PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul SC debate performance winning people over!




jmdrake
01-18-2012, 09:44 AM
At least in my circle.

My friend: He seems sincere, but I just cant get behind this guy.
Sunday at 10:20pm Like

John Drake: Well the great thing about individualism is that we can all come to our own decisions and each in our own time. Eight years ago I was staunchly supporting John Kerry and couldn't imagine getting behind any republican. It was John Kerry's speech to the DNC where he tried to "out Bush Bush" and push for an even greater expansion of the Patriot Act that made me start to rethink things.
Monday at 12:48pm Like

My friend: Well...he's winning me over in this debate ...

Please note that the initial message came after I posted an article about Ron Paul moving into 2nd place in South Carolina and before the debate. Oh, and this is someone that voted for Obama in 2008. All you "Let's just focus on likely republican voters" people are just wrong. Sure we need to reach likely republican voters. But some won't be swayed by Ron's message. We have to sow beside all waters. Now I realize that I live in an open primary state, so it's okay if a Dem decides at the last minute to vote for Ron Paul and folks in closed primary states have a different battle to fight. But this isn't a cookie cutter "one size fits all" process.

AngryCanadian
01-18-2012, 09:46 AM
Nice.

Zarn Solen
01-18-2012, 09:49 AM
We should focus on GOPers. That doesn't mean don't try Dems. It just means we need to put more energy into converting GOPers, who are much more likely to vote in these primaries than Dems.

unknown
01-18-2012, 09:50 AM
I was doing PFH yesterday. The calls are now going to S.C., and this one guy told me that he was undecided even AFTER watching the debate...

The crowd may have swayed some viewers, but obviously not everyone.

wowrevolution
01-18-2012, 09:53 AM
It becomes rather easy when people see that his policy of defense was not inspired by al Qaeda. Paul wanted troops to return to the US before 9/11, so that quickly helps to dissolve the "marching orders from al Qaeda" meme. The best meme we can do, actually among the GOP is show Paul giving the speech about impeaching Clinton. Make a commercial of that and we will triple our support. Most people still don't know.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 11:06 AM
We should focus on GOPers. That doesn't mean don't try Dems. It just means we need to put more energy into converting GOPers, who are much more likely to vote in these primaries than Dems.

At some time there is a loss of return on investment. There is low hanging fruit still in the GOP, but we're reaching the end of that. We need to put more energy into low hanging fruit in the Dem party in open primary states. I wasn't trying to reach out to anyone when I posted about Ron Paul on my Facebook page. But a Dem responded and that same Dem responded positively to the same speech that GOPers you want to convert so bad booed. I mean really, I've seen some people spend more energy trying to convince others not to spend energy reaching Dems than I have seen people spending energy to reach Dems. It's a stupid strategy. "We" shouldn't be trying to tell "we" what to do.

Edit: I suppose someone could say "Well why are you saying we need to sow beside all waters?" What I'm really saying is that people as individuals naturally do that anyway. I'm not trying to get anyone else to divert attention from what they are doing to go after Dem votes. I am saying that those who feel comfortable going after Dem votes should not constrained by the shortsightedness of those who don't understand the power of crossover voting in open primary states where there is no Democratic primary this year.

thoughtomator
01-18-2012, 11:08 AM
I agree, we can drive a LOT of independents and disaffected Dems to the polls in support of Ron Paul. The folks who got thrown "under the bus" first by the two party system and then by each party individually combine to form a constituency larger than what remains of either party.

Zarn Solen
01-18-2012, 11:11 AM
At some time there is a loss of return on investment. There is low hanging fruit still in the GOP, but we're reaching the end of that. We need to put more energy into low hanging fruit in the Dem party in open primary states. I wasn't trying to reach out to anyone when I posted about Ron Paul on my Facebook page. But a Dem responded and that same Dem responded positively to the same speech that GOPers you want to convert so bad booed. I mean really, I've seen some people spend more energy trying to convince others not to spend energy reaching Dems than I have seen people spending energy to reach Dems. It's a stupid strategy. "We" shouldn't be trying to tell "we" what to do.

Edit: I suppose someone could say "Well why are you saying we need to sow beside all waters?" What I'm really saying is that people as individuals naturally do that anyway. I'm not trying to get anyone else to divert attention from what they are doing to go after Dem votes. I am saying that those who feel comfortable going after Dem votes should not constrained by the shortsightedness of those who don't understand the power of crossover voting in open primary states where there is no Democratic primary this year.

