Lessons from Newt Gingrich for Ron Paul

[Lethalmiko]

How did Gingrich win SC? He has no proper campaign organization or huge funding and is the most flawed candidate of the last 4 with a graveyard full of skeletons that are well known to most voters. But he knows that words when properly leveraged have power to overcome such negatives. Obama, Clinton and Reagan won partly (if not mostly) due to their good speaking abilities. Gingrich was able to produce a 25 point swing within a few days just by being prepared for the debate and turning an attack on him into a positive by going after the moderator.

These are all valuable lessons for Ron Paul. He CAN and should drastically improve his speaking and/or the way he frames his answers if he really wants to win (he cannot change the way voters are in a few months). Preaching a great message in the wrong way simply does not work and the results in the 3 contests so far proves the point. Giving complicated confusing answers does not help either (almost everything can be simplified to an extent). Use the KISS principle, use the strongest arguments and be crystal clear. RP can still win, but only if his campaign modifies its strategy in light of experience so far.


P/S - Please don't give me the-campaign-knows-what-it-is-doing tirade. Reality does not lie.

---

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

[Darthbrooklyn]

How did Gingrich win SC? He has no proper campaign organization or huge funding and is the most flawed candidate of the last 4 with a graveyard full of skeletons that are well known to most voters. But he knows that words when properly leveraged have power to overcome such negatives. Obama, Clinton and Reagan won partly (if not mostly) due to their good speaking abilities. Gingrich was able to produce a 25 point swing within a few days just by being prepared for the debate and turning an attack on him into a positive by going after the moderator.

These are all valuable lessons for Ron Paul. He CAN and should drastically improve his speaking and/or the way he frames his answers if he really wants to win (he cannot change the way voters are in a few months). Preaching a great message in the wrong way simply does not work and the results in the 3 contests so far proves the point. Giving complicated confusing answers does not help either (almost everything can be simplified to an extent). Use the KISS principle, use the strongest arguments and be crystal clear. RP can still win, but only if his campaign modifies its strategy in light of experience so far.


P/S - Please don't give me the-campaign-knows-what-it-is-doing tirade. Reality does not lie.

---

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

^^ THIS

[NoPants]

And when they talk about the candidates on the "news" Gingrich got 70% of the air time in the last 2 days. It's hard to compete when half the people make up their minds the last day and don't even know Ron Paul is running. :confused:

[luctor-et-emergo]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

It worked in 1776, so to say. Freedom still brings people together. Back then it wasn't easy, as anyone that studied history knows.

It will not be easy this time, but hey, 'An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government.'

Just like 1776.

[angrydragon]

He was playing on the audience and depending on them, pandering to which way they were clapping.

[bobburn]

That and the $5M his billionaire buddy pumped into the state, and change your message depending on your crowd, and be a lobbyist--lesson for Dr. Paul, have rich supporters, don't have principles, and do whatever makes you money. /s

[soulcyon]

Which is exactly why he demands the media to let audience cheer his one-liners. Since his policies blow dick, he has to rely on his flabby lips to produce good-to-ear sentences.

[StilesBC]

I find these threads pretty funny. Usually from new members. Not that they're necessarily inferior to older posters.

Ron has gone from total obscurity to partial obscurity to national phenomenon by being who he is and talking about complex issues. Those that care enough try to learn more about what he is saying. And they respect him for not talking down to them like they are children and being consistent.

And all these new forum members seem to want him to, all of a sudden - after 40 years, start talking like a politician. Doesn't make much sense to me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't get your hopes up.

[CaptainAmerica]

SC is blood thirsty,nothing more nothing less.

[Nathan Hale]

Newt's debate acumen is what put him in the top tier and eventually in the pole position. At this point, however, it's not worth appealing to Paul to improve his debate performance.

I've been saying since the first debate in 2007 that Paul should work on his debate strategy, but over time I came to accept that Paul is just not the best debater. For all that I wish he spoke like Peter Schiff, that's just not reality.

[MsDoodahs]

And all these new forum members seem to want him to, all of a sudden - after 40 years, start talking like a politician.

And he isn't going to do that.

Ron is Ron.

What you see really is what you get.

[RonPaulMyPresident]

Whatever we do we can never win votes from warmongers, neocons, islamophobes, homophbobes, and bigots.

South Carolina is the most hawkish state in America. Iowa and NH is what the rest of America thinks about Newt Gingrich.

[affa]

Newt was gifted South Carolina by a trumped up re-hashing of 3 year old news as 'breaking' so that they could lob him a softball that he could spike with a 'liberal media' bash.

Newt didn't make SC happen because he's good at debating. That's nonsense. He's good at pandering, and he's got friends in high places.

[stillhere]

Yep...nearly all about delivery. I honestly don't mind if Ron panders, plays a crowd, tones down his rhetoric in some areas and increase it in other areas. I know where Ron Paul stands...we all do....this is politics. To win a presidential election, you have to be very political....especially in a primary.

[Nathan Hale]

Newt was gifted South Carolina by a trumped up re-hashing of 3 year old news as 'breaking' so that they could lob him a softball that he could spike with a 'liberal media' bash.

Newt didn't make SC happen because he's good at debating. That's nonsense. He's good at pandering, and he's got friends in high places.

I disagree. The debates are *very* central to the whole process this time around because it drives the reporting and the media analysis of the race. It's an eerie phenomenon but all the campaigns see it. And lets face it (strategy requires honest appraisal), Newt is a phenomenal debater. Now, it's impossible to scientifically narrow down the source of Newt's mojo, but to pooh-pooh his debate performance is to make a strategic blunder all because of our opinion of Newt as a candidate.

[Justinfrom1776]

The debates are certainly part of it, but when you find out how to get the media to almost solely cover your candidate non-stop for 72 hours please make the campaign aware. I have the feeling that folks warm up to Ron during the debates and then they catch the post game along with the news casts the following day all with no mention of Paul and they are lead to believe that he isn't even registering in polls.

[driller80545]

The fact the Dr. Paul is not a slick speaker (politician) and does not pander to an audience is the reason that I trust him so much. I am not interested in listening to another super used car salesman run for president. I am hoping that the rest of the country will get it before it is too late. I think that the idea that a republican candidate for president could be sincere and trustworthy is just too radical of an idea to grasp. Time will tell. If the general public ever pick up on this, RP will take off like nothing we have ever seen.

[Lethalmiko]

And when they talk about the candidates on the "news" Gingrich got 70% of the air time in the last 2 days. It's hard to compete when half the people make up their minds the last day and don't even know Ron Paul is running.
He got that huge coverage precisely because he created a buzz from his debate performance. The voters all knew RP was running but were evidently not impressed/convinced enough in the two debates.


He was playing on the audience and depending on them, pandering to which way they were clapping.
Maybe. But I tend to think he simply persuaded them into clapping for him.


