Perception Was Paul Not Electable to SC Voters

[tennman]

No suprise but Fox News polled South Carolina voters and Paul was dead last in terms of who voters thought was electable.

So the way I see it, here are Paul's/our challenges to overcome and overcome quickly:

1. The electability myth. I think there are enough people tired of war and/or who know we're too broke to afford it to continue this global empire obsession of the politicians.

2. Foreign policy needs to be explained a lot better so that people see Paul is a patriot and would defend the country. The perception among some is that he's soft and America wouldn't be as safe with him as President when in fact we would be safer because we wouldn't be stirring up hornet's nests and meddling in other people's business/lives/countries.

3. Drugs. People need to understand that Paul is a "states rights" guy. In some (I said some) ways like Fred Thompson was. He just thinks it's not the business of the federal government.

So I think those are the top three with massive weight on the first 2. We've got to hammer at the truth of these things. We've go to change minds and engage people. We've got to be evangelists!

[Ronulus]

The problem is how do you get this message out without the MSM? They own about 90% of the voters 'media' attention. They are not going to be going to other sources other than maybe cnn.com or fox.com It's very unlikely for them to leave those 'trusted' 'comfortable' zones.

[mosquitobite]

The problem is how do you get this message out without the MSM? They own about 90% of the voters 'media' attention. They are not going to be going to other sources other than maybe cnn.com or fox.com It's very unlikely for them to leave those 'trusted' 'comfortable' zones.

Yep. The only reason they believe he's not electable is because that's what the media TELLS them.

Polls show only Romney & Paul poll well against Obama. If you guys aren't spreading that on your facebook, shame on you. ;)

[Okie RP fan]

Can't help that the media went back to completely ignoring Paul, either.

[tajitj]

They ought to spend majority of ads promoting fact he does better against Obama than Gingrich.

I really think we need to beat Santorum tonight.

[bsi]

fluoride heads;)

[dskalkowski]

We sit here and blame the media, but when it comes to communicating and relaying the information in debates and commercials..

[tennman]

The problem is how do you get this message out without the MSM? They own about 90% of the voters 'media' attention. They are not going to be going to other sources other than maybe cnn.com or fox.com It's very unlikely for them to leave those 'trusted' 'comfortable' zones.

Facebook. Google Plus. Twitter. Start conversations. Post videos. Do all of that daily and some people will talk about it. Just by talking about it a lot I've gotten some friends to talk to me about it and have converted a few. People AREN'T doing that with the other candidates. People aren't that excited about the other folks enough to be evangelists for them. If every Paul supporter just gets one person he will win. The way averages work, some of us will have to get more than one but we've got to make it our goal to convert the people we know. Especially if they're in a state that is voting next.

And I'm insistant on this; Paul, I love him, but he was not good in the first South Carolina debate. He seemed like a "blame America first liberal" and I HATE to say that. He's got to communicate better with the average Republican voter who was sitting on the couch with wide eyes as Paul seemed to say that he disagreed with us taking Osama out. What did he possibly think he'd gain by saying that? The man responsible for making us feel unsafe for 11 years and Paul says we shouldn't have taken him out? He didn't have enough time to explain his views on that and shouldn't have gotten into it. It was a terrible thing to talk about, strategically.

RP's got to stop the self-inflicted wounds!!

:mad:

[matt0611]

The problem is how do you get this message out without the MSM? They own about 90% of the voters 'media' attention. They are not going to be going to other sources other than maybe cnn.com or fox.com It's very unlikely for them to leave those 'trusted' 'comfortable' zones.

Ads. Ads. Ads. We need ads that address these issues and we need them ASAP. The campaign has been dropping the ball on these issues. I've been saying this since before Iowa. If we don't fix these issues the campaign is over IMO.

[RPit]

And why didn't the Campaign to do any ads to address this issue? I've been saying it for so long. I'm very disappointed in the campaign, not because of what place we come in, but not doing something regarding this.

Its written on the wall : Electability No1 Quality!

[FreeTraveler]

The campaign must focus on electibility in their ads, and so must RevPac. And all of us.

[Ronulus]

Facebook. Google Plus. Twitter. Start conversations. Post videos. Do all of that daily and some people will talk about it. Just by talking about it a lot I've gotten some friends to talk to me about it and have converted a few. People AREN'T doing that with the other candidates. People aren't that excited about the other folks enough to be evangelists for them. If every Paul supporter just gets one person he will win. The way averages work, some of us will have to get more than one but we've got to make it our goal to convert the people we know. Especially if they're in a state that is voting next.

I've done my fair share. But many of these people will not show up to the polls.

[mosquitobite]

We sit here and blame the media, but when it comes to communicating and relaying the information in debates and commercials..

Agreed to a certain extent, but the media is constantly parroting the "he's unelectable" line as if it CANNOT be undone.

