks emphasis in the right places. He could say:

"The Prime Minister of Israel himself, the highest public servant told us in Congress that they do not need American troops because they can defend themselves. Who are we to ignore what he said and think we know better than him, a man who has access to daily intelligence reports from the Mossad?"

A little tweaking of words can change voters' opinions, hence the Psychology aspect.

UPDATE EDIT: Andrew Napolitano already uses these techniques effectively on his program "Freedom Watch". He throws in subtle suggestions into his questions like the MSM does. He knows it works.

JJ2

01-13-2012, 05:41 PM

From my reading of the various comments in many threads and my exchanges so far, I cannot shake the feeling that there are too many naive Ron Paul supporters who are living in a Matrix-type dream world. They seem to believe that just because there is a movement against big government and RP is doing better this time round, therefore he will win. Sorry but it simply does not automatically follow. To win, no stone should be left unturned, no argument left "unmade", no group left "untalked" to and no powerful advert left "unaired". This blind belief that the Paul campaign "knows what they are doing" and cannot be wrong and we should therefore not urge them on with constructive criticism is just plain silly (sorry people, no disrespect intended).

We all want Dr Paul to win and fix America. The road to the White House is long and perilous and full of pitfalls and the Ron Paul campaign cannot afford to be lax or negligent on anything that they can do something about. I have written to them a couple of times (though never received any response) and I even post on their FB page (I am probably not the only one). The campaign is way better than in 2008 but there is a lot of room for improvement and I do not understand why for example "hueylong" says I am being negative when I only want things polished up.

The forces arrayed against this campaign are vast and innumerable and every little thing that CAN be done SHOULD be done to give any small advantage (of course assuming there is no significant downside). As I said in another thread I started, I feel the campaign botched the Iowa caucus when RP was in pole position with their slow response to go after Santorum when he started rising in the polls (NH campaign was much better). I disagree with the current strategy of going after the other candidates first instead of Romney. Pointing these things out should not make me an enemy.

Unlike many people in here, I am very realistic about what is really going on and have no grand illusions. If RP does not do well in SC, I do not see a clear path to the nomination and all the effort made destroying Gingrich and Santorum will have been for naught if in the end Romney keeps winning and looking unstoppable. Which is why I believe - and you can disagree with me strongly on this - the best strategy is to hit Romney NOW with tough adverts and deal with the electability issue as I suggested at the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, this would be a one-two combination that Romney will not be able to recover from if it is executed with clinical precision.

You are 100% correct, and I have been saying the same things. We will be proven correct eventually, one way or the other. I just hope and pray the campaign will do whatever they can to stop Romney's momentum and promote Paul's electability.

JJ2

01-13-2012, 05:47 PM

Krtek

01-13-2012, 05:48 PM

I agree strongly the campaign or revpac needs ads showing that Ron Paul does better then all other candidates in head to head polls against Obama, with the exception of Romney. Also that he is within the margin of error to Romney. I believe New Hampshire exit polling showed that electibility was the number one issue for many people, maybe 35%, and amongst those people Romney absolutly CRUSHED the competition. We can not afford to lose so many votes to this, the truth needs to be exposed.

JJ2

01-13-2012, 05:50 PM

spudea

01-13-2012, 06:18 PM

All 21 of your posts have been absolute hogwash trying to tear down the Ron Paul campaign. You think Ron Paul has unlimited time and resources and is therefore doing everything wrong. He has some really great people working in his campaign. Does that mean they will do everything right, and perfectly timed for the greatest effect? No, but these 21 posts of yours contribute absolutely nothing. Noone at these forums has the inside track to the campaigns stategy, or the ability to change what the campaign is doing. So you are just bouncing shit off a brick wall with these questions.

If you have ever worked on a presidential campaign, if you have any reputable contacts in politics and campaigning, if you aren't just a nobody with a lot of time on his hands to criticize people for enjoyment, maybe you'd contact the campaign directly and get your questions answered for real instead of coming here to post your bull shit.

Wolfgang Bohringer

01-13-2012, 06:23 PM

BTW, I checked out the advert on electability by the Santa Rita SuperPac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_UfB9EzhKA) but in my view it is useless. It just rehashes Ron Paul's rather weak argument that he is electable because he has been elected 12 times to congress. The one-on-one head-to-head matchup polls pitting Obama against Paul and against Romney are the most convincing argument but the Paul campaign is not using them in any sort of effective, visible and vigorous way. Why???

At least they tried, but yes it was executed poorly. They even threw the 1 poll's numbers in at the very end but it was too fast and short.

I think they need to lead up front with the 50-50 one-on-one poll numbers and then show the pompous ass Carl Cameron. And then make a logical deduction as to why on earth Carl Cameron would want to ignore the facts.

ssjevot

01-13-2012, 06:26 PM

I'm getting my PhD in Psychology and also have bachelor's in business that included marketing classes. Maybe they should just let me work for them. :p

Wolfgang Bohringer

01-13-2012, 06:27 PM

abstrusezincate

01-13-2012, 06:39 PM

I hate to say it, but a big part of professional campaigning is negativity. You try to find the right combination of getting people to support you but not the other guy(s). There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but let's root this discussion in the strategy.

The grand strategy seems to be to reduce this race to a two-man race between Paul and Romney. The purpose of the strategy is to eliminate anyone who could be construed as any sort of conservative alternative being able to oppose Mitt besides Ron, setting up the most favorable matchup for someone who has views that don't mesh well with traditional concerns of much of this party. The method they have chosen is delegate maximization, focusing on smaller states and making their relative lack of money compared to Romney but superior ground support into an asset.

Is it enough to win? We'll see, but like in poker, you play the hand you have. The reason you don't attack Romney for as long as you can is because you need him to be the alternative, precisely because of his weaknesses. In a race with more than two people, the deal will be cut between the two others as there is no ideological constraint, so Paul can't blast away full barrel until the others are pushed out.

The reward is that a two way race makes Paul look good on a majority of issues, including economic issues where he fits well with most Republicans. The risk is that he will be ignored after SC and FL if he hangs on alone. He can avoid that if he does two things: keep Romney close in SC, and win some caucuses between FL and Super Tuesday.

At that point, two factors out of the campaign's control will come into play. Factor #1 is the decision that will ultimately have to be made by the anyone but Mitt crowd if they'll support Paul, like those evangelical leaders, which would be a gamechanger. Factor #2 is whether or not the media covers this in a way that makes this a race. If there are four debates between Romney and Paul, alone, in February, that makes a huge difference as opposed to just saying he is the heir presumptive.

The campaign, as best I can tell, is doing everything they can to create this situation. In the worst case scenario, they will maximize their delegates. In the best case scenario, the GOP shows buyer's remorse on Romney and Paul pulls it out when he launches the attack on why Mitt is not only unelectable, but unconservative.

Lethalmiko

01-14-2012, 02:39 AM

If I were the campaign ... I would pour every last penny into winning South Carolina. If Paul wins SC, he will win the nomination... If it doesn't work, and he does not win SC, then he almost certainly won't win the nomination anyway. Delegates won't even be an issue once Romney is "anointed" as the nominee and starts getting 80% of the vote and winning every winner-take-all state. Look at '08, it happened with McCain.
Almost exactly one of the points I made a few posts earlier.