That and the $5M his billionaire buddy pumped into the state, and change your message depending on your crowd, and be a lobbyist--lesson for Dr. Paul, have rich supporters, don't have principles, and do whatever makes you money. /s
Unless I am mistaken, the $5m was largely spent on the movie against Romney. This was BEFORE the sudden swing in the polls. Many people interviewed said they voted for Gingrich due to his debate performance. Also remember that Romney dropped in the polls just after the debate and he he lost voters to Gingrich.


I find these threads pretty funny. Usually from new members. Not that they're necessarily inferior to older posters.
I really wish you would just stick to the points.


Ron has gone from total obscurity to partial obscurity to national phenomenon by being who he is and talking about complex issues. Those that care enough try to learn more about what he is saying. And they respect him for not talking down to them like they are children and being consistent.
Most voters will not research Paul. Most voters are irrational and taken in by great public speaking. If you think you can win an election without taking cognizance of these facts, good luck.


And all these new forum members seem to want him to, all of a sudden - after 40 years, start talking like a politician. Doesn't make much sense to me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't get your hopes up.
I never said I expect him to talk like a smooth-talking politician. All I said is he can IMPROVE and even match Gingrich. Improving does not mean pandering or compromising. I even stated exactly the improvements. Simplicity, Clarity and Strong Arguments. If he cannot improve and adapt to the realities of campaigning, he should not have wasted our time (and money) running. BTW, has it ever occurred to you that there are many people who visit this forum without registering for a long time?

[SonofThunder]

Newt Gingrich was the establishment choice here in SC and all of the elderly are nothing more than sheep heading off to slaughter. The debate didn't have as much of an effect as people are giving it credit for.

I agree, Paul needs to get more tactical in the debates and get out of philosophy mode, but I don't think he'll ever do that.

[Lethalmiko]

Newt's debate acumen is what put him in the top tier and eventually in the pole position. At this point, however, it's not worth appealing to Paul to improve his debate performance. I've been saying since the first debate in 2007 that Paul should work on his debate strategy, but over time I came to accept that Paul is just not the best debater. For all that I wish he spoke like Peter Schiff, that's just not reality.
Even if he does not speak like Obama or Schiff, he can at least tweak his answers to hot questions. For example, he can answer the electability question (which I keep hammering on this forum) by mentioning the head-to-head matchup polls with Obama, rather than his 12 electoral wins in Congress, which is a useless argument and does not convince anyone (the longest serving member of congress was a former KKK member but he would have had no chance in a general election).


Whatever we do we can never win votes from warmongers, neocons, islamophobes, homophbobes, and bigots. South Carolina is the most hawkish state in America. Iowa and NH is what the rest of America thinks about Newt Gingrich.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. I refuse to be limited by such short-sighted thinking. Why can't the campaign turn a disadvantage into an advantage? For example, why can't RP emphasize that he would fight and finish any declared war within 3 weeks and do no nation-building through corruptly-awarded reconstruction contracts? Why can't he emphasize reopening closed American military bases? And he can add that it is not very Christian to endlessly bomb people over any flimsy reason. Would he be lying on any of these points? Why can't the voters get the perception he is strong on national defense from such answers?


The fact the Dr. Paul is not a slick speaker (politician) and does not pander to an audience is the reason that I trust him so much. I am not interested in listening to another super used car salesman run for president. I am hoping that the rest of the country will get it before it is too late. I think that the idea that a republican candidate for president could be sincere and trustworthy is just too radical of an idea to grasp. Time will tell. If the general public ever pick up on this, RP will take off like nothing we have ever seen.
Sorry but you are dreaming. Most Americans do not think like you. You cannot force them to change. You are better off working within their narrow view and persuading them slowly than expecting them to suddenly flip overnight. Do you know how hard it is to throw out a huge chunk of your beliefs?

[Nathan Hale]

The fact the Dr. Paul is not a slick speaker (politician) and does not pander to an audience is the reason that I trust him so much. I am not interested in listening to another super used car salesman run for president. I am hoping that the rest of the country will get it before it is too late. I think that the idea that a republican candidate for president could be sincere and trustworthy is just too radical of an idea to grasp. Time will tell. If the general public ever pick up on this, RP will take off like nothing we have ever seen.

The rest of the country isn't going to get it. I love Ron, I really do, but there's nothing wrong with admitting that we should be on the lookout for candidates who both have good philosophy AND have the ability to communicate it with panache.

[Lethalmiko]

The debate didn't have as much of an effect as people are giving it credit for.
Wrong. The massive shift towards Gingrich happened the very following day after the debate.

"The past several days, however, have seen one of the most shocking reversals of momentum ever in a presidential primary. Newt Gingrich, in second place in South Carolina polls, performed well enough in Monday night’s debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., to set off a double-digit swing in some polls, literally overnight." -- Nate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/south-carolina-primary-overview-and-forecast

[Butchie]

That and the $5M his billionaire buddy pumped into the state, and change your message depending on your crowd, and be a lobbyist--lesson for Dr. Paul, have rich supporters, don't have principles, and do whatever makes you money. /s

That's not what he was saying, get over this whole Ron Paul "purity" thing. When you talk to a 5yr old do you talk to them in the same manner as a 35yr old? No? Does that make you a sell-out or a compromiser, NO, it's called knowing your audience and speaking to them in a way they can understand.

[Edward]

He was playing on the audience and depending on them, pandering to which way they were clapping.

I agree with this and the others who have mentioned it. People are starting to catch on to his need for claptrap and even the media is beginning to report that the emperor has no clothes. Sure, there is room for improvement, but Ron messes up from time to time simply because he doesn't get the same amount of time and he feels as though he has to rush his answers to get in all he wants to say.

[The Free Hornet]

P/S - Please don't give me the-campaign-knows-what-it-is-doing tirade. Reality does not lie.

How come I have to tell a guy - who listens to news radio the whole effing day - that, "yes, Ron Paul is still in the race"? What does your non-lying reality say about that?

It has shit to do with debate performance unless you are expecting either a miracle or lies (pandering). The MSM's foundation is cracked and crumbling day by day. I don't think the campaign can do much to accelerate that trend, although it is good to see Ron Paul be anti-SOPA. A free (legally and with regard to intrusive monitoring), broadly available, cheap internet is the destruction of their oligopoly. This is why they are always pushing stuff like DMCA, PRO-IP ACT, SOPA, etc.

Lastly, I do not know if the campaign knows what it is doing. It is out of my hands. Why would you pre-empt criticism with this BS?

[Lethalmiko]

I should also add that Romney and Gingrich are very weak candidates that can be taken out relatively easily. The corrupt media is not as much of a factor as most Paul supporters believe. The power to win this election lies firmly in the hands of the campaign. They should not hinder themselves by believing all this crap about Paul not doing well in primary states. Paul can do well everywhere, if his main problems are dealt with. I do not buy into the idea that he will do very well in caucus states (Iowa has already disproved this myth). Whatever is leading voters to reject him will recur in caucus states.