I don't think you quite got what I was saying.

Liberty74
01-18-2012, 11:19 AM
We should focus on GOPers. That doesn't mean don't try Dems. It just means we need to put more energy into converting GOPers, who are much more likely to vote in these primaries than Dems.

Exactly, where GOP voters out number Dems by at least 10 to 1 in open primaries. It doesn't matter if Ron got all the Dem voters, there isn't enough of them that will vote in the Republican primary to overcome the GOP much less the demographic of the seniors. Don't invest too much effort on Dems. They will be important in the general.

Zarn Solen
01-18-2012, 11:29 AM
Exactly. The Dems will come around for the general. If we do not win GOPers now, we can't win the nomination.

tbone717
01-18-2012, 11:40 AM
All you "Let's just focus on likely republican voters" people are just wrong. Sure we need to reach likely republican voters. But some won't be swayed by Ron's message. We have to sow beside all waters. Now I realize that I live in an open primary state, so it's okay if a Dem decides at the last minute to vote for Ron Paul and folks in closed primary states have a different battle to fight. But this isn't a cookie cutter "one size fits all" process.

In open primary states the best case scenario with a high turnout of indys & Dems is going to be 75% Republicans, 25% other. Even if we dominate the "others" we still need to do extremely well with the GOP voters. There will come a time, not that far from now, where in order to win we will need 51% of the vote. For example, if we were to get 75% of the "other" support, we still need 43% of the GOP support to win the contest. So while the indys and Democrats are very important, the average GOP voter is still our most important target.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 11:51 AM
I don't think you quite got what I was saying.

Or maybe you didn't quite get what I was saying in my first post. :rolleyes: Seriously, every time someone says anything positive about reaching out to Dem voters, one of the self appoint grassroots police feels the odd need to say "We should focus on likely republican voters". Well we already are! And maybe we're doing that to a fault! The entire phone from home campaign is geared exclusively at GOP voters. The SuperBrochure fiasco is aimed at GOP voters. Some of the concern is that it might turn off GOP voters cause it talks about the wars and stuff. Well maybe it should be mailed to disgruntled Dems instead. There is no need for this constant drumbeat of "Let's concentrate on GOP voters". Everybody has heard that a million times now. And the SC episode shows why overstressing that may be a mistake. The same message that turns off segments of GOP voters registers with the general population. And some of those voters are willing to vote for Ron in the primaries.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 11:53 AM
Exactly. The Dems will come around for the general. If we do not win GOPers now, we can't win the nomination.

If we win enough crossover Dems and independents now we have a better chance of winning primaries and getting the nomination. We should have carried New Hampshire because we should have won the independents and Dems Huntsman got. That's said I'm thankful for a strong 2nd.

tbone717
01-18-2012, 11:57 AM
Or maybe you didn't quite get what I was saying in my first post. :rolleyes: Seriously, every time someone says anything positive about reaching out to Dem voters, one of the self appoint grassroots police feels the odd need to say "We should focus on likely republican voters". Well we already are! And maybe we're doing that to a fault! The entire phone from home campaign is geared exclusively at GOP voters. The SuperBrochure fiasco is aimed at GOP voters. Some of the concern is that it might turn off GOP voters cause it talks about the wars and stuff. Well maybe it should be mailed to disgruntled Dems instead. There is no need for this constant drumbeat of "Let's concentrate on GOP voters". Everybody has heard that a million times now. And the SC episode shows why overstressing that may be a mistake. The same message that turns off segments of GOP voters registers with the general population. And some of those voters are willing to vote for Ron in the primaries.

I agree with the general points, but you need to realize that it is a numbers game, and in the end we still need to get the majority (or close to it) of GOP voters to pull the lever for Paul. There simply are not enough indys and Dems out there to make a significant difference in the primary process. It takes a combination of the two to win a primary and in many states that have open primaries, the ratio of indys to GOP is as much as 90/10 in favor of GOP voters. I appreciate what you are saying, but the math does not add up to victory.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:00 PM
Exactly, where GOP voters out number Dems by at least 10 to 1 in open primaries. It doesn't matter if Ron got all the Dem voters, there isn't enough of them that will vote in the Republican primary to overcome the GOP much less the demographic of the seniors. Don't invest too much effort on Dems. They will be important in the general.

That's a self defeating prophecy. And what the hell is "too much effort"? Seriously? Enough of this cat herding crap. Our entire grassroots apparatus is geared GOP voters. Nobody is saying phone from home should be opened up to all voters. That said you have not because you ask not. In a lot of states there are more Dem voters who could vote for Ron Paul than total GOP voters. They have no one to vote for this time because Obama isn't being primaried. I personally was having great success convincing dems to vote for Ron Paul in the primary who fully intended to vote Obama in the general off the theory of "Why sit out the primary and waste your vote"? I quit pushing that after the newsletter flare up, but now that this is dying down and Ron Paul is being perceived well in the debates because his answers appeal to independents/Dems. Part of the reason we aren't in first place is that our candidates message isn't tailored to the people the campaign has us targeting. While there shouldn't be a total shift to Dems, people individually need to reach out to low hanging fruit. If you don't understand that then I can't help you and we'll just lose.

Zarn Solen
01-18-2012, 12:02 PM
Or maybe you didn't quite get what I was saying in my first post. :rolleyes: Seriously, every time someone says anything positive about reaching out to Dem voters, one of the self appoint grassroots police feels the odd need to say "We should focus on likely republican voters". Well we already are! And maybe we're doing that to a fault! The entire phone from home campaign is geared exclusively at GOP voters. The SuperBrochure fiasco is aimed at GOP voters. Some of the concern is that it might turn off GOP voters cause it talks about the wars and stuff. Well maybe it should be mailed to disgruntled Dems instead. There is no need for this constant drumbeat of "Let's concentrate on GOP voters". Everybody has heard that a million times now. And the SC episode shows why overstressing that may be a mistake. The same message that turns off segments of GOP voters registers with the general population. And some of those voters are willing to vote for Ron in the primaries.

No, you still didn't get it. Democrats are not going to vote en masse in a GOP primary. Getting a few to go is great, but if we don't get enough GOPers, it doesn't help. There are too many people focusing on the Huffington Post crowd. They will come around, but 99% of them are not going to vote in the GOP primaries. You catch less fish that way. Their votes would more likely come in the general election. Trying to get Democrats to influence a GOP primary season in a major way (not a few voted here and there through personal influence of a Paul supporter) is a sure fire way to piss off the majority of GOPers. They will see it as a party invasion.

I don't believe some people on here understand the GOP mentality enough. The outreach to Dems needs to be small and personal. The outreach to GOPers needs to be broad, but it also can be personal as well.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:04 PM
I agree with the general points, but you need to realize that it is a numbers game, and in the end we still need to get the majority (or close to it) of GOP voters to pull the lever for Paul.

No. You DON'T understand or agree with my general points. If you did you would quit acting like you knew everything when you don't. I haven't said shit about not reaching out to GOP voters. And I'm getting sick and tired of people like you misrepresenting this point. Keep up calling GOP voters. Keep advertising to them and all that. But realize that most of them will not agree with the message Ron Paul is pushing. Many dems and independents do. Some small outreach on an individual level, like what I'm doing, can help bridge the gap between the GOPers who are willing to vote for Paul already and those who will not vote for him even if he 's the last available option. That is the numbers game that I understand that you apparently do not.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:07 PM
No, you still didn't get it. Democrats are not going to vote en masse in a GOP primary.

I do. You don't. It doesn't need to be in mass. I never said that. Quit putting words in my mouth.



I don't believe some people on here understand the GOP mentality enough. The outreach to Dems needs to be small and personal. The outreach to GOPers needs to be broad, but it also can be personal as well.

Who ever said anything about it being anything other than "small and personal"? I never did. But whenever someone posts some small personal outreach to Dems like I did in this thread, silly control freaks like you act like its some moneybomb to buy an informercial showing Bill Maher speaking highly of Ron Paul. Enough with the cat herding already!

teacherone
01-18-2012, 12:10 PM
looks like collins got another sock puppet...

Zarn Solen
01-18-2012, 12:11 PM
You attacked my general statement, which endorsed a mostly GOP strategy (a.k.a. focus). No where did I exclude Democrats completely. Stop your attacks. Stop using bolded words. It looks silly, and you are causing tension over nothing.

tbone717
01-18-2012, 12:14 PM
Edit - misread the quoted post

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:14 PM
You attacked my general statement, which endorsed a mostly GOP strategy (a.k.a. focus). No where did I exclude Democrats completely. Stop your attacks. Stop using bolded words. It looks silly, and you are causing tension over nothing.

Your general statement was unnecessary and unwelcome in this thread. And I see you are still being a control freak. If you don't want "tension over nothing" then stop trying to tell other people what to do, how to format their posts, how to campaign or anything else.

Zarn Solen
01-18-2012, 12:18 PM
Your general statement was unnecessary and unwelcome in this thread. And I see you are still being a control freak. If you don't want "tension over nothing" then stop trying to tell other people what to do, how to format their posts, how to campaign or anything else.

I'm not being a control freak. You need to snap out of your current defensive mentality for your own sake. I was hoping you would see that you were overreacting and behaving poorly. You tried to control my statement, which was quite frankly odd. You did everything you could to make me a tyrant who wanted a GOP only strategy. When you figured out that was not true, you stuck with the tyrant talk. You need to just relax and be calmer with people.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:20 PM
You need then to look at historic exit polling to see the percentage of Independents and Dems that come out to vote in the GOP primaries. While outreach may be able to increase those numbers by a small amount, they will not make up for the significantly larger percentage of GOP voters.


Blah blah blah blah blah. You answered your own question. There hasn't been much outreach to them. And I'm not even suggesting that energy spent on reaching GOP voters through phone banking should be diverted to this. But the energy you are wasting trying to convince me of something I'm not arguing against is helping who exactly?




If most of them will not agree with Ron Paul's message, then this is a lost cause already because 29 of the primaries/caucuses are closed, many more are "semi-closed". If you truly believe that Paul cannot capture the majority of GOP voters, then continuing further is an exercise in futility because he will not win the nomination.


Right now he doesn't need to win a majority. Nobody has one a majority. Not even Mitt Romney. He just needs a plurality. In Iowa a bigger push for independants and dems could have been the difference between third and first place. The voting was that close. In New Hampshire the Dem/indy vote was split between Paul and Huntsman. Huntsman is now out. Ron only needs to win one primary state with a plurality in order to overcome the "he can't win" obstacle. Once that happens a lot more GOP voters will line up behind him.



I, on the other hand, think that he can win the majority of the GOP voters.

Maybe. So far it hasn't happened. With better indy/dem outreach he might have won Iowa and that would have his current GOP numbers up higher. Anyway, if you want to keep cat herding and trying to convince people of what they aren't arguing against you about, feel free.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:22 PM
I'm not being a control freak. You need to snap out of your current defensive mentality for your own sake. I was hoping you would see that you were overreacting and behaving poorly. You tried to control my statement, which was quite frankly odd. You did everything you could to make me a tyrant who wanted a GOP only strategy. When you figured out that was not true, you stuck with the tyrant talk. You need to just relax and be calmer with people.

The purpose of your posts in this thread are....? I have an idea. Before you try to tell others about their needs, deal with your own. Deal? Like your need to start an unnecessary discussion about something that nobody was saying or implying.

thoughtomator
01-18-2012, 12:23 PM
People need to understand that there is no better mechanism to draw independents and Democrats into the Republican Party than open primaries. We grow our share of the GOP by growing the party at the same time.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:27 PM
People need to understand that there is no better mechanism to draw independents and Democrats into the Republican Party than open primaries. We grow our share of the GOP by growing the party at the same time.

+rep

wgadget
01-18-2012, 12:27 PM
People need to understand that there is no better mechanism to draw independents and Democrats into the Republican Party than open primaries. We grow our share of the GOP by growing the party at the same time.

IMHO, the best mechanism to draw independents and Democrats to vote for Ron Paul is for him to run third party.

I know. Not a popular idea around here. But yes, keep vying for those Rs, by all means. Maybe this is just one stage in the process.

Republican/Democrat is SO late 2000s.

Revolution9
01-18-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm not being a control freak.

You certainly are and your particular gambit is to piss in somebody's cornflakes whilst making excuses that it was thought to be a johnny on the spot and you ain't gonna stop till the bowl ain't nothing but mush and your eliminations..

Rev9

SaulPaulinsky
01-18-2012, 12:36 PM
In open primary states the best case scenario with a high turnout of indys & Dems is going to be 75% Republicans, 25% other. Even if we dominate the "others" we still need to do extremely well with the GOP voters. There will come a time, not that far from now, where in order to win we will need 51% of the vote. For example, if we were to get 75% of the "other" support, we still need 43% of the GOP support to win the contest. So while the indys and Democrats are very important, the average GOP voter is still our most important target.

To win a GOP primary, you need a significant amount of GOP voter support. It's not calculus, not even algebra. Not sure why it's so hard for some to comprehend.

DeadheadForPaul
01-18-2012, 12:41 PM
Honestly, I don't even think people disagree with Ron's message.

They simply get turned off by his tangents and rambling

I love the man and know he is who he is. He's the one who brought our message to an international stage. No use complaining about debate performances or asking him to change

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:41 PM
Something to consider:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/new-hampshire-primary-10-key-exit-poll-results/2012/01/03/gIQAM2oopP_blog.html

4. Independents surge

Nearly half of voters in the New Hampshire Republican primary were self-identified independents, and 45 percent of voters were registered as “undeclared.” Both numbers are higher than in competitive GOP contest back to 1996. The independent surge was a boon to Paul and Huntsman. Paul topped the field with 32 percent of self-identified independents, and Huntsman’s 23 percent was more than double his showing among rank and file Republicans. Romney won nearly half of self-identified Republicans, with no other candidate breaking 20 percent.

So the oh so valued "exit polls" prove that independents in N.H. +loyal Ron Paul republicans would have been enough to carry the state even without winning a majority of the GOP votes. Unfortunately we were dealing with Huntsman and his slimy "Manchurian candidate" false flag ad. That plus the fact that we had just gone through a barrage of negative newsletter attacks, which hurt us with some Dems and Indys, is why we had to be satisfied with a strong 2nd. And yes I realize that New Hampshire is a unique animal.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 12:44 PM
To win a GOP primary, you need a significant amount of GOP voter support. It's not calculus, not even algebra. Not sure why it's so hard for some to comprehend.

Nobody claimed you don't need significant GOP support. I don't see why that is so hard for some to comprehend. But the New Hampshire exit polls prove that Ron could have won that state with only a fraction of the GOP voter support if he had won all the independents. Unfortunately that vote was split between him and Huntsman, with Romney still getting a significant portion. Thankfully Hunstman is now gone. Too bad he wasn't gone sooner. But I don't think there's anyway he could have been forced out before N.H. That was his one and only chance to shine.

tbone717
01-18-2012, 01:13 PM
Nobody claimed you don't need significant GOP support. I don't see why that is so hard for some to comprehend. But the New Hampshire exit polls prove that Ron could have won that state with only a fraction of the GOP voter support if he had won all the independents. Unfortunately that vote was split between him and Huntsman, with Romney still getting a significant portion. Thankfully Hunstman is now gone. Too bad he wasn't gone sooner. But I don't think there's anyway he could have been forced out before N.H. That was his one and only chance to shine.

Just to clarify, NH is the exception not the rule as far as Indy turnout. In 2008 SC had 18% Indy turnout for the GOP contest, which is more typical of what we will see with other open states going forward.

(source: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/SC.html and http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/exit-polls/states/sc/r/)

SaulPaulinsky
01-18-2012, 01:31 PM
Not to mention that most states are not open. More are closed.

You want to win the Republican nomination, you have to get Republican delegates. That's it and that's all.

sailingaway
01-18-2012, 01:40 PM
In open primary states the best case scenario with a high turnout of indys & Dems is going to be 75% Republicans, 25% other. Even if we dominate the "others" we still need to do extremely well with the GOP voters. There will come a time, not that far from now, where in order to win we will need 51% of the vote. For example, if we were to get 75% of the "other" support, we still need 43% of the GOP support to win the contest. So while the indys and Democrats are very important, the average GOP voter is still our most important target.

In New Hampshire I read that over 60% of Ron's support was non-GOP either first time voters or indies or Dems. Now, Ron hasn't been going to campuses in SC, unfortunately, but whatever other people usually get, we as supporters can't ignore Ron's numbers like that in open primary states.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 01:43 PM
Just to clarify, NH is the exception not the rule as far as Indy turnout. In 2008 SC had 18% Indy turnout for the GOP contest, which is more typical of what we will see with other open states going forward.

(source: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/SC.html and http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/exit-polls/states/sc/r/)

Your predilection to "clarify" what I've already said is amazing.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?352469-Ron-Paul-SC-debate-performance-winning-people-over!&p=4052006&viewfull=1#post4052006


And yes I realize that New Hampshire is a unique animal.

Krugerrand
01-18-2012, 01:43 PM
Not to mention that most states are not open. More are closed.

You want to win the Republican nomination, you have to get Republican delegates. That's it and that's all.

Do you happen to recall how McCain got the nomination?

Revolution9
01-18-2012, 01:43 PM
Not to mention that most states are not open. More are closed.

You want to win the Republican nomination, you have to get Republican delegates. That's it and that's all.

What an astounding paragon of political wisdom. It is being taken care of prior to your magnanimous suggestion to do so...just in case you need a briefing on what has been going on in the campaign. You folks are acting like a bunch of cockblocking clownage on this thread with your look over there and misdirection tactics and disjointed rejoinders. There is little need to go into the specifics of your word twistings when it is so frikkin' obvious and as well there are personalities here whose every attempt is made to appear helpful but in the core of their gambit is blockage and closing of avenues, relaying of bad news and stifling of good vibes and presented as so much "pragmatic" BS. Go do something useful and stop messing with folks with good intentions.

Rev9

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 01:46 PM
Not to mention that most states are not open. More are closed.

1) Not everybody lives in a closed primary state. I for example do not.

2) Ron Paul needs to win one state to really explode.

3) (And I'm really beating a dead horse here) I'm not talking about some massive change on campaign strategy. I'm talking about people on the ground having the intelligence to know that they can indeed make a different with their small scale personal outreach to dems and indys, regardless of what the "experts" say.

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 01:47 PM
What an astounding paragon of political wisdom. It is being taken care of prior to your magnanimous suggestion to do so...just in case you need a briefing on what has been going on in the campaign. You folks are acting like a bunch of cockblocking clownage on this thread with your look over there and misdirection tactics and disjointed rejoinders. There is little need to go into the specifics of your word twistings when it is so frikkin' obvious and as well there are personalities here whose every attempt is made to appear helpful but in the core of their gambit is blockage and closing of avenues, relaying of bad news and stifling of good vibes and presented as so much "pragmatic" BS. Go do something useful and stop messing with folks with good intentions.

Rev9

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Revolution9 again.

SaulPaulinsky
01-18-2012, 01:55 PM
1) Not everybody lives in a closed primary state. I for example do not.

Neither do I, effectively. Wanna cookie?

2) Ron Paul needs to win one state to really explode.

And he's not going to do it by hoping Dems vote in the GOP primary by the truckload. IMO, Minnesota is his first really good shot to win a primary.

3) (And I'm really beating a dead horse here) I'm not talking about some massive change on campaign strategy. I'm talking about people on the ground having the intelligence to know that they can indeed make a different with their small scale personal outreach to dems and indys, regardless of what the "experts" say.

I'm pretty sure the people "on the ground" are being told that. By the way, everyone should be a person "on the ground" in their state if not others. I'm about to call our local libertarian city councilman to get his advice on how to get either myself or him (or both) on the district committee that elects delegates. If I manage to become a delegate I'll have to pay out of my own pocket to be a delegate.

So what are you doing other than advocating losing strategies?

Sweman
01-18-2012, 03:17 PM
Let's play a numbers game on the assumption that Paul and Romney goes head to head in an open state primary. Romney wins the republican vote 52% to 48%. Who wins the primary?

jmdrake
01-18-2012, 03:33 PM
Let's play a numbers game on the assumption that Paul and Romney goes head to head in an open state primary. Romney wins the republican vote 52% to 48%. Who wins the primary?

In New Hampshire that would have been Paul. In other states it's hard to say. Certainly there are enough Dems who are willing to consider voting for Paul in my state to make up a 4 point gap. (Not a lot of independents here).

Anyway my apologies for derailing my own thread because I dared put the words "your wrong" in the OP and the "Nobody but GOP voters" zealots feel the need to defend something that isn't really under attack. (Seriously folks, random posts on RPF have no impact on overall campaign strategy so get your undies out of a knot). The original point has gotten lost. Folks are hand-wringing over Ron Paul's SC debate performance because it doesn't appeal to voters that they want to reach. But it does appeal to other voters who may consider voting for RP in the primary. Since we can't change Ron Paul's message (since non of us can control Ron Paul) then it's at least worth considering getting that message to at least some people where it will have the most positive effect. Most people ignore the fact that we don't have a conventional candidate so we can't win on 100% conventional techniques. Anyhoo....