All 21 of your posts have been absolute hogwash trying to tear down the Ron Paul campaign. You think Ron Paul has unlimited time and resources and is therefore doing everything wrong. He has some really great people working in his campaign. Does that mean they will do everything right, and perfectly timed for the greatest effect? No, but these 21 posts of yours contribute absolutely nothing. Noone at these forums has the inside track to the campaigns stategy, or the ability to change what the campaign is doing. So you are just bouncing shit off a brick wall with these questions.

If you have ever worked on a presidential campaign, if you have any reputable contacts in politics and campaigning, if you aren't just a nobody with a lot of time on his hands to criticize people for enjoyment, maybe you'd contact the campaign directly and get your questions answered for real instead of coming here to post your bull shit.
I will not waste time arguing with you because you are being irrational (or dishonest). If you had read and understood my first 21 posts in detail, you would not have posted this.

When I saw that new Electability ad come out yesterday with the poll numbers at the end I thought, "Hmm, maybe the a super-pac is listening to people like Lethalmiko make constructive criticisms and suggestions".
Do you have a link to the advert?

The grand strategy seems to be to reduce this race to a two-man race between Paul and Romney. The purpose of the strategy is to eliminate anyone who could be construed as any sort of conservative alternative being able to oppose Mitt besides Ron, setting up the most favorable matchup for someone who has views that don't mesh well with traditional concerns of much of this party. The method they have chosen is delegate maximization, focusing on smaller states and making their relative lack of money compared to Romney but superior ground support into an asset.

Is it enough to win? We'll see, but like in poker, you play the hand you have. The reason you don't attack Romney for as long as you can is because you need him to be the alternative, precisely because of his weaknesses. In a race with more than two people, the deal will be cut between the two others as there is no ideological constraint, so Paul can't blast away full barrel until the others are pushed out.

The reward is that a two way race makes Paul look good on a majority of issues, including economic issues where he fits well with most Republicans. The risk is that he will be ignored after SC and FL if he hangs on alone. He can avoid that if he does two things: keep Romney close in SC, and win some caucuses between FL and Super Tuesday.

At that point, two factors out of the campaign's control will come into play. Factor #1 is the decision that will ultimately have to be made by the anyone but Mitt crowd if they'll support Paul, like those evangelical leaders, which would be a gamechanger. Factor #2 is whether or not the media covers this in a way that makes this a race. If there are four debates between Romney and Paul, alone, in February, that makes a huge difference as opposed to just saying he is the heir presumptive.

The campaign, as best I can tell, is doing everything they can to create this situation. In the worst case scenario, they will maximize their delegates. In the best case scenario, the GOP shows buyer's remorse on Romney and Paul pulls it out when he launches the attack on why Mitt is not only unelectable, but unconservative.
You need to answer the question I have raised several times. What good is this strategy if Romney keeps chalking up wins in the process and becomes the inevitable nominee? He already has two in the bag and is currently leading in both SC and FL in the polls and the Paul campaign won't touch him or make the electability argument with clear aggressive new ads. This looks to me more and more like a recipe for suicide.

Rincewind

01-14-2012, 02:41 AM

BTW, I checked out the advert on electability by the Santa Rita SuperPac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_UfB9EzhKA) but in my view it is useless. It just rehashes Ron Paul's rather weak argument that he is electable because he has been elected 12 times to congress. The one-on-one head-to-head matchup polls pitting Obama against Paul and against Romney are the most convincing argument but the Paul campaign is not using them in any sort of effective, visible and vigorous way. Why???

FWIW, most of Santa Rita's ads relate to electability in one way or another. They're really hammering the point.

Blue_Merle

01-14-2012, 03:06 AM

Bump. The OP's concerns need to be addressed by the campaign.

This shit is spot on and anyone serious about actually winning would respect it.

With that said the elders of this forum need to step up and respond here.

F3d

01-14-2012, 03:21 AM

Electability ad needed ASAP!

MaxPower

01-14-2012, 03:49 AM

I need someone who knows better to explain some things to me.

1. Why has the Paul campaign not yet put out a TV advert that debunks the "unelectable" myth with polls showing the head-to-head matchups with Obama? In IA and NH, many voters chose Romney precisely because they falsely believe he has the best chance against Obama. So why has the campaign apparently not addressed this issue aggressively when it is clearly hurting Ron Paul?

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).

5. Do Paul supporters ever write directly to the journalists who write trash to calmly challenge them with facts? Most journalists complain that RP supporters write them hate-mail.

6. Is there a campaign to phone in to news stations over biased reporting and mis-representations? If there is, how come I never see retractions or acknowledgments, except when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul to explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" (he said he gets hammered by Ron Paul supporters)?

7. Why has the Paul campaign apparently failed to clearly and precisely show that a vote for Romney is as good as a vote for Obama?

8. Why isn't the link between Romney and the corrupt bankers not being fully exploited?
1. I do think they should put out a spot that gets the heavily-suppressed fact that Ron Paul polls better against Obama than any other candidate aside, sometimes, from Romney. Remember that they do have limited funds and limited airtime to get points across, and have apparently prioritized certain other topics above this one; I hope such an ad will soon be forthcoming.

3. Personalized aggressiveness really isn't Ron Paul's style, and lashing out in what would be perceived as an ill-tempered fashion could actually hurt his image in the eyes of much of the public. However, Dr. Paul and his "surrogates" have occasionally stood up and said "enough" to the media, as when Dana Bash was busily demagoguing to him the other day about the supposed "lost voter" who was upset she didn't get to speak to him, and he informed her that it was the media's fault for swamping the diner and crowding out the actual public he was supposed to be meeting, while Jesse Benton interceded to declare that these were "junky questions."

4. Swann's piece doesn't really prove anything; it's interesting, but I don't think it would be a great idea to tout something as circumstantial as the case Swann makes as gospel. I actually think that Pete Larson's recent textual analysis of some of the newsletter articles as compared with known writings of Ron Paul amounts to far better evidence that Dr. Paul is not the author of the newsletters, especially seeing how Larson opposes Ron Paul's candidacy and is openly disparaging of the good Dr. himself. See here: http://peterslarson.com/2012/01/08/determining-authorship-of-ron-paul-newsletters-through-text-analysis-part-3/
The campaign probably hasn't picked up on this because it's an unofficial study done on a website which is not exceptionally prominent.

5. I have responded with facts in messages directly to one or two journalists before, and I think many Ron Paul supporters do; said yellow journalists simply prefer to emphasize the flamers.

6. Oh, our people most definitely phone and write in when Ron Paul is misrepresented, and we have obtained retractions before, such as when Fox News dishonestly disparaged Dr. Paul's CPAC win last year by playing the (much-more-negative) audience response from the year before instead of from that very event, prompting Ron Paul supporters to phone in and gain a retraction. Likewise, after an MSNBC article recently quoted Ron Paul as saying the country was "better off with Jim Crow laws" when he had actually said the exact opposite- that it was "better off without Jim Crow laws"- the supporters' reaction was strong enough to prompt them to amend the text and add a note about the "mistake."