No more excuses which lead to complacency. Let us make the necessary changes and win.

[Indiana4Paul]

My biggest problem is he doesn't really even accentuate some of his major positives, the things that really differentiate him from the field during debates.

I think if Newt Gingrich had Ron Paul's track record he would be ahead by 40 points in the polls. Would it kill Dr. Paul to mention that he warned the nation about the forthcoming housing crisis in 2002? Why does he not promote the fact that he predicted the problems with our current Foreign Policy way back in 1998 while Bill Clinton was in office and before most of the people had heard of Osama Bin Laden?

Why doesn't he contrast his Economic proposals of cutting $1Trillion in year one with the phony-conservative plans of the three carnival barkers on the stage?

[SeanSerritella]

How did Gingrich win SC? He has no proper campaign organization or huge funding and is the most flawed candidate of the last 4 with a graveyard full of skeletons that are well known to most voters. But he knows that words when properly leveraged have power to overcome such negatives. Obama, Clinton and Reagan won partly (if not mostly) due to their good speaking abilities. Gingrich was able to produce a 25 point swing within a few days just by being prepared for the debate and turning an attack on him into a positive by going after the moderator.

These are all valuable lessons for Ron Paul. He CAN and should drastically improve his speaking and/or the way he frames his answers if he really wants to win (he cannot change the way voters are in a few months). Preaching a great message in the wrong way simply does not work and the results in the 3 contests so far proves the point. Giving complicated confusing answers does not help either (almost everything can be simplified to an extent). Use the KISS principle, use the strongest arguments and be crystal clear. RP can still win, but only if his campaign modifies its strategy in light of experience so far.


P/S - Please don't give me the-campaign-knows-what-it-is-doing tirade. Reality does not lie.

---

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

That's the way Ron Paul is. It's who he is. You can't change a person. He gets nervous. Also, like people are saying, the media never talked about him after the debate. People are not smart. A lot of people are easily brain washed by the media.

[Publicani]

Ron's support consist of people who's doing their research independent of debates and the media. What percentage of the population does it? 10%-15%? He probably got all of them already. They (we) are working for him 24/7. Yet to get the rest of the country he has to go KISS. And he has to get professional help and work on his performance.
Either that, or run third party.

[Lethalmiko]

How come I have to tell a guy - who listens to news radio the whole effing day - that, "yes, Ron Paul is still in the race"? What does your non-lying reality say about that?
Non sequitur (no relevance to what I wrote). "Reality" refers to the fact that RP has lost 3 contests in a row and came out last in the most recent one. Therefore, his campaign is obviously doing something wrong.


It has shit to do with debate performance unless you are expecting either a miracle or lies (pandering).
Okay, so explain why the shift towards Gingrich happened within 24 hours of the debate and why many people interviewed afterwards said they were persuaded when they heard what he said.


The MSM's foundation is cracked and crumbling day by day. I don't think the campaign can do much to accelerate that trend, although it is good to see Ron Paul be anti-SOPA. A free (legally and with regard to intrusive monitoring), broadly available, cheap internet is the destruction of their oligopoly. This is why they are always pushing stuff like DMCA, PRO-IP ACT, SOPA, etc.
Gingrich has been attacking the media effectively so I have to disagree.


Lastly, I do not know if the campaign knows what it is doing. It is out of my hands. Why would you pre-empt criticism with this BS?
3 consecutive losses should make any rational person begin questioning the strategy (remember the Albert Einsten quote in my first post?). I am afraid you are exhibiting the same kind of thinking that proponents of foreign aid to poor African countries do. Despite giving billions over decades, Africa is actually poorer and more corrupt but of course such realities are little inconveniences to be ignored right? So any criticism or constructive ideas are BS?

[slamhead]

Stop asking why. Just continue to fight. This is not a conventional movement where you can put a definitive finger on the problem. Believe me that there will be movies and books written on the Ron Paul Revolution. Not bagging on the new people as we are together on this but you are not going to change Ron Paul. It was the same in 08 and the campaign back then really did nothing to help themselves. This time around the campaign is 300% better. Don't think that the establishment would like the message any better if it was coming from some polished politician like Romney or Newt. We also have to face the fact if it was someone like Newt or Romney given their records we would not be here as we would not believe they would make any of these changes. Paul + Message = The Revolution.

[Working Poor]

Newt won because the News pushed him end of story.

[Lethalmiko]

That's the way Ron Paul is. It's who he is. You can't change a person. He gets nervous. Also, like people are saying, the media never talked about him after the debate. People are not smart. A lot of people are easily brain washed by the media.
So you believe he is not teachable? How did he learn how to use an iPad? The very fact that "people are not smart" should make him use KISS. Media brain-washing while a factor is over-rated. The media cannot prevent him saying the right things in an effective way in a debate like Gingrich did.


Stop asking why. Just continue to fight.
"Why" is the most fundamental question in life and the source of much knowledge and change. Imagine if Rosa Parks had not asked herself why blacks had to sit at the back of a public bus.

This is not a conventional movement where you can put a definitive finger on the problem... It was the same in 08 and the campaign back then really did nothing to help themselves. This time around the campaign is 300% better.
I do not have a problem with the liberty movement but I have a problem with the campaign soliciting money from supporters and then shooting themselves in the foot. I am a true believer that they can win with the right strategy and no amount of media distortion will stop them. IOW, the problem is internal.


Don't think that the establishment would like the message any better if it was coming from some polished politician like Romney or Newt. We also have to face the fact if it was someone like Newt or Romney given their records we would not be here as we would not believe they would make any of these changes. Paul + Message = The Revolution.
The establishment cannot stop the message if it is delivered in the right manner. Right now it is being muffled by poor delivery.

[Lethalmiko]

Newt won because the News pushed him end of story.
Newt was trailing Willard (who got the most coverage) a week before the primary. If RP was the one who had produced a stunning debate performance, don't you think he would have produced similar election results? The subsequent media coverage certainly helped Newt but most voters made up their minds during the debate before hearing any post-debate analysis.

[Working Poor]

Newt was trailing Willard (who got the most coverage) a week before the primary. If RP was the one who had produced a stunning debate performance, don't you think he would have produced similar election results? The subsequent media coverage certainly helped Newt but most voters made up their minds during the debate before hearing any post-debate analysis.


I think you are trying to hurt Ron Paul is what I think. Why did you post this non grass roots topic in the grass roots forum? At very least it should be in the opposing candidates forum not here. This is starting to really piss me off!!

[Lethalmiko]

I think you are trying to hurt Ron Paul is what I think. Why did you post this non grass roots topic in the grass roots forum? At very least it should be in the opposing candidates forum not here. This is starting to really piss me off!!
Argumentum ad hominem.