[abstrusezincate]

At some point, you have to be honest. The problem is as much what people believe as anything else.

[tennman]

Why does the campaign ignore this? This is so damn frustrating! He just lost to Santorum in SC.

[bsi]

why would they believe a 30 second ron paul ad saying he is electable when for 23 hours 59 minutes and 30 seconds they are told he is not by unbiased talking nice looking heads.

[SaulPaulinsky]

The problem is how do you get this message out without the MSM? They own about 90% of the voters 'media' attention. They are not going to be going to other sources other than maybe cnn.com or fox.com It's very unlikely for them to leave those 'trusted' 'comfortable' zones.

I'm sick and tired of this question.

The MSM is the ENEMY! They're more of an enemy than the candidates! You don't ask the enemy to do your work for you.

Join the thread on how to get out the 18-29 vote if you want to make a difference.

If you want to whine about how the enemy isn't helping us, carry on.

[RonPaul101.com]

And why didn't the Campaign to do any ads to address this issue? I've been saying it for so long. I'm very disappointed in the campaign, not because of what place we come in, but not doing something regarding this.

Its written on the wall : Electability No1 Quality!

True, to a common voter its not about Keynesian economic short coming, come on. Sure WE understand that stuff, but common voters just want to beat Obama, and since we do so well with Indy's and crossover voters we need to stress that and stress that is how Obama won in 2008.

[tennman]

why would they believe a 30 second ron paul ad saying he is electable when for 23 hours 59 minutes and 30 seconds they are told he is not by unbiased talking nice looking heads.

Because they have a CNN poll to use showing it! That's what John McCain used and he got elected that way! He ran ads using the poll numbers showing people that he was the one who could keep Hillary out of the White House and GOPers were afraid she would be the nominee. And it worked. So don't tell me it won't. We have a freaking road map provided by John McFreakingCain. The RP campaign is ignoring it!

[mosquitobite]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?353781-Facebook-Status-Idea-to-open-people-s-eyes

[F3d]

The negative ads clearly did nothing here....

[rachmiel]

All the GOP voters seem to care about is "beating Barack Obama." They're so caught up with that agenda that they've disregarded character and principles by choosing Newt. These people don't even know what they believe, besides their "beating Barack Obama" mantra.

[WD-NY]

Ads. Ads. Ads. We need ads that address these issues and we need them ASAP. The campaign has been dropping the ball on these issues. I've been saying this since before Iowa. If we don't fix these issues the campaign is over IMO.

Screw ads. They don't matter as SC proved.

Website. Website. Website.

The ronpaul2012.com website hasn't been updated or improved upon since first being launched. Whats the point of spending $millions on ads when we lose the potential voter as soon as they visit the website?

[milo10]

Because they have a CNN poll to use showing it! That's what John McCain used and he got elected that way! He ran ads using the poll numbers showing people that he was the one who could keep Hillary out of the White House and GOPers were afraid she would be the nominee. And it worked. So don't tell me it won't. We have a freaking road map provided by John McFreakingCain. The RP campaign is ignoring it!

+rep. Exactly.

[mosquitobite]

All the GOP voters seem to care about is "beating Barack Obama." They're so caught up with that agenda that they've disregarded character and principles by choosing Newt. These people don't even know what they believe, besides their "beating Barack Obama" mantra.

A liberal website: Salon on Ron Paul (complete with videos linked!)
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/


Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).

[Danemicus]

It seems that so many people are oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul and Romney are the only ones who poll competitively vs Obama. The MSM encourages their following to visualize that Obama beats Ron by a landslide or something. Unless there's an electability ad to disprove this, people will believe that he's unelectable. It's as simple as that.

It's ironic that when people are overlooking Ron in order to make their vote count (in their minds), that they really are throwing their votes away when choosing either Gingrich or Santorum who really are unelectable. If only there was heightened awareness of this. Oh well.

[milo10]

Screw ads. They don't matter as SC proved.

Website. Website. Website.

The ronpaul2012.com website hasn't been updated or improved upon since first being launched. Whats the point of spending $millions on ads when we lose the potential voter as soon as they visit the website?

+rep to you as well.

That is a really good point. The website for donations should not be the Ron Paul site to convince people to vote for him!

If anyone goes to www.ronpaul2012.com, they see a huge moneybomb section with some news clips. They do not see a comprehensive website geared towards convincing undecideds to choose Ron Paul

There should be tabs on Foreign Policy, Electability, Economy, Environment, Social Issues, and so forth. It should be geared 100% towards undecideds, with video and so forth.

I can't believe this was the first time I noticed this. It seems really obvious now.

[wstrucke]

"Electability" is the stupidest term I've ever heard.

[kathy88]

Yep. The only reason they believe he's not electable is because that's what the media TELLS them.

Polls show only Romney & Paul poll well against Obama. If you guys aren't spreading that on your facebook, shame on you. ;)

This. We have to push him against Obama.