7-8. I certainly hope they'll be going after Romney very soon; it seems they're biding their time, trying to knock off the other candidates and then take on Romney mono-a-mono.

milo10

01-14-2012, 03:53 AM

I need someone who knows better to explain some things to me.

1. Why has the Paul campaign not yet put out a TV advert that debunks the "unelectable" myth with polls showing the head-to-head matchups with Obama? In IA and NH, many voters chose Romney precisely because they falsely believe he has the best chance against Obama. So why has the campaign apparently not addressed this issue aggressively when it is clearly hurting Ron Paul?

Good question. I agree that they should do this.

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

I'm not sure if I understand this question, but I think you may have an inflated opinion of psychology.

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.

He has been doing that more. A candidate can only do that so much, and frankly Rand's approach of subtly bypassing criticism is better.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).

This would not help, at least not by the campaign. Individuals can use their own judgment depending on the conversation and there you do have a good point.

I tend to think the campaign handled the newsletter issue very well. I think a lot of people do not have a good idea of how political correctness or a hostile media works in this country. There is no fairness and no appeasing them, the only thing stopping the media is the sense that people feel the issue has been beaten to death and there is no longer a story. Ron sticking to his message clearly was the best thing he could do.

5. Do Paul supporters ever write directly to the journalists who write trash to calmly challenge them with facts? Most journalists complain that RP supporters write them hate-mail.

All of the time, but of course it will almost always be typified as hate mail rather than "brought facts clearly to my attention." I do think that some of the criticisms of Ron Paul supporters are warranted, such as there being overzealous in slight criticisms of Ron, but it is a mass movement, and you can not fully police that. It is what it is, and I am grateful that depth of support exists.

6. Is there a campaign to phone in to news stations over biased reporting and mis-representations? If there is, how come I never see retractions or acknowledgments, except when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul to explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" (he said he gets hammered by Ron Paul supporters)?

If we were more focused/organized on stuff like this, I would bet we'd get a lot more retractions. Very good point.

7. Why has the Paul campaign apparently failed to clearly and precisely show that a vote for Romney is as good as a vote for Obama?

The Paul campaign is going easy on Romney, to the point where some have described it looking like a coalition between the two. There are very good reasons for this. The campaign knows they can beat Romney one on one, the point is to get there and focus on getting everyone else out of the race first as soon as possible. Romney doing well actually helps us in the short term, so long as we keep getting in the top two places and building our support. Nobody in the media really understands this. Our goal should be to beat all the other conservatives, and then go full bore on Mitt. It's an unconventional campaign strategy that a more conventional candidate could not pull off.

8. Why isn't the link between Romney and the corrupt bankers not being fully exploited?

See answer above. While individuals can do this, now is not the time to go after Romney full bore. It would be far better to obliterate candidates like Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry in South Carolina, and start the process of sending them home as soon as possible.

You could have added to your list an ad about seniors. A 30 second ad showing that Ron would not touch Social Security, but would cut just about everything else in the government to make sure we can fulfill our obligations there is probably the biggest gap in the campaign. Seniors should love Ron Paul, and they need to be reached via TV.

Another gap is an ad on defense. Hazek did a good post on this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?349693-OPEN-LETTER-TO-THE-CAMPAIGN

There are a lot of gaps, but those two are pretty egregious, as is your first suggestion about an electability ad. Overall, we have one of the shrewdest campaigns of any candidate, but mistakes have been made. As they always are.

Lethalmiko

01-14-2012, 03:54 AM

I just sent a message to the Revolution Super PAC from their website (http://www.revolutionpac.com/). Excerpt of my message to the PAC:

"Exit polls from IA and NH show that a third of voters think electability is the most important issue, which probably explains why Romney won both states. SC initial poling shows similar patterns. The Paul campaign has not put out a clear aggressive ad showing he is electable by using the head-to-head matchup polls pitting Obama against Paul and Romney. I suggest that you guys do it urgently and I believe that it is the greatest single move that will significantly turn the tide in SC and beyond."

Lethalmiko

01-14-2012, 06:00 AM

I do think they should put out a spot that gets the heavily-suppressed fact that Ron Paul polls better against Obama than any other candidate aside, sometimes, from Romney. Remember that they do have limited funds and limited airtime to get points across, and have apparently prioritized certain other topics above this one; I hope such an ad will soon be forthcoming.
Agreed.

Swann's piece doesn't really prove anything; it's interesting, but I don't think it would be a great idea to tout something as circumstantial as the case Swann makes as gospel. I actually think that Pete Larson's recent textual analysis of some of the newsletter articles as compared with known writings of Ron Paul amounts to far better evidence that Dr. Paul is not the author of the newsletters, especially seeing how Larson opposes Ron Paul's candidacy and is openly disparaging of the good Dr. himself. See here: http://peterslarson.com/2012/01/08/determining-authorship-of-ron-paul-newsletters-through-text-analysis-part-3/. The campaign probably hasn't picked up on this because it's an unofficial study done on a website which is not exceptionally prominent.
Swann proves that Powell wrote at least ONE of the offending articles and it is possible he wrote more.

I have responded with facts in messages directly to one or two journalists before, and I think many Ron Paul supporters do; said yellow journalists simply prefer to emphasize the flamers.
Great. Keep it up.

Oh, our people most definitely phone and write in when Ron Paul is misrepresented, and we have obtained retractions before, such as when Fox News dishonestly disparaged Dr. Paul's CPAC win last year by playing the (much-more-negative) audience response from the year before instead of from that very event, prompting Ron Paul supporters to phone in and gain a retraction. Likewise, after an MSNBC article recently quoted Ron Paul as saying the country was "better off with Jim Crow laws" when he had actually said the exact opposite- that it was "better off without Jim Crow laws"- the supporters' reaction was strong enough to prompt them to amend the text and add a note about the "mistake."
Glad to read this.

I'm not sure if I understand this question, but I think you may have an inflated opinion of psychology.
I explained in more detail a few posts earlier. Never underestimate psychological manipulation and propaganda. Obama was elected partly due to this.

I tend to think the campaign handled the newsletter issue very well. I think a lot of people do not have a good idea of how political correctness or a hostile media works in this country. There is no fairness and no appeasing them, the only thing stopping the media is the sense that people feel the issue has been beaten to death and there is no longer a story. Ron sticking to his message clearly was the best thing he could do.
I partially agree but the media will not let this easily go. Even if they no longer talk about it in great detail, they keep throwing in a sentence or two referring to "Ron Paul's racist newsletters" so I think addressing it head-on is a better strategy.

The Paul campaign is going easy on Romney, to the point where some have described it looking like a coalition between the two. There are very good reasons for this. The campaign knows they can beat Romney one on one, the point is to get there and focus on getting everyone else out of the race first as soon as possible. Romney doing well actually helps us in the short term, so long as we keep getting in the top two places and building our support. Nobody in the media really understands this. Our goal should be to beat all the other conservatives, and then go full bore on Mitt. It's an unconventional campaign strategy that a more conventional candidate could not pull off.... now is not the time to go after Romney full bore. It would be far better to obliterate candidates like Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry in South Carolina, and start the process of sending them home as soon as possible.
I disagree strongly for reasons I have explained earlier. No one including you has answered my point that going after Romney later on just consolidates his lead and makes it harder to beat him, especially in Winner-Take-All states.