[cartemj06]

I completely get that Ron is Ron, and I like that, That is what brought me here. But somewhere in that man there has to be some anger, and he needs to use it in the debates to raise his voice. I like that I learn while he answers, but I am afraid of the General Public for one reason.
Americans want a candidate that tells them that what they want to hear and that it's the right answer. America needs to WAKE UP! Could ron improve his debate skills? yes.
Could america be well served to come to terms with the fact that the guy they have been looking for may not be the GQ magazine cover they were looking for.

[Cdn_for_liberty]

I think you are trying to hurt Ron Paul is what I think. Why did you post this non grass roots topic in the grass roots forum? At very least it should be in the opposing candidates forum not here. This is starting to really piss me off!!

Sounds like constructive criticism to me. I don't get why some folks take it the wrong way when someone asks RP to improve his presentation. It's almost like a knee jerk reaction from the establishment posters here, thinking that improving his presentation = selling out, watering down his views.

[Working Poor]

Sounds like constructive criticism to me. I don't get why some folks take it the wrong way when someone asks RP to improve his presentation. It's almost like a knee jerk reaction from the establishment posters here, thinking that improving his presentation = selling out, watering down his views.


So why are you not posting somewhere other than grassroots forum. Grassroots is for posting about meetings and other grassroots related activity in the different cities and where Ron is speaking and is tweeted out on twitter. I think it hurts us for peoplelike to OP to keep making these negative titles that go out to other sites. We do have a forum for making suggestions why was this not posted there. Obvious you do not want to help the campaign. Ron has nothing in common from Newt and unless you know how to get the media to kiss Ron's butt like they do with Romney and Gingrich then this stuff needs to go somewhere else.

[Schiff_FTW]

No one watches the debates. Newt Gingrich has been propped up by the media because they know he'd lose bad to Obama (as opposed to Romney).

[heavenlyboy34]

Do Ron and the campaign watch the debates afterward? This would be a good idea-learning from mistakes is helpful. :) Just my 2 cents.

[Peace&Freedom]

No one watches the debates. Newt Gingrich has been propped up by the media because they know he'd lose bad to Obama (as opposed to Romney).

Agreed, although both Mitt and Newt would lose to Obama, that's the entire point of putting up a 'weak field' this year against the President. One way pushing Newt can backfire is that it may cause Paul to be even more successful in his caucus strategy than if Romney was dominating. If Newt beats Mitt in FL next week, Romney will be reeling going into NV, and Paul's chances for a quick victory go way up. Then Paul's momentum picks up, and without any real organization by Gingrich, Paul sweeps the bulk of the caucuses better than he otherwise would have. This caucus momentum might even bleed into a primary victory or two, then the MSM may wake up and notice that Paul is the one piling up delegates.

[harikaried]

Reality does not lie.Reality is the media keeps saying Ron Paul is unelectable when their own poll numbers show that Ron Paul is electable. Their own poll numbers show Gingrich is unelectable, yet they don't mention that at all.

[Lethalmiko]

So why are you not posting somewhere other than grassroots forum. Grassroots is for posting about meetings and other grassroots related activity in the different cities and where Ron is speaking and is tweeted out on twitter. I think it hurts us for peoplelike to OP to keep making these negative titles that go out to other sites. We do have a forum for making suggestions why was this not posted there. Obvious you do not want to help the campaign. Ron has nothing in common from Newt and unless you know how to get the media to kiss Ron's butt like they do with Romney and Gingrich then this stuff needs to go somewhere else.
Probably a third of threads would be removed from here by that logic. Grassroots comes under "Ron Paul 2012: News, Discussion & Analysis" in case you have not noticed. Ron can learn from anyone including Newt.


No one watches the debates. Newt Gingrich has been propped up by the media because they know he'd lose bad to Obama (as opposed to Romney).
If what you say is true, why did the Gingrich swing coincidentally happen within 24 hours of the debate? Millions actually watch them. The numbers are online.


If Newt beats Mitt in FL next week, Romney will be reeling going into NV, and Paul's chances for a quick victory go way up. Then Paul's momentum picks up, and without any real organization by Gingrich, Paul sweeps the bulk of the caucuses better than he otherwise would have. This caucus momentum might even bleed into a primary victory or two, then the MSM may wake up and notice that Paul is the one piling up delegates.
Posts like this make me wonder if you guys really want to win like I do. Why depend on external factors when you can shape the race yourself? Besides, your analysis is based on nothing but air, sorry to say. It is not true that Paul will necessarily do well in caucus states (why did he lose Iowa even when opinions were softer?). Organization is overated, which partially explains Santorum's win in Iowa with zero organization.


Reality is the media keeps saying Ron Paul is unelectable when their own poll numbers show that Ron Paul is electable. Their own poll numbers show Gingrich is unelectable, yet they don't mention that at all.
Reality is that the Paul campaign has failed to produce an electability ad which can easily destroy the media narrative to the contrary.

---

From my reading of many comments on this forum, I keep getting the uneasy feeling that the Paul campaign is not as committed to actually winning as most of us supporters are. Maybe I am wrong but I am yet to see evidence to remove my feeling.

[kill the banks]

top of drudge now http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/24/pelosi_on_a_gingrich_presidency_that_will_never_ha ppen.html

something I know

[Fraulein]

Can anyone explain to me why Lethalmiko JOIN DATE DEC 2011 OMG! is literally mopping the floor with all who oppose him in this thread?

Certainly it has something to do with JOIN DATE DEC 2011 OMG!

This forum is supposedly one of the more intellectual ones out there, but it never ceases to amaze how rampantly the ad-hominem attacks plague this site.

As for Lethalmiko, thanks for what your doing and please keep it up. Your criticism is both warranted and helpful.

[The Free Hornet]

Non sequitur (no relevance to what I wrote). "Reality" refers to the fact that RP has lost 3 contests in a row and came out last in the most recent one. Therefore, his campaign is obviously doing something wrong.

-1 logic fail. You can do everything right and still lose. America has to choose freedom, for a change. The campaign cannot force the MSM to cover Ron Paul in similar measure or to cover him with objectivity and not repeated and unoriginal bias.

Is this the campaign's problem? Hell yes! Is this the campaign's fault? Hell no!


Okay, so explain why the shift towards Gingrich happened within 24 hours of the debate and why many people interviewed afterwards said they were persuaded when they heard what he said.

You are asking me to explain facts that, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. Neocons that don't want freedom are like an electron in a neocon orbital. They will flip among the likely outcomes (Mitt/Newt) but there is a far lower probability that they reach a higher energy oribtal (Ron Paul/liberty candidate). Also, I am not aware of the interviews, their sample size, selection of participants, et cetera. Everyone should know how an "FU Frank" Luntz can spin a tale.

The SC results were close to the polls. What concerns me and might require explanation, is - as you alude - the last minutes breaks for a neocon choice. This happened in Iowa too. Part of it is the last media push where Ron Paul does not exist, except as a dangerous alternative. I don't blame the campaign for this however much I wish them to fix the MSM.


Gingrich has been attacking the media effectively so I have to disagree.

You are fooled if you think Gingrich is attacking the media. Like a prize fight, it takes two to tango. He is playing his role, pretending at times to float above everyone ("you all [to MSM] are missing the key issue here"). It wouldn't matter if he attacked or went along like Romney. He is a warm, pliable body, perfectly suited to the puppet masters.

Would you say Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck attack the media? I wouldn't. They are playing their roll to continue the wars, the fiat money, the excessively large government. Anybody with an once of objectivity would think these guys would be falling over backwards to sing Ron Paul's praises (over the other three choices). Ron's net positives are so great they could even "roll the dice" on his foreign policy. They won't because they are tied to the big banks (bailouts), fiat currency (the Fed), government control (alphabet soup of agencies), and the wars (MIC, control of trade, oil, international banking). When a poor person gets a food stamp or birth control is taught in school, then the shit hits the fan for them. But that is an act, a ploy for ratings and to pretend to be what they aren't. Newt doesn't attack the media. He can't and if he did, he would recant and endorse Ron Paul. He would apologize for a lifetime of selling out.

Seriously, what makes you think Newt is attacking the media? It is trickery that has you fooled. He may be winning, but it isn't the media who is losing. Hell, they would love a Newt-Obama slugfest. On net, with Obama vs Newt, they don't care who loses or who wins.

This isn't a conspiracy. You can hate Cokie Roberts and be one and the same with her and in your roll.


3 consecutive losses should make any rational person begin questioning the strategy (remember the Albert Einsten quote in my first post?). I am afraid you are exhibiting the same kind of thinking that proponents of foreign aid to poor African countries do. Despite giving billions over decades, Africa is actually poorer and more corrupt but of course such realities are little inconveniences to be ignored right? So any criticism or constructive ideas are BS?

You are way off count if you think it is 3 consecutive losses. More like hundreds or thousands. Liberty has had its ass kicked since before even Goldwater. These aren't baseball games with roughly equal teams on a level field, it is more like a street brawl and we are vastly outnumbered and in need of reinforcements (like Lord of the Rings). People have to be receptive the message of liberty. This is why 2012 has been more successful than 2008. Sure, the campaign is vastly improved, but current events are exposing the folly of fiat currency and run-away government.


A quick unrelated analogy. Atheists make up 6-9% of the US population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism). However, they are ZERO percent of the newly elected congressmen. There is one known atheist in the US House, Pete Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark). He is in California, is a nutjob, first elected to the House in 1972, and "came out" per wiki in 2007 as an atheist. His ticket was stamped a long time ago.

Now, is it that atheists suck at running campaigns? We should have roughly 30 open atheists in the House! The problem is that there is something fundamentally toxic about being an atheist and running for public office. The same goes for being a liberty candidate. It is not something for which a disparaging tone should be cast at the campaign.

Newt's success is admirable but not applicable. That he would be selected despite his obvious negatives only shows how much America dislikes freedom, Mormons, and Santorum.

[MrTudo]

A sale is a sale is a sale is a sale. However, Dr Paul is a doctor, not a salesman. Therefore there needs to be more salesmen like you to knock on doors, make phone calls, set up tables outside of home depot, supermarkets etc with Dr Paul information.

Once upon a time I sold the product I deal in. On the phones, at shows, in formal sales presentations to investors it was sell, sell sell. And I sold millions of $ of product. As I've gotten older and with the age of the internet I've changed. I don't sell anymore. I present. Everything is online and it's 90% information and 10% selling with the 10% sometimes being me who gets the phone call from the prospect/client/customer who just needs a little reassuring or just a conversation to get to know the person they are about to send a bunch of money to. I almost never sell like the old days ( maybe 1% ) and I move tens of millions now. Go figure.

But the information has to come from somewhere and in my case there's now 7,000 pages online on my main website. And I've been around a long time. So in Dr Paul's case, somebody has to be the fronter. That's you and me. Dr Paul is the one who closes the deal and if you can't do that then you are going to be very frustrated along the way. Let's focus on getting Dr Paul the people's ear and eyes. He'll do the rest.

Edited to add: It must be clear to any rational thinking human being by now that we are seeing the most corrupt and disgusting assertion by the republican party and by the press that we don't matter and Dr Paul will NOT get the nomination no matter what he or anyone else does. If you think that a snappy sales talk from who is the senior elder stateman on stage you are not being realistic. This is also directed to the fellow/gal who insists the campaign is doing something wrong. You sound like you're either in denial or from another planet.

[The Free Hornet]

Edit: this above - what MrTudo said!



Given what he knows, Ron Paul is amazingly level-headed and of even temperment. He's perfect in that regard for the job of President. I could not stand to be in the same room with the people he has to see in Washington or on a debate floor. I hate to sound like a cultist now, but many critics here have no idea just how superior Ron Paul is to themselves in all areas of politics, argumentation, oration, and critical thinking.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Good lord, thinking that if Ron Paul would only practice, he'd become Newt Gingrich in debates! is about as dumb as saying with practice, I'd be LeBron James.

Ron is 76 years old, that cake was baked a long time ago. Highlight his strengths instead of highlighting his weaknesses.

[Mini-Me]

Reality is that the Paul campaign has failed to produce an electability ad which can easily destroy the media narrative to the contrary.

This is I believe your most actionable suggestion, and I agree completely. The Ron Paul campaign would be very wise to do this.

At the same time, I think you overestimate our ability to copy Gingrich's tactics. Gingrich's tactics - including attacking the media - only work because the media itself is complicit. The Free Hornet hit this nail on the head. Think about the post-debate coverage after the final SC debate for instance: Gingrich slammed the media at the beginning of the debate with his narcissistic grandstanding, but that only made the media that much happier to talk with Gingrich after the debate and plaster his face all over national television. Ron Paul was barely mentioned the ENTIRE rest of the night, despite (because of?) his grand slam and Santorum smackdown on the abortion question. From that moment until the primary date, the whole narrative was, "OMG, GINGRICH VS. ROMNEY." This was after an "OMG HUNTSMAN" narrative in NH and "OMG SANTORUM" narrative in Iowa. THAT is why Gingrich did so well: It wasn't the debate itself but the entirety of the media coverage over the next few days.

A couple weeks ago, you suggested that the Ron Paul campaign should immediately hit Romney hard, whereas I warned that we had to do everything we could to push Gingrich out first before he had a resurgence. It's unfortunate we couldn't manage to do that, because now we're fighting against a credible "Romney vs. Gingrich" narrative, which the media is likely to push until at least Super Tuesday. This was not some unpredictable fluke: South Carolina was an ideal state for Gingrich, because it has great demographics for him (warhawks), and he spent tons of money campaigning there. Those same factors also favored Perry, but he dropped out immediately beforehand and endorsed Gingrich. Coincidence? ;) The media did NOT pick its "favorite" anti-Romney for each state by accident; they did so in a calculated attempt to make the right candidate surge at the right time and totally shut out Ron Paul.

We knew going into South Carolina that it was going to be one of our hardest states...and so did the media. We received < 4% of the vote there in 2008, and the media knew it. Be prepared for a devastating blow in Florida: It's even less hospitable to us, and we simply can't afford to commit suicide pouring money into that state. The coordinated blackout is an attempt to completely destroy the Ron Paul campaign's momentum and mindshare in South Carolina and Florida, because if they don't, we will WIN Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington in quick succession, and that will change everything. Despite the horrible conditions, we still managed to more than quadruple our turnout for South Carolina; could you imagine if Nevada, Maine, etc. follow the same pattern? We won't get them for free though, and here is where your suggestion for an electability ad might just help us break through again.

Bottom line: I definitely agree with you that the Ron Paul campaign has to hit hard with electability TV ads. At the same time, I think you overestimate how much we can learn from Gingrich, and I get the impression you don't yet fully realize the scope and magnitude of the establishment we're up against.

[Peace&Freedom]

If what you say is true, why did the Gingrich swing coincidentally happen within 24 hours of the debate? Millions actually watch them. The numbers are online.

Posts like this make me wonder if you guys really want to win like I do. Why depend on external factors when you can shape the race yourself? Besides, your analysis is based on nothing but air, sorry to say. It is not true that Paul will necessarily do well in caucus states (why did he lose Iowa even when opinions were softer?). Organization is overated, which partially explains Santorum's win in Iowa with zero organization.

Gingrich was already ahead in the polls by the time of the Thursday debate. My analysis was based on over 20 years involvement with liberty campaigns, which includes the knowledge that success depends on both organization and external factors, which is why I brought up both.

[MrTudo]

What Mini-Me said http://www.vietventures.com/Images/SMILIES/viking.gif

[Lethalmiko]

Finally some substantive points to respond to.


Can anyone explain to me why Lethalmiko JOIN DATE DEC 2011 OMG! is literally mopping the floor with all who oppose him in this thread? ... This forum is supposedly one of the more intellectual ones out there, but it never ceases to amaze how rampantly the ad-hominem attacks plague this site. As for Lethalmiko, thanks for what your doing and please keep it up. Your criticism is both warranted and helpful.
Thank you for your very kind words. I also wonder how supporters can persuade voters when they often fail to follow the rules of logic.


-1 logic fail. You can do everything right and still lose. America has to choose freedom, for a change. The campaign cannot force the MSM to cover Ron Paul in similar measure or to cover him with objectivity and not repeated and unoriginal bias.
You are right in principle. However, my contention is that so far the campaign has NOT done "everything right" and it has nothing to do with Americans not choosing freedom (by this I mean that it is irrelevant whether voters are thinking in terms of freedom or not. American voters already agree with RP on many important points and are ready to be convinced to vote for RP). As I have noted before, not less than about a third of voters say electability was the main factor in their voting decision and they perceive RP as being unelectable. This is one of the main reasons they reject him and I find it absolute folly for the campaign not to actively correct the false impression about electability.

There is also the foreign policy problem whereby RP does not clearly explain himself in simple terms. Despite knowing all his positions, even I was confused with his answers in the Myrtle Beach debate and I can imagine how average voters saw him. MSM not covering RP is not really a huge problem as you think. RP was leading in the polls in Iowa about 2 weeks before the caucus and could have won. I refuse to accept that the media problem cannot be dealt with. With some creative thinking, you can turn a disadvantage into an advantage. For example, he can answer the questions about a third party run something like "Don't you media people have more substantive questions to help voters make up their minds rather than this useless speculation about third party runs". The media loves to report controversial things and would would jump on this (it has already happened before on Morning Joe I think). You have to stop making excuses for the campaign.


Is this the campaign's problem? Hell yes! Is this the campaign's fault? Hell no!
I do not fault the campaign for the problems they face from the media. I fault them for not responding in a manner that leaves them in a better position. For example, Paul often fails to challenge the media in their biased coverage when they ask him a loaded question. I have seen him hit them a few times (I remember seeing that in a Chris Matthews interview) but it is not enough. He has to hit them every single time and tell them point blank that they are deliberately twisting things. Imagine how much news coverage a rant on live TV would generate. Controversy sells.


You are asking me to explain facts that, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. Neocons that don't want freedom are like an electron in a neocon orbital. They will flip among the likely outcomes (Mitt/Newt) but there is a far lower probability that they reach a higher energy oribtal (Ron Paul/liberty candidate). Also, I am not aware of the interviews, their sample size, selection of participants, et cetera. Everyone should know how an "FU Frank" Luntz can spin a tale.
The Gingrich polling numbers were more or less stable leading up to the debate and jumped afterwards. Can you think of any other cataclysmic event that precipitated the surge within 24 hours?


The SC results were close to the polls. What concerns me and might require explanation, is - as you alude - the last minutes breaks for a neocon choice. This happened in Iowa too. Part of it is the last media push where Ron Paul does not exist, except as a dangerous alternative. I don't blame the campaign for this however much I wish them to fix the MSM.
Wrong. The SC polls showed Paul coming in 3rd. He actually came in fourth. The only significant thing that happened in SC was the 2 debates. If you have a better explanation, please tell us.


You are fooled if you think Gingrich is attacking the media. Like a prize fight, it takes two to tango. He is playing his role, pretending at times to float above everyone ("you all [to MSM] are missing the key issue here"). It wouldn't matter if he attacked or went along like Romney. He is a warm, pliable body, perfectly suited to the puppet masters.
Telling a debate moderator that bringing up the ex-wife issue (to the point of making the moderator start to defend himself) is "despicable" on live national TV is not attacking the media? Hmmm....


Would you say Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck attack the media? I wouldn't. They are playing their roll to continue the wars, the fiat money, the excessively large government. Anybody with an once of objectivity would think these guys would be falling over backwards to sing Ron Paul's praises (over the other three choices).
I cannot comment much on those pundits with respect to attacking the media. However, it does not follow from your premises that they should therefore support Paul because they have their own reasons to oppose Paul overall even if they agree with him on many things.


Ron's net positives are so great they could even "roll the dice" on his foreign policy. They won't because they are tied to the big banks (bailouts), fiat currency (the Fed), government control (alphabet soup of agencies), and the wars (MIC, control of trade, oil, international banking). When a poor person gets a food stamp or birth control is taught in school, then the shit hits the fan for them. But that is an act, a ploy for ratings and to pretend to be what they aren't.
They obviously see things differently but you may be right.


Newt doesn't attack the media. He can't and if he did, he would recant and endorse Ron Paul. He would apologize for a lifetime of selling out. Seriously, what makes you think Newt is attacking the media? It is trickery that has you fooled. He may be winning, but it isn't the media who is losing. Hell, they would love a Newt-Obama slugfest. On net, with Obama vs Newt, they don't care who loses or who wins.
See response a few sentences ago.


You are way off count if you think it is 3 consecutive losses. More like hundreds or thousands. Liberty has had its ass kicked since before even Goldwater. These aren't baseball games with roughly equal teams on a level field, it is more like a street brawl and we are vastly outnumbered and in need of reinforcements (like Lord of the Rings). People have to be receptive the message of liberty. This is why 2012 has been more successful than 2008. Sure, the campaign is vastly improved, but current events are exposing the folly of fiat currency and run-away government.
The essential point you miss is that at the moment, you cannot win an election in America purely on the message of liberty. In any case, Americans are not in general opposed to liberty. Most voters are however opposed to Paul for reasons that can be easily fixed as I have noted before. It is all about changing their negative perceptions. Again, you are making excuses by suggesting it is an impossible task. The forces arrayed against Paul are vast and innumerable but I know without a doubt they can be defeated (many of us have made practical suggestions already which the campaign is not using).


A quick unrelated analogy. Atheists make up 6-9% of the US population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism). However, they are ZERO percent of the newly elected congressmen... Now, is it that atheists suck at running campaigns? We should have roughly 30 open atheists in the House! The problem is that there is something fundamentally toxic about being an atheist and running for public office. The same goes for being a liberty candidate. It is not something for which a disparaging tone should be cast at the campaign.
You have a point concerning aetheists running for office. I am just not convinced it applies here. There is nothing toxic about being a constitutionalist. RP is not even really a full libertarian. I fail to see how Americans in good conscience can just decide the constitution is irrelevant.


Newt's success is admirable but not applicable. That he would be selected despite his obvious negatives only shows how much America dislikes freedom, Mormons, and Santorum.
False. It has nothing to do with disliking freedom as I have explained above. Do you really believe Americans don't mind being slaves? It's all about how the campaign is failing to deal with its weaknesses. If their perceptions are changed, they will vote for RP en masse.


A sale is a sale is a sale is a sale. However, Dr Paul is a doctor, not a salesman. Therefore there needs to be more salesmen like you to knock on doors, make phone calls, set up tables outside of home depot, supermarkets etc with Dr Paul information.... So in Dr Paul's case, somebody has to be the fronter. That's you and me. Dr Paul is the one who closes the deal and if you can't do that then you are going to be very frustrated along the way. Let's focus on getting Dr Paul the people's ear and eyes. He'll do the rest...
Actually, you have it the wrong way round. All our efforts will come to naught if most voters perceive RP to be unelectable, weak on foreign policy and terrible for seniors. No matter how great the message is, just a single major negative destroys it. Once you change perception, the rest is a piece of cake.


It must be clear to any rational thinking human being by now that we are seeing the most corrupt and disgusting assertion by the republican party and by the press that we don't matter and Dr Paul will NOT get the nomination no matter what he or anyone else does. If you think that a snappy sales talk from who is the senior elder stateman on stage you are not being realistic. This is also directed to the fellow/gal who insists the campaign is doing something wrong. You sound like you're either in denial or from another planet.
As I have painstakingly explained before, you are being defeatist. The media and two-party system is corrupt agreed. However this is NOT the reason voters are rejecting Paul. Is it so impossible for the Paul campaign to put out an ad on electability or foreign policy? Is it impossible for him to reassure voters he is strong on national defense in terms they can relate to?


I hate to sound like a cultist now, but many critics here have no idea just how superior Ron Paul is to themselves in all areas of politics, argumentation, oration, and critical thinking.
You are right. However, it is an indisputable FACT that Paul is a poor communicator. He can improve and has said so himself. With respect to winning the election, communication is the most critical thing and no amount of superiority in thinking on his part will make a significant difference to election results. If he is really in this to win as he claims, he has to adapt. If he refuses to adapt (and I do not mean selling out or pandering), then he should not have run for this election.


Good lord, thinking that if Ron Paul would only practice, he'd become Newt Gingrich in debates! is about as dumb as saying with practice, I'd be LeBron James. Ron is 76 years old, that cake was baked a long time ago. Highlight his strengths instead of highlighting his weaknesses.
His weaknesses are precisely what is costing him votes. He does not really need to be as great as Newt but he can give better prepared and more clear answers. You do not need to change your personality to change the answer to the electability question for example (the head-to-head polls with Obama is more convincing than being elected 12 times to congress). And if he cannot adapt and up his game in debates, what do you reckon will happen when he faces Obama, the king of charisma?


...I think you overestimate our ability to copy Gingrich's tactics. Gingrich's tactics - including attacking the media - only work because the media itself is complicit.... Think about the post-debate coverage after the final SC debate for instance: Gingrich slammed the media at the beginning of the debate with his narcissistic grandstanding, but that only made the media that much happier to talk with Gingrich after the debate and plaster his face all over national television. Ron Paul was barely mentioned the ENTIRE rest of the night, despite (because of?) his grand slam and Santorum smackdown on the abortion question. From that moment until the primary date, the whole narrative was, "OMG, GINGRICH VS. ROMNEY." This was after an "OMG HUNTSMAN" narrative in NH and "OMG SANTORUM" narrative in Iowa. THAT is why Gingrich did so well: It wasn't the debate itself but the entirety of the media coverage over the next few days.
I have to disagree. Voters are persuaded during a debate not after. Most of them probably leave or change channels once the debate is over. Media narratives can be combated as I have said before. Creativity and imagination are all you need. Please stop being defeatist.


A couple weeks ago, you suggested that the Ron Paul campaign should immediately hit Romney hard, whereas I warned that we had to do everything we could to push Gingrich out first before he had a resurgence. It's unfortunate we couldn't manage to do that, because now we're fighting against a credible "Romney vs. Gingrich" narrative, which the media is likely to push until at least Super Tuesday. This was not some unpredictable fluke: South Carolina was an ideal state for Gingrich, because it has great demographics for him (warhawks), and he spent tons of money campaigning there. Those same factors also favored Perry, but he dropped out immediately beforehand and endorsed Gingrich. Coincidence? ;) The media did NOT pick its "favorite" anti-Romney for each state by accident; they did so in a calculated attempt to make the right candidate surge at the right time and totally shut out Ron Paul.

We knew going into South Carolina that it was going to be one of our hardest states...and so did the media. We received < 4% of the vote there in 2008, and the media knew it. Be prepared for a devastating blow in Florida: It's even less hospitable to us, and we simply can't afford to commit suicide pouring money into that state. The coordinated blackout is an attempt to completely destroy the Ron Paul campaign's momentum and mindshare in South Carolina and Florida, because if they don't, we will WIN Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington in quick succession, and that will change everything. Despite the horrible conditions, we still managed to more than quadruple our turnout for South Carolina; could you imagine if Nevada, Maine, etc. follow the same pattern? We won't get them for free though, and here is where your suggestion for an electability ad might just help us break through again.
As I have said above, you over-rate the power of the media. I reiterate that the main issues are electability, foreign policy and seniors. Once you persuade these 3 groups to a tipping point, everything else is irrelevant. There is nothing inherently hard or inhospitable in any state. Voters will vote for RP once the campaign persuades them on the 3 issues. It will probably not even be necessary to attack Romney or Gingrich.


Bottom line: I definitely agree with you that the Ron Paul campaign has to hit hard with electability TV ads. At the same time, I think you overestimate how much we can learn from Gingrich, and I get the impression you don't yet fully realize the scope and magnitude of the establishment we're up against.
Trust me I know full well the power of the corrupt corporations behind the scenes. I have already connected the dots starting with the Rothschild banking cartels in Europe, JP Morgan, JD Rockefeller, Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve, the financing of campaigns of congressmen & presidents, the debasing of the currency after cutting its link to gold, the takeover of the education system and subsequent indoctrination of children, the corrupt media being owned by a few large corporations, cronyism, insider trading by congressmen, ad infinitum. Where we differ is I refuse to use this as an excuse for not winning when I can clearly see the campaign dropping the ball on several fronts. Had the campaign executed the right strategy and still failed, I would then totally agree with you. But there is simply no way they can stop him for as long as he is free to campaign ,unless they assassinate him.


Gingrich was already ahead in the polls by the time of the Thursday debate. My analysis was based on over 20 years involvement with liberty campaigns, which includes the knowledge that success depends on both organization and external factors, which is why I brought up both.
The swing stated after the Monday debate and accelerated further after the second debate. Gingrich was not at 40 something percent by Thursday.

[Feeding the Abscess]

His weaknesses are precisely what is costing him votes. He does not really need to be as great as Newt but he can give better prepared and more clear answers. You do not need to change your personality to change the answer to the electability question for example (the head-to-head polls with Obama is more convincing than being elected 12 times to congress). And if he cannot adapt and up his game in debates, what do you reckon will happen when he faces Obama, the king of charisma?

He's brought up the head to head polls in several debates now, and Obama isn't all that great in a debate setting. He's much like Gingrich, really; his reputation exceeds reality. Take the crowd away from Gingrich, and he's lesser for it. Take the crowd and teleprompter away from Obama, and he's lesser for it.

[SonofThunder]

Wrong. The massive shift towards Gingrich happened the very following day after the debate.

"The past several days, however, have seen one of the most shocking reversals of momentum ever in a presidential primary. Newt Gingrich, in second place in South Carolina polls, performed well enough in Monday night’s debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., to set off a double-digit swing in some polls, literally overnight." -- Nate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/south-carolina-primary-overview-and-forecast

Right, because the polls never lie...

Romney never had a chance in South Carolina. Those pre-election polls were worthless.

[Lethalmiko]

Right, because the polls never lie... Romney never had a chance in South Carolina. Those pre-election polls were worthless.
Of course not every poll is accurate, but I think you are missing the fact that any scientific poll is a snap-shot in time reflecting voter preferences at that point within the margin of error. If the SC election had been held two weeks earlier, Romney would have won hands-down. Even in Iowa, had the elections been held on December 15th, Ron Paul would have won. It is therefore not correct to say Romney never had a chance or that the polls were worthless just because of the final result thereafter. There are many events that can cause a shift in public opinion, sometimes overnight.


He's brought up the head to head polls in several debates now, and Obama isn't all that great in a debate setting. He's much like Gingrich, really; his reputation exceeds reality. Take the crowd away from Gingrich, and he's lesser for it. Take the crowd and teleprompter away from Obama, and he's lesser for it.
If that is the case, then I never noticed since I have watched them all save one. If even I as a supporter did not notice, it just shows that the fact was not emphasized enough. It is possible to say something but when you say it in passing without enough emphasis, people can miss it. Therein lies one of RP's weaknesses which is why many of us his supporters have said he needs professional training in speaking. If he refuses it and is harmed as a result, then he in the wrong game and should have perhaps left it to his son instead.


A couple weeks ago, you suggested that the Ron Paul campaign should immediately hit Romney hard, whereas I warned that we had to do everything we could to push Gingrich out first before he had a resurgence. It's unfortunate we couldn't manage to do that, because now we're fighting against a credible "Romney vs. Gingrich" narrative, which the media is likely to push until at least Super Tuesday. This was not some unpredictable fluke: South Carolina was an ideal state for Gingrich, because it has great demographics for him (warhawks), and he spent tons of money campaigning there. Those same factors also favored Perry, but he dropped out immediately beforehand and endorsed Gingrich. Coincidence? ;) The media did NOT pick its "favorite" anti-Romney for each state by accident; they did so in a calculated attempt to make the right candidate surge at the right time and totally shut out Ron Paul.
I did not fully address your first point above. From the latest polling as I expected, Gingrich is on the way down. Nate Silver's latest forecast shows Gingrich is now trailing Romney having led him from SC.

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

Gingrich is the easiest one to attack (as I said even before) as there is too much crap on him. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi stated categorically in an interview that there is no way he will ever be the president. She said "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57366161-503544/pelosi-gingrich-presidency-not-going-to-happen/

I still think a Romney attack ad would be useful but over the weeks since the thread I started that you refer to, I have come to see just how weak Romney really is, propped up by the corrupt GOP establishment and equally corrupt bankers. However as I have also come to realize, Ron Paul's major problem is not the media bias or Romney having tons of money. His main problem is himself and his own campaign. As we have noted after debating ad nauseam, RP's problems are perceived unelectability, fuzzy foreign policy, misunderstanding by seniors and weak debating skills/unrehearsed answers.

All these problems have answers in form of adverts, clearer simpler shorter answers and rehearsing the strongest arguments. I know there are many in here that argue that Ron should not rehearse but just answer spontaneously but it simply does not work and leads to confusion. If you still insist otherwise, go watch Steve Job's iPhone presentation in 2007 which he spent several days rehearsing and perfecting. We all know how well the sales went on the strength of that presentation.

[ironj221]

Agree with OP 100%.

Dr. Paul needs to take a few days and just prepare for the debate. Then again, maybe he is already doing this.

[Working Poor]

I still think you are wrong to put this in the grassroots forum and I think you are trying to hurt Ron paul

[Lethalmiko]

I still think you are wrong to put this in the grassroots forum and I think you are trying to hurt Ron paul
And I think you may have a slight problem with comprehension. This is not meant to be a personal attack but an observation. Any person trying to destroy or attack somebody else does not give solutions to the problems highlighted.

[Lethalmiko]

Agree with OP 100%. Dr. Paul needs to take a few days and just prepare for the debate. Then again, maybe he is already doing this.
I really hope so as the window of opportunity is closing fast. I would really love for him to have a long rant against the corrupt media. It would be so delicious!