You could have added to your list an ad about seniors. A 30 second ad showing that Ron would not touch Social Security, but would cut just about everything else in the government to make sure we can fulfill our obligations there is probably the biggest gap in the campaign. Seniors should love Ron Paul, and they need to be reached via TV. Another gap is an ad on defense. Hazek did a good post on this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?349693-OPEN-LETTER-TO-THE-CAMPAIGN. There are a lot of gaps, but those two are pretty egregious, as is your first suggestion about an electability ad. Overall, we have one of the shrewdest campaigns of any candidate, but mistakes have been made. As they always are.
Totally agreed.

Lethalmiko

01-14-2012, 06:01 AM

Here is a possible "script" for an electability ad:
-----------------------------------------------------
ADVERT BEGIN

BIG VOICE:
They say Ron Paul is unelectable.
[Flash the word "Unelectable" on the screen across picture of Ron Paul. Play clips of pundits saying this. Flash pictures of articles with headlines showing this].

They say Romney is the only one who can beat Obama.
[Play clips of pundits saying this. Flash pictures of articles with headlines showing this].

They are dead wrong!
[Draw out the word "Wrong" for emphasis and flash the word across the screen in bold massive letters in capitals with a cross or no entry sign in front and a picture of a well known pundit in the background (Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly)]

The American people say otherwise.
[Graphic of polls of head-to-head matchups with Obama and Romney]

Ron Paul is in a statistical tie against Obama and rapidly gaining ground according to .... (insert names of two or three polls here)
[More polling graphics and clips from big news organizations, Fox & CNN especially]

Don't be fooled. Ron Paul beats president Obama with Independents and young voters. These are the groups who gave him the election in 2008. Ron Paul also beats Mitt Romney with independents. Romney cannot defeat Obama without independents.
[Pictures of Obama, Paul and Romney]

Most important of all, Ron Paul is the only one who brings in new voters who have been cured of their apathy.
[Picture of supporter holding a sign saying "Ron Paul cured my apathy"]

Ron Paul. The most electable candidate and only one who can restore America now!

ADVERT END

ross11988

01-14-2012, 06:03 AM

I had to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcqos-b3jDo

romacox

01-14-2012, 06:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mdadW6t0BJs#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mdadW6t0BJs#!

also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHwshLUlJLI&feature=youtu.be

Lethalmiko

01-14-2012, 07:40 AM

Let me summarize and reiterate my key arguments which I hope someone will address soon.

1. All this effort to win the White House will come to NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, if at least a third of voters still believe that Paul is unelectable going against Obama. No other argument will be able to persuade them (except the electability one) because they want to win and they believe that

a) Romney is stronger than Paul

b) Romney will be a better president than Obama

2. If Romney's current momentum is not arrested significantly BEFORE South Carolina, Ron Paul will have a next-to-impossible chance of winning thereafter.

3. A direct attack on Romney, while desirable, is not absolutely necessary but an aggressive campaign dealing with electability (point 1) is ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY CRITICAL. Voters must KNOW for a FACT that Paul is not only as strong as Romney but is infact a STRONGER candidate against Obama because of the Independent, Youth and Blue Republican vote.

----

romacox, great videos. Now we need an ad!!!

milo10

01-14-2012, 12:26 PM

I explained in more detail a few posts earlier. Never underestimate psychological manipulation and propaganda. Obama was elected partly due to this.

Your original post was something about having a psychologist on staff. The issue is way more complex than that, and it is not a matter of having a degree in psychology. I am familiar with the work of Kenrick Cleveland, Robert Dilts, Robert Cialdini, etc.. They are all experts on persuasion and changing minds, and the first two aren't psychologists. Dilts developed sleight of mouth by modeling Richard Bandler, who hates psychologists. LOL There are different theories of what works in marketing and psychology. Many people are good at this instinctively, and charisma can trump a lot of the various rules and techniques. I know that firsthand.

I partially agree but the media will not let this easily go. Even if they no longer talk about it in great detail, they keep throwing in a sentence or two referring to "Ron Paul's racist newsletters" so I think addressing it head-on is a better strategy.

And they will never let it go. Ever. Ever. Ever. LOL

Issue of race and political correctness in general is not a free market in ideas in this society. That is why we have Godwin's Law, because you can't have a rational discussion around these topics, so you have to bypass them.

If you think there is a free and open discussion of these ideas in today's culture, then nothing I can tell you will change your mind. Just observe.

I disagree strongly for reasons I have explained earlier. No one including you has answered my point that going after Romney later on just consolidates his lead and makes it harder to beat him, especially in Winner-Take-All states.

Well, yes, that's true. And if the campaign had a more popular candidate with better media support and more money, they could well have chosen a different path. But with the entire establishment against them and less than limitless funds, they chose what I think is a very wise approach.

Consider this possibility. If we had put together an anti-Romney campaign ad going into Iowa, and he had gotten just 100 less votes thanks to that ad, Rick Santorum would have won. Santorum would then have gotten sufficient funds and momentum to carry him through to Super Tuesday. That is scary! We would be hearing a lot more about Santorum going forward, and he'd be polling much better in South Carolina right now. The media would make it a Santorum vs Romney battle, and Ron would have been pushed to the side.

As it stands, we have the possibility of everyone dropping out after Florida except for Paul and Romney. Is that ideal? No! But we weren't given easy circumstances to begin with. IMHO, the campaign played this right. The actual number of delegates in the first four states are not high except for Florida, but those are the breaks. We are banking on the uniqueness of Ron as a candidate and the fact that his supporters will stick this out.

Btw, attacks are also a two-way street. Mitt and his PACs have more money than anyone else. We don't attack them, they don't attack us. That is a big help. We're fortunate that Mitt's campaign probably does not take us seriously, other than wanting to be our friends after the nomination is over so he can get our votes.

Frankly, if we had won Iowa, the campaign's approach would have been even more effective. Your electability ad would have been great in Iowa.

floridasun1983

01-14-2012, 12:38 PM

For what its worth, I agree with the OP that the "electability" issue is about the biggest issue holding back a Ron Paul explosion in popularity. I hear it everytime, everytime I talk to somebody about him. "I sure like Dr. Paul, but he's just not electable." The media has convinced a lot of people that he just can't win, and nobody likes supporting a loser. That's why, IMHO, a first place finish in Iowa would have been so crucial, but, we did well there and we did even better in NH, so we need to do even better in SC and that narrative will start to collapse on its own.

parocks

01-14-2012, 12:44 PM

BTW, I checked out the advert on electability by the Santa Rita SuperPac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_UfB9EzhKA) but in my view it is useless. It just rehashes Ron Paul's rather weak argument that he is electable because he has been elected 12 times to congress. The one-on-one head-to-head matchup polls pitting Obama against Paul and against Romney are the most convincing argument but the Paul campaign is not using them in any sort of effective, visible and vigorous way. Why???

The argument is that "they said the same thing about Reagan" in that ad.

In this ad, they directly use the poll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FAxJkMDVJ7A

parocks

01-14-2012, 12:57 PM

Consider this possibility. If we had put together an anti-Romney campaign ad going into Iowa, and he had gotten just 100 less votes thanks to that ad, Rick Santorum would have won. Santorum would then have gotten sufficient funds and momentum to carry him through to Super Tuesday. That is scary! We would be hearing a lot more about Santorum going forward, and he'd be polling much better in South Carolina right now. The media would make it a Santorum vs Romney battle, and Ron would have been pushed to the side.

As it stands, we have the possibility of everyone dropping out after Florida except for Paul and Romney. Is that ideal? No! But we weren't given easy circumstances to begin with. IMHO, the campaign played this right. The actual number of delegates in the first four states are not high except for Florida, but those are the breaks. We are banking on the uniqueness of Ron as a candidate and the fact that his supporters will stick this out.

Btw, attacks are also a two-way street. Mitt and his PACs have more money than anyone else. We don't attack them, they don't attack us. That is a big help. We're fortunate that Mitt's campaign probably does not take us seriously, other than wanting to be our friends after the nomination is over so he can get our votes.

Frankly, if we had won Iowa, the campaign's approach would have been even more effective. Your electability ad would have been great in Iowa.

What we did in Iowa was attack Gingrich. And it worked. We took Gingrich down from the 20s - 30s in Iowa to the teens. If we didn't attack Gingrich, you might've seen no Santorum surge in Iowa, and Gingrich could've been in a much stronger position. Santorum beating Romney wouldn't have changed anything. There wasn't and isn't a realistic scenario for Santorum to win. Knocking down Gingrich was the point.

Lethalmiko

01-14-2012, 01:17 PM

... with the entire establishment against them and less than limitless funds, they chose what I think is a very wise approach.... If we had put together an anti-Romney campaign ad going into Iowa, and he had gotten just 100 less votes thanks to that ad, Rick Santorum would have won. Santorum would then have gotten sufficient funds and momentum to carry him through to Super Tuesday. That is scary! We would be hearing a lot more about Santorum going forward, and he'd be polling much better in South Carolina right now. The media would make it a Santorum vs Romney battle, and Ron would have been pushed to the side.

As it stands, we have the possibility of everyone dropping out after Florida except for Paul and Romney. Is that ideal? No! But we weren't given easy circumstances to begin with. IMHO, the campaign played this right. The actual number of delegates in the first four states are not high except for Florida, but those are the breaks. We are banking on the uniqueness of Ron as a candidate and the fact that his supporters will stick this out.

Btw, attacks are also a two-way street. Mitt and his PACs have more money than anyone else. We don't attack them, they don't attack us. That is a big help. We're fortunate that Mitt's campaign probably does not take us seriously, other than wanting to be our friends after the nomination is over so he can get our votes.

Frankly, if we had won Iowa, the campaign's approach would have been even more effective. Your electability ad would have been great in Iowa.
You are the first person to give a substantive argument. My own view is that even if Santorum had won Iowa, he would still not have lasted. He does not have the full backing of the republican party leadership heavyweights who back Romney. Neither does the media particularly like him. Gays/Lesbians don't like him either and I do not see how his fundraising could have been as good as Paul or even Perry. He would have eventually fizzled out.

I accept your argument that the corrupt media would have made this a Romney/Santorum fistfight but I am not convinced that would have necessarily been bad for Paul. Paul would have quietly built support while they were slugging it out and I suspect the Romney PAC with its large war chest would have gone after and buried Santorum they way they went after Gingrich.

But in my ideal scenario, the Paul campaign should have first dealt with the electability issue before Iowa and on its heels an attack on Romney. If the first part of the strategy turned out to be effective, the Romney attack maybe could have been put on hold. But it all depends on how effective the anti-Romney attack is. If it works, no amount of retaliation from Romney would make a difference. Which is why I emphasize that an attack linking him to the corrupt bailed-out bankers is the most devastating because it effectively neutralizes any response he may have since voters would begin to see him as a corrupt politician. Am I being too presumptuous and naive?

Another important point to note is that the Paul campaign to some extent has attacked Romney as a flip-flopper and he has not retaliated. Romney attacking Paul is much harder than it seems because there is really no material against Paul except the newsletters and guilt by association. Attack ads like that are much easier to counter and show to be false.

I still think clearing the field is the wrong strategy to follow because of the "Romney momentum" problem. A score of 4-0 after FL is almost insurmountable, even if the field is cleared by then because group-think sets in. Nate Silver's forecasts which are usually very accurate bears me out on this. In SC, Paul is still just under 20% after four separate polls between January 11 and 13 and in FL he is not even in the top three.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

The best strategy right now is to pour most of the resources into solving the electability problem because it shall have far greater impact in both arresting the Romney momentum and clearing the field. This is where the campaign has botched things terribly since Iowa. I have emailed them over this and I hope they act accordingly.

If you think there is a free and open discussion of these ideas in today's culture, then nothing I can tell you will change your mind. Just observe.
I know discussions of racism are mostly irrational. My argument is that if sufficient doubt can be cast on the narrative concerning the racist newsletters, it will be much harder for the media to keep using them as evidence that RP is racist. Obama settled the Jeremiah Wright issue with a press conference and it was harder to use it against him afterwards.

milo10

01-14-2012, 06:19 PM

What we did in Iowa was attack Gingrich. And it worked. We took Gingrich down from the 20s - 30s in Iowa to the teens. If we didn't attack Gingrich, you might've seen no Santorum surge in Iowa, and Gingrich could've been in a much stronger position. Santorum beating Romney wouldn't have changed anything. There wasn't and isn't a realistic scenario for Santorum to win. Knocking down Gingrich was the point.

Thanks for your response, but I'm not sure if you understood the context, since this board limits the automatic embedding of past text. I was describing why it would have been more problematic if someone-other-than-Romney had won Iowa. My view is that we want to be the only perceived alternative to Romney, and that defines the campaign strategy.

I still think clearing the field is the wrong strategy to follow because of the "Romney momentum" problem. A score of 4-0 after FL is almost insurmountable, even if the field is cleared by then because group-think sets in. Nate Silver's forecasts which are usually very accurate bears me out on this. In SC, Paul is still just under 20% after four separate polls between January 11 and 13 and in FL he is not even in the top three.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

I aware that this is very problematic, and if Ron does stage a comeback after Romney takes 4 consecutive states then we have bucked conventional wisdom. I frankly think the campaign's hope was to win Iowa.

The best strategy right now is to pour most of the resources into solving the electability problem because it shall have far greater impact in both arresting the Romney momentum and clearing the field. This is where the campaign has botched things terribly since Iowa. I have emailed them over this and I hope they act accordingly.

If that is what you're arguing for, then I agree.

We could go back and forth on this, and frankly you are presenting some well-thought arguments for your position. I tend to think the campaign is better with strategy and handling issues as they arise (Gingrich, Trump, the Dana Bash interview, and so forth) then they are at having a sufficiently broad vision.

Here are some of my thoughts, presented in as brief a form as possible.

-The campaign should have solicited donations and looked for megadonors from investment & precious metals community. Schiff did this avidly, and basically all candidates look to sources other than the grassroots to fund a major campaign. This can be done responsibly, and without special promises.

-The campaign should have worked out a deal with travel expenses for authors like Tom Woods, Mary Ruwart, Robert Pape, and Michael Scheuer to give talks in early primary states at bookstores, cafes, and universities for 6 months before the election. We could have really helped along a libertarian culture in these states, and also helped supporters convince friends and family members by having an expert answer questions.

-We already mentioned TV ads for electability, seniors, and defense.

-Ron should have brought some new issues to the forefront and gained some easy activists. Just one quick example: If he made a public statement against the FDA forbidding the labeling of GMO foods, we would instantly make several hundred thousand new friends in the environmental/alternative health community who hate Monsanto and GMOs with a passion. Libertarianism is much bigger than monetary and foreign policy, which are the two issues that Ron likes to focus on. And that's fine, but the campaign can be a lot broader than that.

-Rand should have been a lot more involved, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. I'm not sure what the story is there.

I could write more, but you get the idea. There are a lot of directions to take this other than the strategy of who makes the best target. :)

I know discussions of racism are mostly irrational. My argument is that if sufficient doubt can be cast on the narrative concerning the racist newsletters, it will be much harder for the media to keep using them as evidence that RP is racist. Obama settled the Jeremiah Wright issue with a press conference and it was harder to use it against him afterwards.

I am guessing it is also a little more complex because Ron wants to protect the individuals involved, or at least not be complicit in pointing the finger. I don't know if a press conference would be a good idea or not, and you may be right that it would be, but my concern was changing anything about the nature of the story.

parocks

01-14-2012, 08:15 PM

Thanks for your response, but I'm not sure if you understood the context, since this board limits the automatic embedding of past text. I was describing why it would have been more problematic if someone-other-than-Romney had won Iowa. My view is that we want to be the only perceived alternative to Romney, and that defines the campaign strategy.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

I aware that this is very problematic, and if Ron does stage a comeback after Romney takes 4 consecutive states then we have bucked conventional wisdom. I frankly think the campaign's hope was to win Iowa.

If that is what you're arguing for, then I agree.

We could go back and forth on this, and frankly you are presenting some well-thought arguments for your position. I tend to think the campaign is better with strategy and handling issues as they arise (Gingrich, Trump, the Dana Bash interview, and so forth) then they are at having a sufficiently broad vision.

Here are some of my thoughts, presented in as brief a form as possible.

-The campaign should have solicited donations and looked for megadonors from investment & precious metals community. Schiff did this avidly, and basically all candidates look to sources other than the grassroots to fund a major campaign. This can be done responsibly, and without special promises.

-The campaign should have worked out a deal with travel expenses for authors like Tom Woods, Mary Ruwart, Robert Pape, and Michael Scheuer to give talks in early primary states at bookstores, cafes, and universities for 6 months before the election. We could have really helped along a libertarian culture in these states, and also helped supporters convince friends and family members by having an expert answer questions.

-We already mentioned TV ads for electability, seniors, and defense.

-Ron should have brought some new issues to the forefront and gained some easy activists. Just one quick example: If he made a public statement against the FDA forbidding the labeling of GMO foods, we would instantly make several hundred thousand new friends in the environmental/alternative health community who hate Monsanto and GMOs with a passion. Libertarianism is much bigger than monetary and foreign policy, which are the two issues that Ron likes to focus on. And that's fine, but the campaign can be a lot broader than that.

-Rand should have been a lot more involved, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. I'm not sure what the story is there.

I could write more, but you get the idea. There are a lot of directions to take this other than the strategy of who makes the best target. :)

I am guessing it is also a little more complex because Ron wants to protect the individuals involved, or at least not be complicit in pointing the finger. I don't know if a press conference would be a good idea or not, and you may be right that it would be, but my concern was changing anything about the nature of the story.

I get what you're saying. I don't agree, or I'm not sure I agree. Santorum is simply not a threat to win. I'm not arguing they did the wrong thing (attack Gingrich), but
no matter what kind of hype the media would give Santorum after Iowa, he was not going to do great in New Hampshire. The media could've tried to make it a Santorum vs Romney race, and they could've. But they didn't even try. They pushed the Huntsman surge. I'm not saying we should've attacked Romney in Iowa, but I think it wouldn't have played out the way you said it might've if Santorum won Iowa 26%, Romney 24%. The media would still understand that NH is not full of Socons, and that Huntsman had the better shot in NH to put a dent in Ron Paul's numbers.

Off topic a bit, did you notice where Huntsman did well? Where Ron Paul did well. Why? I did not pay attention to where Huntsman was campaigning, but I suspect that he was campaigning where Ron Paul was strong, not where Huntsman's message would necessarily go over well, in order to hurt Paul, not to help Huntsman. Huntsman I would think would go over well not in the rural areas, but in Romney country, the Boston suburbs where Romney got 50%.

What is the official libertarian position, or Ron Paul's position on GMO? If Ron Paul was to win the nomination, I would think that GMO / Monsanto would be something that we would want to use to counter the arguments, that are already coming from the left that Ron Paul wants to shut down the government that wants to do so many good things. The left understands that Ron Paul is taking their people and is already attacking Ron Paul.

I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on GMOs and Monsanto specificially.

hueylong

01-14-2012, 08:35 PM

All this second guessing from people who have never run a campaign in their lives... Dr. Paul's team is making all the right strategic and tactical choices.

morely webb

01-14-2012, 08:43 PM

We have addresses of local media in South Carolina. Send them emails and letters with the information on Ron Paul's electability.

Kevin Smyth

01-14-2012, 08:45 PM

All this second guessing from people who have never run a campaign in their lives... Dr. Paul's team is making all the right strategic and tactical choices.

How do you know that they are making the right strategic and tactical choices? It isn't over yet, even Generals frequently realize that they made mistakes after the war has ended.

Blue_Merle

01-14-2012, 09:13 PM

All this second guessing from people who have never run a campaign in their lives... Dr. Paul's team is making all the right strategic and tactical choices.

Ignoramus opinions like this will cause us to lose and later wonder why.

hueylong

01-14-2012, 09:16 PM

milo10

01-15-2012, 04:04 AM

I get what you're saying. I don't agree, or I'm not sure I agree. Santorum is simply not a threat to win. I'm not arguing they did the wrong thing (attack Gingrich), but
no matter what kind of hype the media would give Santorum after Iowa, he was not going to do great in New Hampshire. The media could've tried to make it a Santorum vs Romney race, and they could've. But they didn't even try. They pushed the Huntsman surge. I'm not saying we should've attacked Romney in Iowa, but I think it wouldn't have played out the way you said it might've if Santorum won Iowa 26%, Romney 24%. The media would still understand that NH is not full of Socons, and that Huntsman had the better shot in NH to put a dent in Ron Paul's numbers.

My concern was more down the road into South Carolina. IMHO, the campaign did not do the best job in Iowa regarding Rick Santorum. Even though his surge was last minute, there was some speculation going back to mid-December that the media might push him unvetted to act as a spoiler in Iowa. You don't have to think it's definite to have a plan B in place. Even something like a high-quality internet video could have been effective.

You and Lethalmiko are making some very good responses. My position is more that if the campaign had handled Iowa a little better and either gotten a win or kept Rick out of second place, then the strategy they chose would have been more effective. And if they couldn't effectively pull off a campaign against the other perceived conservatives, I don't know if they would have done any better with one going after Mitt.

Off topic a bit, did you notice where Huntsman did well? Where Ron Paul did well. Why? I did not pay attention to where Huntsman was campaigning, but I suspect that he was campaigning where Ron Paul was strong, not where Huntsman's message would necessarily go over well, in order to hurt Paul, not to help Huntsman. Huntsman I would think would go over well not in the rural areas, but in Romney country, the Boston suburbs where Romney got 50%.

I'm not sure if I see this. Huntsman did almost all of his campaigning in New Hampshire.

What is the official libertarian position, or Ron Paul's position on GMO? If Ron Paul was to win the nomination, I would think that GMO / Monsanto would be something that we would want to use to counter the arguments, that are already coming from the left that Ron Paul wants to shut down the government that wants to do so many good things. The left understands that Ron Paul is taking their people and is already attacking Ron Paul.

I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on GMOs and Monsanto specificially.

I think the most basic Libertarian position would be that any food manufacturer would have the right to label and market their foods as non-GMO. This is so plainly obvious that any decent conservative or progressive would have to agree. Amazingly, companies can not clearly do this.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

You will sometimes see a mention on the food ingredients list as non-GMO, and I don't know if they risk FDA ire for that, but I do know that a clear No GMO labeling is not accepted. Jeffrey Smith, who is a well-spoken critic of GMOs, says his main goal is freedom in labeling foods as non-GMO, since nobody seeks out GMO foods. This extends not just to food in stores, but chain restaurants and so forth can advertise their foods as untampered, etc.. A few companies doing that basically sinks GMO.

I also would like to see Ron Paul discuss Monsanto. This is frankly the most hated corporation on the planet. A simple video where he used them as an example of crony capitalism and corporate bullying at its absolute worst, and describing the changes that he would make to prevent them from having power would be total win for him. Even most conservatives hate Monsanto, with its bullying of small farmers and its association with George Soros.

Ron should probably not have a position on GMOs themselves, other than to let the people decide, and encourage groups to do independent research so that everyone is better informed. Also, I hope that Ron is against the patenting of seeds and so forth, which would further undercut companies like Monsanto.

milo10

01-15-2012, 04:12 AM

Thank you for calling me an Ignoramus BM... the only problem is that mine is an informed opinion -- I've worked on political campaigns for 25 years. And I definitely trust Dr. Paul and his team more than a 47 post, 2 month wonder.

And your political savvy is revealed in your making an appeal to authority fallacy and insulting another board member in the space of two short posts.

Kevin Smyth

01-15-2012, 04:39 AM

Thank you for calling me an Ignoramus BM... the only problem is that mine is an informed opinion -- I've worked on political campaigns for 25 years. And I definitely trust Dr. Paul and his team more than a 47 post, 2 month wonder.

Your personal ego trip doesn't help this forum at all.

dante

01-15-2012, 08:33 AM

Romney and his surrogate super pacs are hammering Santorum and Gingrich.

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/14/romney-super-pac-pummels-santorum-and-gingrich-by-mail/

Hopefully those voters move to Paul. Could we see a strong second - nipping on Romney's heels? Or could we even get to first? Will the Tom Davis endorsement give us a 5% boost in SC?

parocks

01-15-2012, 11:32 AM

My concern was more down the road into South Carolina. IMHO, the campaign did not do the best job in Iowa regarding Rick Santorum. Even though his surge was last minute, there was some speculation going back to mid-December that the media might push him unvetted to act as a spoiler in Iowa. You don't have to think it's definite to have a plan B in place. Even something like a high-quality internet video could have been effective.

You and Lethalmiko are making some very good responses. My position is more that if the campaign had handled Iowa a little better and either gotten a win or kept Rick out of second place, then the strategy they chose would have been more effective. And if they couldn't effectively pull off a campaign against the other perceived conservatives, I don't know if they would have done any better with one going after Mitt.

I'm not sure if I see this. Huntsman did almost all of his campaigning in New Hampshire.

I think the most basic Libertarian position would be that any food manufacturer would have the right to label and market their foods as non-GMO. This is so plainly obvious that any decent conservative or progressive would have to agree. Amazingly, companies can not clearly do this.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

You will sometimes see a mention on the food ingredients list as non-GMO, and I don't know if they risk FDA ire for that, but I do know that a clear No GMO labeling is not accepted. Jeffrey Smith, who is a well-spoken critic of GMOs, says his main goal is freedom in labeling foods as non-GMO, since nobody seeks out GMO foods. This extends not just to food in stores, but chain restaurants and so forth can advertise their foods as untampered, etc.. A few companies doing that basically sinks GMO.

I also would like to see Ron Paul discuss Monsanto. This is frankly the most hated corporation on the planet. A simple video where he used them as an example of crony capitalism and corporate bullying at its absolute worst, and describing the changes that he would make to prevent them from having power would be total win for him. Even most conservatives hate Monsanto, with its bullying of small farmers and its association with George Soros.

Ron should probably not have a position on GMOs themselves, other than to let the people decide, and encourage groups to do independent research so that everyone is better informed. Also, I hope that Ron is against the patenting of seeds and so forth, which would further undercut companies like Monsanto.

1) About Iowa - I'm not arguing that 1) we should've gone after Mitt or 2) we did anything wrong. What we did do was go after Gingrich, it was effective, and I think that was the way to go. If we had gone after Santorum, and had a result like 30 Romney 22 Paul 20 Santorum, I don't see how that helps us now, or how that would've helped us in NH. Romney can win. Gingrich can win. Santorum cannot. Cain could not. Bachmann could not. I simply don't want to see all that much money spent on attacking people who cannot win. If we look at intrade, and the chances that each candidate will win the R Nomination, it's hard to argue that Romney needs to be stronger than he is already with 87%.

2) Huntsman and NH. Right. We're talking about New Hampshire. I was talking about the parts of New Hampshire where Huntsman did well and the part of New Hampshire where he didn't. Based on looking at the New Hampshire map, it appears that he didn't campaign hard where Romney was picking up 50%. And Huntsman would've done pretty well in those areas, since he is similar to Romney. It appears that Huntsman targeted Ron Paul areas.

3) Thanks for the info on GMO, Monsanto, Ron Paul. I'll look at the information. Monsanto is the worst, and I would like to attack them, and I would like to do so without undercutting a liberty position. Big Pharma is also very bad.

Lethalmiko

01-15-2012, 12:29 PM

The media has convinced a lot of people that he just can't win, and nobody likes supporting a loser.... so we need to do even better in SC and that narrative will start to collapse on its own.
The narrative will not collapse because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media tells voters Ron Paul is unelectable based on nothing. The Paul campaign fails to respond properly. People continue believing it in SC and they vote accordingly. Paul loses, and it reinforces the original false premise since the media uses the result as proof of their great predictive wisdom, and the cycle continues unabated.

Therefore, the Paul campaign must IMMEDIATELY attack and vigorously CHALLENGE the premise with REAL EVIDENCE from the polls. They should focus almost entirely with single-minded consciousness on this one issue. Then voters will give Paul a chance as the message filters through. At this stage, I doubt that the substance of Ron Paul's positions on the issues will sway many voters in actual real-world voting. Even when they are convinced that he is right on some of the critical issues, they weigh that against voting for a person (Paul) whom they see as a loser versus Obama and they stick to Romney. This is the simple, basic, Occam Razor reason Paul lost IA and NH.

What we did in Iowa was attack Gingrich... If we didn't attack Gingrich, you might've seen no Santorum surge in Iowa, and Gingrich could've been in a much stronger position.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think Gingrich is actually the easiest person to take down. Even if he had emerged stronger from Iowa, the "Serial Hypocrisy" (and similar) adverts would have buried him later on. No voter likes a known corrupt hypocrite, even if he is backed by big money.

Something that most Ron Paul supporters have not thought about is this. Even if Paul wins, Romney will have a lot of delegates and most likely will have enough to prevent Paul getting an outright majority. This will force Paul to pick Romney as his VP which is a less-than-ideal situation because it means Romney takes over automatically after RP retires and largely prevents Rand from running. That will reopen the door to corruption in govt and make Republicans weaker in future, further hindering Rand.

Therefore I cannot stress strongly enough that Ron Paul MUST arrest Romney's momentum RIGHT NOW and defeat him with a clear majority. The Paul campaign cannot afford to make bad slip-ups like the one on electability. As someone else pointed out, they should also address the seniors over SS plus foreign policy. These three points of attack are sufficient for Paul to win convincingly without going after anybody in particular.

parocks

01-15-2012, 01:07 PM

^^^

Some of the candidates could win. Romney, Gingrich, Paul.

Some of the candidates can't win. Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman.

If Gingrich is removed, all that's left is Romney. Gingrich isn't removed yet. Still in the race. Bachmann and Cain, who couldn't have won, are out.

Ron Paul, or the Ron Paul campaign is having trouble just making all of his competition magically disappear, I suppose.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/13/rel1a.pdf

Look at that poll. If that's anywhere near true, it's a stunning reality check.

See: Romney v Paul head to head.

We really aren't in a position to worry about a terrible scenario where a candidate other than Ron Paul gets votes and delegates. That will happen.

Lethalmiko

01-15-2012, 02:14 PM

We could go back and forth on this, and frankly you are presenting some well-thought arguments for your position. I tend to think the campaign is better with strategy and handling issues as they arise (Gingrich, Trump, the Dana Bash interview, and so forth) then they are at having a sufficiently broad vision.
I have to agree with you. Ron Paul has been criticized for having a campaign that is not as polished/professional as Romney and other previous winners. This was very true in 2008. This time round the campaign is massively better but I feel disappointed with all the gaps this discussion has highlighted. Maybe there is something they know that we don't to explain their inaction on the electability issue but it seems to me like not noticing a huge elephant in a room. It is not enough to preach "the perfect message" and expect to win. You have to go into the nuts and bolts, find out and be honest about all your weaknesses that are hindering you, fix them and move on. Paul should package his message better and prove he is electable.

Here are some of my thoughts, presented in as brief a form as possible.

-The campaign should have solicited donations and looked for megadonors from investment & precious metals community. Schiff did this avidly, and basically all candidates look to sources other than the grassroots to fund a major campaign. This can be done responsibly, and without special promises.

-The campaign should have worked out a deal with travel expenses for authors like Tom Woods, Mary Ruwart, Robert Pape, and Michael Scheuer to give talks in early primary states at bookstores, cafes, and universities for 6 months before the election. We could have really helped along a libertarian culture in these states, and also helped supporters convince friends and family members by having an expert answer questions.

-We already mentioned TV ads for electability, seniors, and defense.

-Ron should have brought some new issues to the forefront and gained some easy activists. Just one quick example: If he made a public statement against the FDA forbidding the labeling of GMO foods, we would instantly make several hundred thousand new friends in the environmental/alternative health community who hate Monsanto and GMOs with a passion. Libertarianism is much bigger than monetary and foreign policy, which are the two issues that Ron likes to focus on. And that's fine, but the campaign can be a lot broader than that.

-Rand should have been a lot more involved, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. I'm not sure what the story is there.

I could write more, but you get the idea. There are a lot of directions to take this other than the strategy of who makes the best target. :)

Agreed. There is still a bit of time to do all this. Email the campaign like I did either through their website or via Doug Wead / Jack Hunter.

What is the official libertarian position, or Ron Paul's position on GMO? I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on GMOs and Monsanto specificially.

I think the most basic Libertarian position would be that any food manufacturer would have the right to label and market their foods as non-GMO. I also would like to see Ron Paul discuss Monsanto. This is frankly the most hated corporation on the planet. A simple video where he used them as an example of crony capitalism and corporate bullying at its absolute worst, and describing the changes that he would make to prevent them from having power would be total win for him. Even most conservatives hate Monsanto, with its bullying of small farmers and its association with George Soros.

Ron should probably not have a position on GMOs themselves, other than to let the people decide, and encourage groups to do independent research so that everyone is better informed. Also, I hope that Ron is against the patenting of seeds and so forth, which would further undercut companies like Monsanto.
I am not very well versed with all the controversy surrounding Monsanto other than hearing about a case where they sued a farmer after their genetically engineered seed was blown by the wind into his farm where it mixed with his normal plants and produced a cross breed. I think that is nonsense. Cronysim is also a no-no. My only point of disagreement is over patenting genetically engineered seed. It is a product of research & development and should be covered under intellectual property the same way everything else is.

My concern was more down the road into South Carolina. IMHO, the campaign did not do the best job in Iowa regarding Rick Santorum. Even though his surge was last minute, there was some speculation going back to mid-December that the media might push him unvetted to act as a spoiler in Iowa. You don't have to think it's definite to have a plan B in place.... if the campaign had handled Iowa a little better and either gotten a win or kept Rick out of second place, then the strategy they chose would have been more effective. And if they couldn't effectively pull off a campaign against the other perceived conservatives, I don't know if they would have done any better with one going after Mitt.
Good point.

Romney and his surrogate super pacs are hammering Santorum and Gingrich. Hopefully those voters move to Paul. Could we see a strong second - nipping on Romney's heels? Or could we even get to first? Will the Tom Davis endorsement give us a 5% boost in SC?
My prediction is most will move to Romney because of the electability issue as discussed at length in many previous posts.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/13/rel1a.pdf

Look at that poll. If that's anywhere near true, it's a stunning reality check.

See: Romney v Paul head to head. We really aren't in a position to worry about a terrible scenario where a candidate other than Ron Paul gets votes and delegates. That will happen.
A massive REALITY CHECK indeed. Excerpts:

----
Jan. 11-12 2012

Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the general election next November?

Romney 55%
Gingrich 13%
Santorum 9%
Paul 9%

***

Jan. 11-12 2012

Suppose the only Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Which of those two would you support?

Romney 59%
Paul 31%
Neither 2%
No opinion 0%

***

Suppose the only Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Which of those two would you support?

Romney 60%
Santorum 37%
Neither 2%
No opinion 2%

***

Suppose the only Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Which of those two would you support?

Romney 59%
Gingrich 37%
Neither 2%
No opinion 2%

*******************************

All this just proves my point about the poor handling of the electability issue even more. Nate Silver's latest forecasts for SC and FL are not encouraging either. After updating with new polls, Paul has actually dropped in SC from 18% the other day to 16.7%. In FL he is at 10%.

Maybe we should start petitioning the Paul campaign to deal with the electability issue.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida