PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul has a woman problem: Time to address it




rp2012win
02-05-2012, 10:25 AM
PPP Minnesota:
Men: 26%
Women: 12%

Nevada Entrance poll:
Men: 23%
Women: 14%

In all the other states as well, he's getting crushed with women. My thinking is that women are more afraid of his foreign policy and are concerned he will not protect the country from threats. Women like to feel protected and Paul needs to do a better job of saying he will defend our country without hesitation from all threats foreign and domestic. Also, some of his positions might some "harsh" to women so maybe he can try and come across as he did in the last debate as someone who can joke around from time to time and seem more grandfatherly (in his own bad ass way).

thoughtomator
02-05-2012, 10:30 AM
Well, Mitt is a very handsome guy.

FreedomFox
02-05-2012, 10:31 AM
Perhaps he needs to be a guest on The View again. :rolleyes:

CTRattlesnake
02-05-2012, 10:31 AM
Push the fact that he's been married for 55 years to the same woman?

justatrey
02-05-2012, 10:34 AM
I think Mitt got something like 56% of the female vote in Nevada.

It's true that it's a problem, but there's not much we can do about it other than hope that Romney somehow becomes less physically attractive to them. There have been studies done on this in the past and looks play a big role apparently, which I'll never understand.

Maximus
02-05-2012, 10:35 AM
Carol Paul.

She needs to be in a commercial asap, and talking in it (not just a photo of her and Ron where you can't see her that well). I've noticed she's been a bit more visible lately on stage.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 10:36 AM
PPP Minnesota:
Men: 26%
Women: 12%

Nevada Entrance poll:
Men: 23%
Women: 14%

In all the other states as well, he's getting crushed with women. My thinking is that women are more afraid of his foreign policy and are concerned he will not protect the country from threats. Women like to feel protected and Paul needs to do a better job of saying he will defend our country without hesitation from all threats foreign and domestic. Also, some of his positions might some "harsh" to women so maybe he can try and come across as he did in the last debate as someone who can joke around from time to time and seem more grandfatherly (in his own bad ass way).

How about this. A whole lot of people over 40 perceive Dr. Paul as weak on national defense and siding with our enemies. Many also perceive him as being "anti-military". They do not hear a strategy for defending our country against our enemies and have interpreted him saying "anti-war" as being a pacifist. Many also do not know what he is talking about when he says business cycle or washing out the malinvestment and they do not hear what actual steps he will take that will result in them being able to find a job. Top all that off with the fact that they do not believe he can beat Obama. Voila.

The One
02-05-2012, 10:37 AM
When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability. My gf has literally been in favor of at least every one of the other candidates in the GOP primary at one point or another as she has watched debates, etc. with me throughout the process. Sometimes she changes her mind several times within the same debate. The only candidate she hasn't supported is RP because he doesn't "sound good".

In all fairness, it's hardly a female problem, and I was just joking in my first sentence. I think the overwhelming majority of voters are just like my gf...clueless, gullible followers. They simply do not get it. Don't get me wrong...I love my girl. She, like most Americans, just doesn't get it and lacks the capacity to ever get it. It's a societal problem.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 10:41 AM
When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability. My gf has literally been in favor of at least every one of the other candidates in the GOP primary at one point or another as she has watched debates, etc. with me throughout the process. Sometimes she changes her mind several times within the same debate. The only candidate she hasn't supported is RP because he doesn't "sound good".

In all fairness, it's hardly a female problem, and I was just joking in my first sentence. I think the overwhelming majority of voters are just like my gf...clueless, gullible followers. They simply do not get it. Don't get me wrong...I love my girl. She, like most Americans, just doesn't get it and lacks the capacity to ever get it. It's a societal problem.

That says more about your girlfriend than women in general.

Maximus
02-05-2012, 10:47 AM
When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability. My gf has literally been in favor of at least every one of the other candidates in the GOP primary at one point or another as she has watched debates, etc. with me throughout the process. Sometimes she changes her mind several times within the same debate. The only candidate she hasn't supported is RP because he doesn't "sound good".

In all fairness, it's hardly a female problem, and I was just joking in my first sentence. I think the overwhelming majority of voters are just like my gf...clueless, gullible followers. They simply do not get it. Don't get me wrong...I love my girl. She, like most Americans, just doesn't get it and lacks the capacity to ever get it. It's a societal problem.

And this is going to win them over how?

We have some amazing female supporters that kick more ass then most of the men here (including myself)

The One
02-05-2012, 10:47 AM
That says more about your girlfriend than women in general.

Did you read the whole post, LE? My point is that very few people spend the time required, and apply the critical thinking skills needed, in order to really understand what's going on and make informed decisions. We have to realize that not many people are like us and adopt strategies to win voters who base their decisions on their feelings at the moment. Ever notice how many people say they didn't make up their minds until they walked into the voting booth?

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 10:48 AM
Did you read the whole post, LE? My point is that very few people spend the time required, and apply the critical thinking skills needed, in order to really understand what's going on and make informed decisions. We have to realize that not many people are like us and adopt strategies to win voters who base their decisions on their feelings at the moment. Ever notice how many people say they didn't make up their minds until they walked into the voting booth?

This part was obnoxious as all hell and ignorant to boot.


When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability.

Perhaps you should reconsider your approach, before you talk to anymore women about Ron Paul.

The One
02-05-2012, 10:49 AM
And this is going to win them over how?

We have some amazing female supporters that kick more ass then most of the men here (including myself)

Again, did you read the whole post? Or did you react with your emotions after the first sentence?

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 10:50 AM
In Nevada, women sided with Romney, followed by Gingrich.

I think the problem is with them, not us.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 10:51 AM
In Nevada, women sided with Romney, followed by Gingrich.

I think the problem is with them, not us.

No. It is the way the message is framed.

The One
02-05-2012, 10:53 AM
This part was obnoxious as all hell and ignorant to boot.




How about this part?

"I was just joking in my first sentence."

I was playing off a line Jack Nicholson said in the movie As Good as it Gets.

Haven't we talked about your tendency to take things too seriously? ;)

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 10:53 AM
When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability. My gf has literally been in favor of at least every one of the other candidates in the GOP primary at one point or another as she has watched debates, etc. with me throughout the process. Sometimes she changes her mind several times within the same debate. The only candidate she hasn't supported is RP because he doesn't "sound good".

In all fairness, it's hardly a female problem, and I was just joking in my first sentence. I think the overwhelming majority of voters are just like my gf...clueless, gullible followers. They simply do not get it. Don't get me wrong...I love my girl. She, like most Americans, just doesn't get it and lacks the capacity to ever get it. It's a societal problem.

My LAYdeee likes Paul, just because I do. The same can be said for many of my friends and family.

But we certainly do have a problem with older folks and women. By and large, neither category takes to drastic change or radical individualism.... so it's to be expected that we'd see problems with them. I'm not sure what the campaign can do about it at this point. We, as individuals, must do our best to convince others that our way is the correct one. Be kinder, be more well read, be more empathetic, etc etc etc and show everyone in your circle that Paul's candidacy is the only one that makes sense.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 10:53 AM
I think the problem is with them, not us.

Exactly.

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 10:54 AM
This part was obnoxious as all hell and ignorant to boot.



Perhaps you should reconsider your approach, before you talk to anymore women about Ron Paul.


Oh, come on. It's a quote from a chick flick, for Christ sake. It was a joke.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 10:54 AM
No. It is the way the message is framed.

How should it be framed?

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 10:54 AM
No. It is the way the message is framed.

Framed?

Gingrich cheated on two wives. Everyone knows it, including the women.

You tell me how to approach these women...

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 10:55 AM
Oh, come on. It's a quote from a chick flick, for Christ sake. It was a joke.

LibertyEagle is a very serious person. Don't joke with her.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 10:55 AM
How about this part?

"I was just joking in my first sentence."

I was playing off a line Jack Nicholson said in the movie As Good as it Gets.

Haven't we talked about your tendency to take things too seriously? ;)

This is simply an excuse for your poor post.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 10:56 AM
Framed?

Gingrich cheated on two wives. Everyone knows it, including the women.

You tell me how to approach these women...

It's not just women. I tried to explain it here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358526-Ron-Paul-has-a-woman-problem-Time-to-address-it&p=4141711&viewfull=1#post4141711

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 10:56 AM
That says more about your girlfriend than women in general.

The women entrance polls suggest otherwise.

matt0611
02-05-2012, 10:57 AM
How about this. A whole lot of people over 40 perceive Dr. Paul as weak on national defense and siding with our enemies. Many also perceive him as being "anti-military". They do not hear a strategy for defending our country against our enemies and have interpreted him saying "anti-war" as being a pacifist. Many also do not know what he is talking about when he says business cycle or washing out the malinvestment and they do not hear what actual steps he will take that will result in them being able to find a job. Top all that off with the fact that they do not believe he can beat Obama. Voila.

Yep, its been said over and over. People just see Ron as weak on defense and they don't think he's electable. Not sure what we can do about these problems at this point. (IMO the campaign hasn't done nearly enough to address these issues). Without a doubt they are the two biggest impediments to Ron's campaign for Presidency.

But there is a woman problem too. I'm not sure what the root of it, I expect its a bunch of different things (age, false accusations of racial issues, false accusations of cutting government welfare day 1, etc).

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Framed?

Gingrich cheated on two wives. Everyone knows it, including the women.

You tell me how to approach these women...

Sometimes voters do and think silly things, but they usually do so because they haven't had anyone they trust discuss issues they're worried about in a way that satisfied them.

All of the logic, all of the populist rancor, all of the virtue.... it's on our side. We've just got to continue to spend time helping others come to the conclusions that we have.

The One
02-05-2012, 10:58 AM
This is simply an excuse for your poor post.

That "excuse" was in my "poor post". No edits.

rpwi
02-05-2012, 10:59 AM
It's not Paul...it's not Romney...it's the libertarian message. For those of who have been following libertarian candidates for over a couple of decades here...we've seen the trend where women in general have a tough time buying into the libertarian message.

Ways to fix this... Women in Florida were the key constituent that voted last second and did so because of the negative ads against Newt. We need negative ads...they're not pretty, but they work...and polls show they are the most effective among women. If Paul is not willing to do this, then the PAC's after start taking more shots at Romney.

We need focus groups to figure out which libertarian ideas (there are lots to choose from) have the most appeal among women. I actually think Paul's anti-militaristic stance can be a powerfull asset here...he needs to frame the debate in a way that scares voters though (talk about the horrors/expense of war/and bad out budget is without war). I think the bailout issues and debt problem can also be good libertarian issues with women.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 10:59 AM
This is simply an excuse for your poor post.

your lack of sense of humor and hatred of it turns off more voters than all 9/11 truthers put together

rpwi
02-05-2012, 10:59 AM
It's not Paul...it's not Romney...it's the libertarian message. For those of who have been following libertarian candidates for over a couple of decades here...we've seen the trend where women in general have a tough time buying into the libertarian message.

Ways to fix this... Women in Florida were the key constituent that voted last second and did so because of the negative ads against Newt. We need negative ads...they're not pretty, but they work...and polls show they are the most effective among women. If Paul is not willing to do this, then the PAC's after start taking more shots at Romney.

We need focus groups to figure out which libertarian ideas (there are lots to choose from) have the most appeal among women. I actually think Paul's anti-militaristic stance can be a powerfull asset here...he needs to frame the debate in a way that scares voters though (talk about the horrors/expense of war/and bad out budget is without war). I think the bailout issues and debt problem can also be good libertarian issues with women.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 11:01 AM
Yep, its been said over and over. People just see Ron as weak on defense and they don't think he's electable. Not sure what we can do about these problems at this point. (IMO the campaign hasn't done nearly enough to address these issues). Without a doubt they are the two biggest impediments to Ron's campaign for Presidency.

It's very late in the game, yes, but we don't know what all may happen in the economy between now and the nomination. If Paul wants these people, in my opinion, he is going to need to go get them. They are still there for the plucking.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 11:06 AM
your lack of sense of humor and hatred for it turns off more voters than all 9/11 truthers put together
I have a sense of humor when something is funny. The 999th post wholesale bashing women voters is not funny; nor is it conducive to winning them over. But, perhaps it does give insight into one of the reasons why there are not more women in this movement. With the disgusting attitude that some of the "men" in the movement have towards women.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 11:09 AM
I have a sense of humor when something is funny. The 999th post wholesale bashing women voters is not funny; nor is it conducive to winning them over. But, perhaps it does give insight into one of the reasons why there are not more women in this movement. With the disgusting attitude that some of the "men" in the movement have towards women.

how does it feel to have so much hatred and anger in your heart?

TruePatriot44
02-05-2012, 11:09 AM
Women don't care as much about Liberty and monetary policy. They care more about security.

jufreese
02-05-2012, 11:09 AM
dont know if this has been said yet and I hope I dont get bashed for saying it but.....women dont use logic to formulate conclusions, they use emotion. We need to play off of that.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 11:11 AM
It's not just women. I tried to explain it here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358526-Ron-Paul-has-a-woman-problem-Time-to-address-it&p=4141711&viewfull=1#post4141711

But that isn't really addressing women. You are making an appeal to the general public.

I would agree with your assessment on the whole.

But specifically with women, it is them not us. Think about it. There has been a lot of time for women voters to hear about Gingrich's past. They don't seem to care. You would think that women would support a sensible foreign policy candidate. An OBYGN DOCTOR who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. A man who has been married now for, what, 54/55 years?

They have rejected Dr. Paul's character and message. (that may sound harsh)

It is on them, not us.

You may disagree and that is fine. I am just pointing out what I believe to be the truth.

And it sucks...

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 11:11 AM
dont know if this has been said yet and I hope I dont get bashed for saying it but.....women dont use logic to formulate conclusions, they use emotion. We need to play off of that.

I would never bash you for speaking the truth, sir.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 11:15 AM
dont know if this has been said yet and I hope I dont get bashed for saying it but.....women dont use logic to formulate conclusions, they use emotion. We need to play off of that.

I don't know if I nec. agree with that. There is no doubt that women perceive things differently than men.

But be prepared to get hammered! LOL

Czolgosz
02-05-2012, 11:15 AM
I'm extremely shocked that we don't see eye to eye w/ women. lol If it wasn't for male human's need to pile drive everything that moves, Humanity would not exist.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 11:17 AM
how does it feel to have so much hatred and anger in your heart?
:rolleyes: Yeah, it's me.


When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability.

And then the post suggesting that women's suffrage should be reconsidered. Apparently, they chose to remove it.

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 11:20 AM
But that isn't really addressing women. You are making an appeal to the general public.

I would agree with your assessment on the whole.

But specifically with women, it is them not us. Think about it. There has been a lot of time for women voters to hear about Gingrich's past. They don't seem to care. You would think that women would support a sensible foreign policy candidate. An OBYGN DOCTOR who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. A man who has been married now for, what, 54/55 years?

They have rejected Dr. Paul's character and message. (that may sound harsh)

It is on them, not us.

You may disagree and that is fine. I am just pointing out what I believe to be the truth.

And it sucks...

Because you do not need to single them out, for the most part. Women know about Gingrich's past. It's just that considering what is going on with our economy and the world, that takes precedence.

I do not think you understand how many women are in this movement. Do you realize I am one?

The One
02-05-2012, 11:21 AM
:rolleyes: Yeah, it's me.



And then the post suggesting that women's suffrage should be reconsidered. Apparently, they chose to remove it.


Damn LE...read and/or quote my WHOLE FUCKING POST, not just the part that supports your argument!!!. You're worse than CNN.

If the women's suffrage reference is aimed at me, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've been trying to pull you back from the ledge here...do yourself a favor and grab my hand.

heavenlyboy34
02-05-2012, 11:21 AM
When trying to understand the thought processes of the female voter, just think of a man...and then take away reason and accountability. My gf has literally been in favor of at least every one of the other candidates in the GOP primary at one point or another as she has watched debates, etc. with me throughout the process. Sometimes she changes her mind several times within the same debate. The only candidate she hasn't supported is RP because he doesn't "sound good".

In all fairness, it's hardly a female problem, and I was just joking in my first sentence. I think the overwhelming majority of voters are just like my gf...clueless, gullible followers. They simply do not get it. Don't get me wrong...I love my girl. She, like most Americans, just doesn't get it and lacks the capacity to ever get it. It's a societal problem.
Jack Nicholson, is that you? ;) lolz

bbwarfield
02-05-2012, 11:22 AM
Why do most of us guys have trouble respecting a woman and women suffrage? Its like we make them completely equal.... so we don't need to respect them any more? This is not collectivism... there ARE differences between men and women folks (not to the extent Newt would have us believe) but would it kill us guys to view women as equals on a whole and women as individuals with respect and courtesy?

heavenlyboy34
02-05-2012, 11:24 AM
Damn LE...read and/or quote my WHOLE FUCKING POST, not just the part that supports your argument!!!. You're worse than CNN.

If the women's suffrage reference is aimed at me, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've been trying to pull you back from the ledge here...do yourself a favor and grab my hand.
LE is actually one of the more reasonable members. If you start being more respectful, you'll do better in conversations with her (and anyone, really-especially people older than you).

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 11:24 AM
Damn LE...read and/or quote my WHOLE FUCKING POST, not just the part that supports your argument!!!. You're worse than CNN.

If the women's suffrage reference is aimed at me, I have no idea what you're talking about.



No, I wasn't implying that you said it. Someone else did.


I've been trying to pull you back from the ledge here...do yourself a favor and grab my hand.
:rolleyes:

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 11:25 AM
Why do most of us guys have trouble respecting a woman and women suffrage? Its like we make them completely equal.... so we don't need to respect them any more? This is not collectivism... there ARE differences between men and women folks (not to the extent Newt would have us believe) but would it kill us guys to view women as equals on a whole and women as individuals with respect and courtesy?


I was joking.

That's all.

The line about women's suffrage was a joke. And it was funny.

The One
02-05-2012, 11:25 AM
Done.

Ekrub
02-05-2012, 11:35 AM
I know it's kind of cheesy but pushing the whole ob/gyn thing might work. Doesn't have much to do with his policies (maybe abortion) but it might pull some women voters out. Or scare them, who knows

furface
02-05-2012, 11:35 AM
Women are normally more worried about security than men. Unfortunately the current MSM and political leadership has successfully push the propaganda that military aggression increases security.

Ron Paul should stress that individual and family security will be increased with his policies. He needs to be better at clarifying exactly why he is the candidate to best increase American security. There needs to be a larger discussion about what true security means, and why the current political status quo is a massive desecuritizing force for Americans.

craezie
02-05-2012, 11:36 AM
I actually hang with the Republican soccer mom crowd and I don't think its the war thing that is the biggest problem. A lot of women I know actually have a REALLY big problem with sending their husbands / sons/ brothers over to fight and possibly die for no good reason.

I think its just libertarianism in general. Conservative women are soft on entitlements, and are more likely to want to regulate societal behaviors they see as abhorrent. I have heard comments regarding RP and drugs and prostitution. It makes other women really uncomfortable.

It doesn't help that when you see people at RP's campaign events, none of them look "normal" to a lot of conservative women. Ron Paul hasn't looked "normal" a lot of the time either; but the sweater look is really helping!

sailingaway
02-05-2012, 11:39 AM
study after study say women are more concerned with the existence of a safety net, whether they use it or not, being more likely to head up one parent families and more likely to be one paycheck away from poverty. Address how Ron's plan protects social security and medicare and transfers the safety net to the states, in block grants, before ending the federal administration of it, and you will address the disparate concerns of seniors and women both, measurably. I also think rule of law is a good one, as well.

sailingaway
02-05-2012, 11:42 AM
I actually hang with the Republican soccer mom crowd and I don't think its the war thing that is the biggest problem. A lot of women I know actually have a REALLY big problem with sending their husbands / sons/ brothers over to fight and possibly die for no good reason.

I think its just libertarianism in general. Conservative women are soft on entitlements, and are more likely to want to regulate societal behaviors they see as abhorrent. I have heard comments regarding RP and drugs and prostitution. It makes other women really uncomfortable.

It doesn't help that when you see people at RP's campaign events, none of them look "normal" to a lot of conservative women. Ron Paul hasn't looked "normal" a lot of the time either; but the sweater look is really helping!

Ron Paul always looks 'normal' unless you are cherry picking a bad photo when he was in the middle of changing expression.

And 90% of Ron Paul's supporters look 'normal'. With Ron Paul supporters, and NOT with supporters of others, they find the idiocyncratic. That national publication of the Bunny Ranch for example. Are you saying no prostitute in Nevada voted for Romney or Gingrich? (I'll grant you Santorum. But that's because Santorum doesn't play well in independent states, all together.)

RonPaul101.com
02-05-2012, 11:44 AM
Women tend to vote on looks more than men. That's not a sexist statement, it has been proven accurate. in fact all people have a tendency to vote on looks, it takes an effort to look past such things and pay close attention to what matters.

Women Ron Paul voters should take great pride, they are apparently very smart and open minded.

heavenlyboy34
02-05-2012, 11:47 AM
Women tend to vote on looks more than men. That's not a sexist statement, it has been proven accurate. in fact all people have a tendency to vote on looks, it takes an effort to look past such things and pay close attention to what matters.

Women Ron Paul voters should take great pride, they are apparently very smart and open minded.
I'm pretty sure there's a bias towards looks in both genders. Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates? Viewers tended to believe Kennedy won, while radio listeners tended to think Nixon won.

hazek
02-05-2012, 11:51 AM
Bwahahahahaha OP are you serious? Time to address it? At this point in this election?!


Here's a dose of reality for ya. It's too late. Too late to address this problem or any problem at all. This election was done even before Iowa, it was done even before the Ames straw poll because people still think you can ignore the corporate media propaganda machine and have success.

Yes OP, there is a women's vote problem as much as there's a senior's vote problem, these two problems needed to be addressed like a year ago. And if we did, we'd realized that both problems are mainly caused by propaganda so in order to deal with them we'd had to have developed our own propaganda to combat the status quo propaganda and then found a way other than the corporate media to effectively have spread it. And we needed to do this before we wasted, YES WASTED, +$25 million dollars of donated money, mostly giving it to non other than our biggest enemy - the corporate media.


Thinking about doing something now? You just got to be kidding.. :rolleyes:

p.s.: Thank you in advance for all the negative reps that I know I'll get by the disillusioned who wont be able to control their emotions reading this dose of reality, I understand you can't help yourself and it's just our human nature.. :D

p.s.2: I and many others told you so.

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 11:52 AM
Women tend to vote on looks more than men. That's not a sexist statement, it has been proven accurate. in fact all people have a tendency to vote on looks, it takes an effort to look past such things and pay close attention to what matters.

Women Ron Paul voters should take great pride, they are apparently very smart and open minded.

FWIW, I read something a few years ago that rather conclusively proved that the better looking candidate almost always wins.

milo10
02-05-2012, 11:52 AM
How about this part?

"I was just joking in my first sentence."

I was playing off a line Jack Nicholson said in the movie As Good as it Gets.

Haven't we talked about your tendency to take things too seriously? ;)

"Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity." - Marshall McLuhan

:)

USAFCapt
02-05-2012, 11:54 AM
Women are more socialist that men. We have to show that local government is much for efficient in socialist policies that the federal level.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 11:55 AM
I do not think you understand how many women are in this movement. Do you realize I am one?

I found out after you said it, because you definitely don't sound like one.

nbhadja
02-05-2012, 11:55 AM
There is a women and old people problem. The problem with women is that they want safety nets as a poster above wrote. Ron Paul should talk about how he would save trillions per year by ending the wars, the war on drug, the bailouts and would take care of anyone who needs it while the other candidates will spend all of the money on wars, the war on drugs, and bailouts while everyone suffers from the inflation.

The old people problem is because they have been brought up to be trigger happy and believe any war propaganda.

milo10
02-05-2012, 12:00 PM
While it's true that Romney is a handsome man, and looks are very important for both sexes (do you think Sarah Palin would have gotten anywhere if she were unattractive?), I don't think that explains the degree of discrepancy in voting. Ron is an endearing looking older man.

Has there been any studies breaking down concerns with Ron Paul by gender? I frankly would have thought that Ron would poll higher with women due to his anti-war stance, but maybe that shows how little I know. Perhaps my assumption that women preferred less hawkish candidates is completely off.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 12:04 PM
While it's true that Romney is a handsome man, and looks are very important for both sexes (do you think Sarah Palin would have gotten anywhere if she were unattractive?), I don't think that explains the degree of discrepancy in voting. Ron is an endearing looking older man.

Has there been any studies breaking down concerns with Ron Paul by gender? I frankly would have thought that Ron would poll higher with women due to his anti-war stance, but maybe that shows how little I know. Perhaps my assumption that women preferred less hawkish candidates is completely off.

Maybe an important number of women are very influenced by radical feminist man-haters who want to force other people to take care of them, provide them with free abortion services.

RonPaul101.com
02-05-2012, 12:04 PM
FWIW, I read something a few years ago that rather conclusively proved that the better looking candidate almost always wins.

Sadly, that's not surprising. Height has a lot to do with winning elections too.

sailingaway
02-05-2012, 12:05 PM
Maybe an important number of women are very influenced by radical feminist man-haters who want to force other people to take care of them, provide them with free abortion services.

oh yeah, that must be it.

/s

Boss
02-05-2012, 12:05 PM
study after study say women are more concerned with the existence of a safety net, whether they use it or not, being more likely to head up one parent families and more likely to be one paycheck away from poverty. Address how Ron's plan protects social security and medicare and transfers the safety net to the states, in block grants, before ending the federal administration of it, and you will address the disparate concerns of seniors and women both, measurably. I also think rule of law is a good one, as well.

Finally, a sensible thought in this bizarre thread.

But no matter how much catering to people the campaign can do to show RP won't touch social security, etc, etc, etc, he still ranks LAST in terms of willingness to give out entitlements (thank GOD for that). So you're not going to win over any true support and you're just going to make RP look moderate (and theres a pretty popular moderate in the race right now).

RP says it best; as usual he's several steps ahead of everyone on this forum--RP continues to point out that the intellectual revolution (and influencing people's hearts and minds) must get bigger before the political revolution can happen.

You guys seem tow ant the RP campaign to play by the same rules that the Obama campaign played by, or that the Romney campaign plays by. Formula: (1) find the most moderate Republican (or Democrat) position to suit the mainstream media dialogue while providing enough rhetoric to stir the party's base, (2) hire a staff of witty writers to give you nebulous but hard-hitting one-liners (have you heard Mitt's recent speeches? the whole "Obama was elected to lead, he chose to follow, now he must get out of the way" blurb is exactly what I'm talking about), (3) align with wealthy special interests to secure funding (money can pay for supporters in crowds and anything else you could politically desire).

The RP campaign CAN'T play by this strategy b/c we don't play by the same rules. We can't pander to the base b/c it undermines the whole point of RP's candidacy. We can't get in bed with special interests b/c its morally reprehensible. We can't put on the facade of being moderate because WE AREN'T!

Stay true to the message, stay true to RP. Thats the only path to real success that we have.

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 12:07 PM
Maybe an important number of women are very influenced by radical feminist man-haters who want to force other people to take care of them, provide them with free abortion services.

HA!

I'm assuming this is sarcasm/joke. If so, well done. Very nice.

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 12:08 PM
HA!

I'm assuming this is sarcasm/joke. If so, well done. Very nice.

I actually believe it probably would be true but in the general election, not the GOP primary.

aclove
02-05-2012, 12:09 PM
How about this. A whole lot of people over 40 perceive Dr. Paul as weak on national defense and siding with our enemies. Many also perceive him as being "anti-military". They do not hear a strategy for defending our country against our enemies and have interpreted him saying "anti-war" as being a pacifist. Many also do not know what he is talking about when he says business cycle or washing out the malinvestment and they do not hear what actual steps he will take that will result in them being able to find a job. Top all that off with the fact that they do not believe he can beat Obama. Voila.

I don't know that anything can be done about this in this election cycle. It's pretty clear by now that Dr. Paul is not going to change the way he's framing his message. I'm running into more and more people who tell me, "Look, you and other Paul supporters do a better job of explaining Paul's positions than he does. That's a problem with your candidate, and that's not going to cut it for people who need to hear a message they can understand and support from the candidate.

Ron has said, multiple times, that he plans to "keep doing what we've been doing." He's also said, "If Americans are ready to hear my message, I will do well. If they aren't, then I won't." In other words, either people are ready to wake up and accept the Liberty message, or they aren't. He's not going to try to finesse or reframe the message to get people to vote for him without going through the epiphany that the supporters here have experienced.

In other words, Ron is Ron, not Rand. He's more interested in preaching Liberty than becoming President. With that being the case, there's only so much we as supporters can do.

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 12:12 PM
I actually believe it probably would be true but in the general election, not the GOP primary.

There's a segment of the population that is, indeed, feminist. I can't imagine any of them voting for a Republican.... ever.

But it isn't a large slice of the electorate and I can't imagine that they're in any way representative of the larger female population.

sailingaway
02-05-2012, 12:16 PM
Finally, a sensible thought in this bizarre thread.

But no matter how much catering to people the campaign can do to show RP won't touch social security, etc, etc, etc, he still ranks LAST in terms of willingness to give out entitlements (thank GOD for that). So you're not going to win over any true support and you're just going to make RP look moderate (and theres a pretty popular moderate in the race right now).

RP says it best; as usual he's several steps ahead of everyone on this forum--RP continues to point out that the intellectual revolution (and influencing people's hearts and minds) must get bigger before the political revolution can happen.

You guys seem tow ant the RP campaign to play by the same rules that the Obama campaign played by, or that the Romney campaign plays by. Formula: (1) find the most moderate Republican (or Democrat) position to suit the mainstream media dialogue while providing enough rhetoric to stir the party's base, (2) hire a staff of witty writers to give you nebulous but hard-hitting one-liners (have you heard Mitt's recent speeches? the whole "Obama was elected to lead, he chose to follow, now he must get out of the way" blurb is exactly what I'm talking about), (3) align with wealthy special interests to secure funding (money can pay for supporters in crowds and anything else you could politically desire).

The RP campaign CAN'T play by this strategy b/c we don't play by the same rules. We can't pander to the base b/c it undermines the whole point of RP's candidacy. We can't get in bed with special interests b/c its morally reprehensible. We can't put on the facade of being moderate because WE AREN'T!

Stay true to the message, stay true to RP. Thats the only path to real success that we have.

You won't win those actively agitating for a hand out, but the 'uneasy' financially would at least know absolute worst case wouldn't happen for them or their kids. I sure think it's worth a try, given how taken for granted this element is in influencing the female vote AND that of the elderly.

jasonxe
02-05-2012, 12:19 PM
We have a women and old people problem.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 12:19 PM
Because you do not need to single them out, for the most part. Women know about Gingrich's past. It's just that considering what is going on with our economy and the world, that takes precedence.

I do not think you understand how many women are in this movement. Do you realize I am one?

You being a woman and being a Ron Paul supporter doesn't take away from the fact that Romney and Gingrich did well with women last night in Nevada. It doesn't take away from the fact that he is doing poorly in Minnesota with women. I am not bashing women. The reason I am discussing this with you and others is because I am truly astonished that he polls so poorly with them. I was watching Fox News once where a woman said she is voting for Dr. Paul because she can see it in his eyes that he is telling the truth and he is honest. To me, women are much better at judging character than men because they have to.

But, even that doesn't take away from the fact that he is polling poorly with them. If the women were backing Romney and/or Santorum, followed by Paul and Gingrich last, I could see your point. But, as I said, Gingrich was second behind Romney among women who voted. That is what I am trying to say. It is on them, not us.

Ron has a message of liberty. I don't want to pander to any group. It is up to them to take it or leave it.

I am very disappointed with how we are polling among women.

LibertarianBrit
02-05-2012, 12:23 PM
Stossel had guests on recently who showed that our economic and social preferences as developed in small groups in our ancestral environment don't scale up to complex, modern societies; that's why a lot of our decisions are irrational and guys cannot understand why women are so fixated on looks and personality. (In a small group situation those things are a reassurrance to women, but they are meaningless in the modern world where decisions and the setting of policy is the most important thing.)

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/01/12/your-instinct-wrong-sunday-3pm-et-fox-news

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html

In addition, I think that because most women know that because they will have to be economically dependent on others at some stage (late pregnancy & bringing up children), they are reluctant to adopt libertarian principles themselves, where standing on your own two feet is paramount.

If I was going to create a libertarian message to attract women to the cause it would go something like this: Women have organized their own childcare for tens of thousands of years and do not need a man from the government with a beard and a clipboard to tell them how to bring up children or anything else. Women need to start organizing with their husbands, families and other women to pursue their needs instead of looking to government to do this for them - a government which is being lobbied by a zillion other people who want it to give them all the things that they want as well.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 12:25 PM
We have a women and old people problem.

Well, a lot of people are going to bash me for this...but,

we are not going to get the baby boomers. Ron has repeatedly stated that he will not touch SS and Medicare. They have rejected Ron's message because they are so wrapped up in the entitlement system. Think about it, it is all they know. So when someone gets up there and says he thinks it's unconstitutional, even though he will protect it, they are automatically turned off.

Another point to consider is that a lot of the older people don't care. Again, I am going to receive a lot of harsh words for what I am about to say:

They don't care about the future. They want what they believe is theirs. They feel entitled to their Social Security and Medicare. Just look up that episode where John Stossel talked with the baby boomers and hear what they say. It was absolutely disgusting. They know very well they are robbing the younger generation and they don't care. Think about it, they are receiving 3x the benefits that they put in themselves. That is robbery! Now, I am not going to say that ALL of the baby boomers share that outlook. That would be unfair of me to do. In fact, when I was in New Hampshire, an older guy came walking up with what appeared to be his granddaughter. He came up to me (I was holding an RP sign) and he said "I want her (his little girl) to have a future. I am voting for Ron Paul." It almost made me tear up. Also, a lady who needed to be helped to vote, walked up to us after she voted and said, "I voted for him. Good luck". Also, I do know some older people who are supporting Ron Paul. But the facts are, based on the previous primaries, that they do not support Dr. Paul's message. This is very clear.

Here comes the bashing in...
3
2
1
.....

Birdlady
02-05-2012, 12:28 PM
We haven't sold RP to the average women, so it doesn't surprise me. Everything we do is all based on technicalities and we never explain WHY Ron Paul would be a good president or WHAT they can expect from his policies. Everything we tend to do comes off professorial or theory based and many women (and men) don't respond well to that.

Some of the words Ron Paul uses make me cringe at times too. "safety net" "welfare state" has some serious bad connotation to it. I also hate his "cradle to grave" line he uses in almost every stump speech. Ugh. He needs to remove it from his vocabulary imo. Not every woman is single with 3 kids and are on welfare. We need to go after the independent single and married women who are buying groceries, struggling with bills, sending their husbands and kids off to war.

Why are we trying to sway the pro-abortion, pro-entitlement women? Someone help me understand why in these threads the abortion and welfare idea always comes up? How many women on welfare are Republicans? How many women who are pro-abortion are Republicans? Focusing on these two issues makes zero sense at all.

There was a thread asking for input on a brochure for women and this is what I had to say. These are the types of ideas we need.


If you want to make a brochure for women, then you need to have broad, general ideas of what Ron Paul would do for them. Sure there are a lot of women here who like the fine details in things (I am one of them lol), but I think for the average woman out there, we need to step back from the theories, professorial approach and come at this with hard hitting emotional big picture ideas. Having lots of pictures is probably a good idea too.

Here's some rough ideas I came up. Grammar and word choices probably aren't the best, but it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking.


Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands the hardships our military families go through during times of war. He will give those families their ultimate dream by bringing the troops home. [picture of a serviceman and wife reuniting]
Ron Paul is the only one who understands why it is becoming harder to keep food on our tables for our families. He knows exactly what needs done in order to keep the cost of living from continuing to climb each year.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes we should keep the government out of our lives. He will trust you to make your own decisions based upon what is good for you and your family.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes the government should keep their hands off of your hard earned cash. This way you can choose how to spend your money on what is important to you, instead of allowing bureaucrats in Washington to spend your money wastefully.

Boss
02-05-2012, 12:30 PM
You won't win those actively agitating for a hand out, but the 'uneasy' financially would at least know absolute worst case wouldn't happen for them or their kids. I sure think it's worth a try, given how taken for granted this element is in influencing the female vote AND that of the elderly.

Well, I'm not against trying to emphasize those points, so long as it doesn't come at the expense of emphasizing what RP holds to be top priorities. I thought the last speaker at the CNN "late night caucus" for RP did a good job of articulating what you are describing.

The One
02-05-2012, 12:36 PM
I just realized I'm a socially awkward penguin.


http://i.qkme.me/354e4w.jpg

low preference guy
02-05-2012, 12:37 PM
I just realized I'm a socially awkward penguin.

don't take these threads too seriously. especially the crazier posters.

Boss
02-05-2012, 12:39 PM
Well, a lot of people are going to bash me for this...but,

we are not going to get the baby boomers. Ron has repeatedly stated that he will not touch SS and Medicare. They have rejected Ron's message because they are so wrapped up in the entitlement system. Think about it, it is all they know. So when someone gets up there and says he thinks it's unconstitutional, even though he will protect it, they are automatically turned off.

I couldn't agree more.

But they have a valid point, because for many of them, its not a true "ENTITLEMENT" in the same sense as welfare. They DID pay into the Social Security system for decades upon decades. They just want out what they put in. And in a lot of states (like Illinois, where I'm at), people had their retirement investments wiped out and the only thing they have left is the contract they made with the federal government that stated in exchange for paying social security taxes all of these years, they would be taken care of. With the debt closing in on $20,000,000,000,000 - rational self interest kicks in. They just want to have a place to live and a doctor to help them as they reach their golden years--and the fed govt promised them they would have it. The thing thats awful about it is that the youth must foot the bill, and we don't even get the promise that SS will be there for us! We're just bailing them out.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 12:46 PM
I couldn't agree more.

But they have a valid point, because for many of them, its not a true "ENTITLEMENT" in the same sense as welfare. They DID pay into the Social Security system for decades upon decades. They just want out what they put in. And in a lot of states (like Illinois, where I'm at), people had their retirement investments wiped out and the only thing they have left is the contract they made with the federal government that stated in exchange for paying social security taxes all of these years, they would be taken care of. With the debt closing in on $20,000,000,000,000 - rational self interest kicks in. They just want to have a place to live and a doctor to help them as they reach their golden years--and the fed govt promised them they would have it. The thing thats awful about it is that the youth must foot the bill, and we don't even get the promise that SS will be there for us! We're just bailing them out.

But, they are receiving 3x what they put in. In that Stossel episode, some of those older people are living in 500k dollar homes. They go to the doctor's office everyday! They say it is more of a social event that actually a health related one.

THEY ARE ROBBING US!!!!

When Stossel asked one lady about what she thought of herself stealing so much money, she responded, "LIFE ISN'T FAIR."

This is what we are up against...

SWATH
02-05-2012, 12:51 PM
I know less about women than...anyone else in the world so I won't speculate but here is my anecdotal data points.

Sister-in-law: Likes Romney out of all the Republicans because he's handsome and looks distinguished but is a Hillary supporter because she is a woman.
Grandmother: Like Newt Gingrich because he seems the most decent, doesn't like Ron Paul because his voice annoys her and he doesn't seem presidential.
Mother: Liked Bill Clinton because he was the most handsome, doesn't like Ron Paul because he is a Republican
All my aunts: same as above.
Elderly female neighbor: Liked Bill Clinton because he got a blowjob and wasn't afraid to admit it???
Mother-in-law: Doesn't like Ron Paul because he just doesn't get enough media coverage.
Wife: Likes Ron Paul only because I do, but would not go and vote for him unless I made her do it.
Female co-worker: Doesn't like Ron Paul because he is pro-life and against entitlements, is a huge Obama supporter.
Friends wife: Loves Ron Paul for all the right reasons, is a very active Ron Paul supporter.
Female friend: Liked Ron Paul at first because I did, now has really come to like him on her own but does not actively support him
Female coworker: Liked Bush and was a neocon, but has really come around to Ron Paul on her own after I talked about him so much.

Those are all the ones off the top of my head.

Boss
02-05-2012, 12:53 PM
@No more free beer

I know. I agree. I don't want to ignore those who are legitimately being exploited either, however (ex: those in their 50's and early 60's who lost their retirement and are counting on SS, which the fed gov't promised to them).

The only thing holding back our generation is that we are healthy enough and optimistic enough that many of us just don't care. If we acted in our own rational self-interest to the same degree that the baby boomers do, we could leave THEM on the hook, instead of them leaving US on the hook (although RP has proposed the perfect middle-of-the-road concept by not touching SS but reigning it in over time, and making $1 tril in cuts in other places). What do you think the likelihood of this happening is? Its up to our generation -- their generation is doing their part.

affa
02-05-2012, 01:02 PM
I am happy to report my wife absolutely loves Ron Paul. She despises Gingrich, despised Cain, hates Santorum, and doesn't trust Romney.

She adores any picture of Ron Paul with Carol.
I gave her the cookbook for christmas, and she read the bio, and thought it was the cutest thing ever.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 01:06 PM
I am happy to report my wife absolutely loves Ron Paul. She despises Gingrich, despised Cain, hates Santorum, and doesn't trust Romney.

She adores any picture of Ron Paul with Carol.
I gave her the cookbook for christmas, and she read the bio, and thought it was the cutest thing ever.

+rep for you and your wife.

cdw
02-05-2012, 01:07 PM
I know less about women than...anyone else in the world so I won't speculate but here is my anecdotal data points.

Sister-in-law: Likes Romney out of all the Republicans because he's handsome and looks distinguished but is a Hillary supporter because she is a woman.
Grandmother: Like Newt Gingrich because he seems the most decent, doesn't like Ron Paul because his voice annoys her and he doesn't seem presidential.
Mother: Liked Bill Clinton because he was the most handsome, doesn't like Ron Paul because he is a Republican
All my aunts: same as above.
Elderly female neighbor: Liked Bill Clinton because he got a blowjob and wasn't afraid to admit it???
Mother-in-law: Doesn't like Ron Paul because he just doesn't get enough media coverage.
Wife: Likes Ron Paul only because I do, but would not go and vote for him unless I made her do it.
Female co-worker: Doesn't like Ron Paul because he is pro-life and against entitlements, is a huge Obama supporter.
Friends wife: Loves Ron Paul for all the right reasons, is a very active Ron Paul supporter.
Female friend: Liked Ron Paul at first because I did, now has really come to like him on her own but does not actively support him
Female coworker: Liked Bush and was a neocon, but has really come around to Ron Paul on her own after I talked about him so much.

Those are all the ones off the top of my head.
http://i54.tinypic.com/x2otxd.gif

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 01:24 PM
I think the problem is with them, not us.



Exactly.


Often wrong, but never in doubt.

afwjam
02-05-2012, 01:25 PM
I will tell you what it is. Both women and older voters are irrationally scared of EVERYTHING. Ron Paul represents the unknown and a scary future of self-reliance. The majority of them will never come around. Lets be happy with the few we have that use thought rather then emotions to make their choice. Both groups are extremely susceptible to MSM propaganda, especially the older folks. You would think a women's intuition would tell them that Ron Paul is the only one to be trusted, but attractiveness, power and security unfortunately seem to play a much bigger part in what they want.

Czolgosz
02-05-2012, 01:30 PM
Humankind is ripe for control. We're not in this mess because authoritarians are crafty and slick.


For liberty to prevail the war must be fought on multiple fronts.

milo10
02-05-2012, 01:31 PM
I know less about women than...anyone else in the world so I won't speculate but here is my anecdotal data points.

Sister-in-law: Likes Romney out of all the Republicans because he's handsome and looks distinguished but is a Hillary supporter because she is a woman.
Grandmother: Like Newt Gingrich because he seems the most decent, doesn't like Ron Paul because his voice annoys her and he doesn't seem presidential.
Mother: Liked Bill Clinton because he was the most handsome, doesn't like Ron Paul because he is a Republican
All my aunts: same as above.
Elderly female neighbor: Liked Bill Clinton because he got a blowjob and wasn't afraid to admit it???
Mother-in-law: Doesn't like Ron Paul because he just doesn't get enough media coverage.
Wife: Likes Ron Paul only because I do, but would not go and vote for him unless I made her do it.
Female co-worker: Doesn't like Ron Paul because he is pro-life and against entitlements, is a huge Obama supporter.
Friends wife: Loves Ron Paul for all the right reasons, is a very active Ron Paul supporter.
Female friend: Liked Ron Paul at first because I did, now has really come to like him on her own but does not actively support him
Female coworker: Liked Bush and was a neocon, but has really come around to Ron Paul on her own after I talked about him so much.

Those are all the ones off the top of my head.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Maximus
02-05-2012, 01:32 PM
I am happy to report my wife absolutely loves Ron Paul. She despises Gingrich, despised Cain, hates Santorum, and doesn't trust Romney.

She adores any picture of Ron Paul with Carol.
I gave her the cookbook for christmas, and she read the bio, and thought it was the cutest thing ever.

This. I bought 25 cookbooks, have handed out all but four, and the response is really overwhelming.

asurfaholic
02-05-2012, 01:34 PM
My observation after speaking to ladies, they rely on their father figures for who to vote for. If not fathers, then respected elder. This is the case in at least 3 different situations, which includes about all of the women I've spoken to in the last 16 years....I kid I kid..

But seriously... "my dad said ron paul would let iran get a nuke." <-- this girl is trying to come around, and she is almost there...


But we can't give up. My wife supports ron paul - because of me. The above quoted girl is close, but only because I am trying so hard to win her over. My mom supports ron paul, because of me. We can get ladies support, we just have to try...

Most females I know just aren't interested in politics... gotta find a way to break the ice.

jasonxe
02-05-2012, 01:37 PM
Ron Paul sounds like Ron Paw which is a dog. Females are cats so they don't like paws but mittens which are for kittens.

Females don't have fond memories of their obgyn.

Old people are jealous that Paul is hip with young people while their grandchildren ignores them.

In all honesty, if we have that kid from last night in every caucus to speak, it will change their minds. People aren't 100% solid with their choices because there rational for choosing them is weak. Put a few truth bombers and remove the collectivism mindset of beating Obama and you win. (Paul doesn't go after Obama enough imo.)

jasonxe
02-05-2012, 01:37 PM
dp

Matthew Zak
02-05-2012, 01:40 PM
The problem is nice guys finish last.

Ron Paul needs to accidentally drop an f-bomb during a debate, or compare candidates knowledge of the constitution to penis size. Then he'll get their attention.

silk30
02-05-2012, 01:42 PM
Bwahahahahaha OP are you serious? Time to address it? At this point in this election?!


Here's a dose of reality for ya. It's too late. Too late to address this problem or any problem at all. This election was done even before Iowa, it was done even before the Ames straw poll because people still think you can ignore the corporate media propaganda machine and have success.

Yes OP, there is a women's vote problem as much as there's a senior's vote problem, these two problems needed to be addressed like a year ago. And if we did, we'd realized that both problems are mainly caused by propaganda so in order to deal with them we'd had to have developed our own propaganda to combat the status quo propaganda and then found a way other than the corporate media to effectively have spread it. And we needed to do this before we wasted, YES WASTED, +$25 million dollars of donated money, mostly giving it to non other than our biggest enemy - the corporate media.


Thinking about doing something now? You just got to be kidding.. :rolleyes:

p.s.: Thank you in advance for all the negative reps that I know I'll get by the disillusioned who wont be able to control their emotions reading this dose of reality, I understand you can't help yourself and it's just our human nature.. :D

p.s.2: I and many others told you so.

For some reason, a good number of people think that we always have to a positive spin on everything, and I'm afraid that when they do that, they are ignoring reality. While your post is blunt and "negative", it is absolutely true. Seniors and women voters should have been addressed long before this, RP's campaign knew that RP did poorly among those two voting blocks back in '08, and it has been the same with the early on polling when he declared his candidacy for 2012.
I've posted a few times about this, and have seen other posts, but the responses I've seen are generally either "The campaign is doing fine, they have a plan, everything is going according to design et et" or just no response at all. We all should have calling the campaign and demanded they address these problems, and we have every right to do so, because not only do we support RP with our votes and trying to persuade other voters, but we support him and the message with our $$$ as well. Anyway, your post is spot on, but I gotta say election fraud bothers me just as much as MSM corporate media. I am now remembering why I stayed out of politics.

silk30
02-05-2012, 01:51 PM
I just realized I'm a socially awkward penguin.


http://i.qkme.me/354e4w.jpg

Nah, nothing awkward about you. People are just too sensitive and PC these days. I've never seen anything wrong with a little bit of gender teasing, as long as it isn't mean spirited and it is clear that you are joking. You weren't mean or nasty about it, and you made it clear in your post and following posts that you were joking. I wouldn't even worry about it bud. Love the pic though, that is funny. :)

Fredom101
02-05-2012, 01:52 PM
We went through this in 08. I talked to a lot of women, most are usually democrats, but the Republican women out here in CA anyway are hung up on the abortion issue. They literally think that RP is going to ban abortions nationwide, and all the evidence to the contrary can't sway them.

Valli6
02-05-2012, 01:53 PM
I'm a somewhat older woman and have been supporting Ron Paul since I saw him in a debate in 2007. I did not pay close attention to politics before that time (except to complain), because I had never heard a politician sound so honest before, and believed that the powerful kept the deck stacked to favor the liars/wealthy/elite, and we really had no recourse. In the past, I'd voted for Perot and Nader.

I suspect many woman don't pay much attention to elections or candidates, at least not till the last minute, because they are busy with their own lives. That is, their lives and the people in their lives have more "urgency" about them, than elections which are about complex issues, the future, things we feel unlikely to have any affect on.

That said, I think many woman who are otherwise unfamiliar with Ron Paul, would be attracted to the way he discusses his marriage. All the other politicians say standard crap about their wives - "I love her very much!" "She's the mother of my X wonderful children and an amazing friend! "She's stood by me!" Ron Paul sounds more real. Remember the woman who recently said, "I don't feel like I'm dating him!" meaning that she knows he's not just saying what he thinks she wants to hear?

For example, these excerpts from the Piers Morgan interview could get their attention.


PM: What's the secret of a long lasting marriage?

RP: I think a lot of it is respect, and acceptance of both of our shortcomings, and I just think that if you have respect for other people and reject the whole idea that you force people, either intimidate or, you know- I don't like it in politics and I don't like it in a personal relationship. "You do it my way or els!" I think people get into trouble when they try to force their way on others, and certainly in a good marriage you shouldn't be using intimidation and force to try to get along. It might (?) be a better way. (laughs)

PM: What would she say are your shortcomings?

RP: Oh she'd probably be pretty generous you know and not want to talk about…



(Me: He looks all "Aw shucks!" - kind of embarrassed that he already knows that his wife would only say nice things about him. It's adorable! :D )


PM: Well what do you think they are? You're(?) being self critical.

RP: Well, I can get upset and when - and most people don't realize I do get upset! Unfortunately, she gets on the receiving end. You know, even if I get tired on the campaign - if I complain about the campaign I usually don't go to the campaign manager - I complain to her!



Me: Ha, Ha! You complain most to a loving spouse because you know they'll side with you!)


RP continues: ...But I think that that's been part of it. You know, if she has a problem - if she's not feeling well, or she has something, she's allowed to come to me, so, maybe a good marriage is being a sounding board for the other person.



(Me: Awwwww…sniff… :o It's the marriage everyone wants! Better than hair!
From a psychological standpoint: if you don't have that marriage, you can at least vote to have a president like that.)
Watch this part here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8eVkLMIlUg#t=2m23s

Txrose4ever
02-05-2012, 01:58 PM
dont know if this has been said yet and I hope I dont get bashed for saying it but.....women dont use logic to formulate conclusions, they use emotion. We need to play off of that.

I am female, over 50, Baby boomer. I have a great job in business, worked hard all my life, and probably think more like a man than a lot of women. However, not all women fit the description you give above. I do agree that you must capture SOME women's attention on an emotional level initially, and once you do that, they will become more curious and open to the logic of it all. The point is, you must be able to show "what's in it for them", and how a Paul win will benefit them as compared to other candidates. This is actually true of men as well.

When men speak of things, often it is with a broad stroke. Women need details. This is why when you come home from work in a bad mood because you dealt with some crap at the office, she isn't satisfied with your response that your day sucked because of a conflict you had. She wants all the juicy details, how it happened, what happened, etc. This is why when she tells YOU a story, your eyes roll up in your head, because she gives so much information you really didn't want to know.

People support Paul for a variety of reasons. For me, it really all boiled down to integrity. Watching the debt ceiling debacle over the summer really got me angry at BOTH parties. Watching how hard it was for my 19 year old daughter to find a job. Seeing many of my friends out of work. Getting fed UP with partisan politics where our government ignored the will of the people to do whatever they wished. The Bail outs. Being unable to sell my house because of the Real estate mess. The constant posturing for war. The realization that our government was no longer working to serve the people, but only corporations and lobbyists. These things really mattered to me. These things did galvanize my emotion. Then I really started listening to Ron Paul, and became more and more impressed with the man.
Do I agree whole heartedly with his whole platform? NO. But most of it, YES. Because when one really gets down to it, many of the side issues that are brought up, as red herrings to divert people from the most important issues, do not MATTER if we lose our freedoms and our liberties. Only a person of integrity and character who champions our Constitution and who has the backbone to stand for what is right, against all odds, someone who is willing to knock the status quo and speak the truth, someone who is not in this for political glory or profit, is FIT to be our President, and capable of making decisions and using veto power to stop this onslaught of corruption. There are many pieces of the puzzle here to reach women voters.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:02 PM
The only thing holding back our generation is that we are healthy enough and optimistic enough that many of us just don't care.

You SURE that's the only thing holding you back?



If we acted in our own rational self-interest to the same degree that the baby boomers do, we could leave THEM on the hook...

Big talk. HOW?

Txrose4ever
02-05-2012, 02:03 PM
I know it's kind of cheesy but pushing the whole ob/gyn thing might work. Doesn't have much to do with his policies (maybe abortion) but it might pull some women voters out. Or scare them, who knows

This makes absolutely no difference to me. And wouldn't for most women.

CaptainAmerica
02-05-2012, 02:04 PM
maybe if men had more respect and knew how to treat women they would want to get more involved. There are some creepers around the meetups and even on this forum.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:05 PM
For some reason, a good number of people think that we always have to a positive spin on everything, and I'm afraid that when they do that, they are ignoring reality...

Lotta that goin' around.

afwjam
02-05-2012, 02:06 PM
Txrose4ever You make a lot of sense. Glad to have you on board.

Cinderella
02-05-2012, 02:06 PM
Well my fiance supports Ron Paul because I made him lol.

I love Dr. Paul....I love everything about that man....so I will fill you in on just a few reasons...

I love that he has delivered over 4000 babies! I wish he was my doctor :)
I love that he will bring my brother back home and restore my family!! My daughter will have her uncle back. My mother will have her ONLY son back. I will have my little brother back home, my only brother, my best friend....damn I miss him. I tear up just typing this....
I love that Dr. Paul is in touch with our addiction to spending money we DONT have in this country. And he has a plan to get us out of this mess...
I love that Dr. Paul is a grandpa...hes so freaking cute....just pulls on my heart strings :)
I love that Carol Paul and I share the same name! my name is Carol :) I aspire to be as happy and in love as she and Dr. Paul are in their marriage. The photo of him presenting her flowers on their anniversary made me cry, it was SO freaking SWEET!! ---- I am one of those emotional girls that wears her heart on her sleeve.
I love that Dr. Paul is modest.


After SOPA was almost passed and now this whole ACTA thing, Ive decided to start making videos about my support for Dr. Paul. I figured its only a matter of time before they start censoring everything online...Ive made 3 videos so far on YouTube and Ive gotten pretty good responses. Ive put them in grassroots but they get burried so quickly. There are not many women supporters putting themselves out there online, which was another reason why I'm doing it.

Txrose4ever
02-05-2012, 02:06 PM
Sometimes voters do and think silly things, but they usually do so because they haven't had anyone they trust discuss issues they're worried about in a way that satisfied them.

All of the logic, all of the populist rancor, all of the virtue.... it's on our side. We've just got to continue to spend time helping others come to the conclusions that we have.

YOu are correct about this.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:09 PM
Humankind is ripe for control.

The flip side of absence of Responsibility is ALWAYS loss of Control. Few, few, FEW are those who do SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. got Mother Theresa?

Most people don't WANT to be in charge. They don't WANT the pressure. They don't WANT the blame.




We're not in this mess because authoritarians are crafty and slick.

Conscienceless Uber Rich are even craftier and slicker. There is no SNEAKING UP ON THEM.

Make no mistake, a LANDSLIDE is required for someone without the inner sanctum STAMP OF APPROVAL to slip past Oval Office = ULTIMATE CORNER OFFICE security.




For liberty to prevail the war must be fought on multiple fronts.

In spades.

kasjun
02-05-2012, 02:13 PM
I know from personal experience that my wife likes most of Ron Pauls positions but she thinks he is too old to be president. Possibly other women think that too.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:14 PM
The problem is nice guys finish last.


It follows that Nice Guys PERMIT Bad Guys to swashbuckle with impunity.

Valli6
02-05-2012, 02:17 PM
...probably think more like a man than a lot of women. However, not all women fit the description you give above. Probably true of me also. All my siblings were males and my life didn't revolve around all girly things. In my own situation, at that time, I saw no advantages to being female, only disadvantages. I think this is what made me think like a libertarian. I was always pleading for rules that applied to every one equally.

I do agree that you must capture SOME women's attention on an emotional level initially, and once you do that, they will become more curious and open to the logic of it all.
Agree. See my post on page 10 of this thread for 1 idea that could attract attention.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:18 PM
dont know if this has been said yet and I hope I dont get bashed for saying it but.....women dont use logic to formulate conclusions, they use emotion. We need to play off of that.



I would never bash you for speaking the truth, sir.


Sooo, it was illogical WOMEN behind our invasion of Iraq, a country that did NOT conspire on 9/11?

Which bitch de-pegged the dollar from gold?

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 02:19 PM
Sooo, it was illogical WOMEN behind our invasion of Iraq, a country that did NOT conspire on 9/11?

Which bitch de-pegged the dollar from gold?

Who said anything about the shot callers being intelligent or trustworthy?

Txrose4ever
02-05-2012, 02:23 PM
study after study say women are more concerned with the existence of a safety net, whether they use it or not, being more likely to head up one parent families and more likely to be one paycheck away from poverty. Address how Ron's plan protects social security and medicare and transfers the safety net to the states, in block grants, before ending the federal administration of it, and you will address the disparate concerns of seniors and women both, measurably. I also think rule of law is a good one, as well.

This is a big part of it. There are also more elderly women than men, who depend on social security to survive. I AM one of those women who headed a single parent family, and have never had need of any social safety net, because I worked my ass off and was fortunate enough not to need it, and YES, at times suffered, but at the same time, I believe there must be some sort of safety net out there. Being a Baby Boomer, I do want my social security when the time comes. I am 54 years old, single, and have paid my dues. I am not prepared for retirement without it, and neither are many others who grew up with the assumption this is what one did and how one did it. You don't change the rules of the game this far in. That being said, it also needs to be noted that Ron Paul is not the only one who mentions reforming Socvial security/Medicare. It is a
ALL of them. He is just the one that gets hammered for it. Social Security can be solvent if they would just raise the income limit for which they collect it. But why should our government do what makes sense and is so simple?

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:24 PM
Who said anything about the shot callers being intelligent or trustworthy?


Sooo, will you vocalize agreement with an assertion that MEN LACK INTELLIGENCE & TRUSTWORTHINESS, the same way that you vocalized agreement with an assertion that "women don't use logic to formulate conclusions"?

Boss
02-05-2012, 02:27 PM
You SURE that's the only thing holding you back?

You SURE it isn't? I speak from anecdotal experience, being that I am part of the under 30 crowd and that I associate with many who are the same (further, I haven't found any studies lately that affirmatively determine the cause of voter apathy amongst the youth).

I find that because of our general good health and optimism about our future (ex: "we can become whatever we reasonably dream of in the greatest country on earth"), many members of my age bracket tend to fall into the snares of neoliberalism, sometimes (although far less often) into the trap of neoconservatism, and sometimes into a temporary apathetic mindstate. It is important to not put the cart before the horse; I'm speaking of CAUSES (good health + optimism), not of results (apathy + neoliberalism).



Big talk. HOW?

By ending SS! As I pointed out, the prospects of SS coming into effect when we retire are horrible (further, note that if Mitt gets into office the retirement age gets pushed back to 67..and 40 years from now the retirement age will probably be in the 70s somewhere).

Obviously, I don't think we should leave the baby boomers out to dry (not that we have a big enough voting block to do so anyway). Ron Paul has the ideal solution that accommodates both those who have been forced to be systematically dependent on the government (those in need of SS in the next decade or two) and my generation who say: why pay for someone else's SS when the system will be gone by the time we can collect?

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
02-05-2012, 02:28 PM
The thread title makes it sound as if Paul has PMS. lol



Good luck figuring women out on this one. lol

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by KingNothing
Sometimes voters do and think silly things, but they usually do so because they haven't had anyone they trust discuss issues they're worried about in a way that satisfied them.

All of the logic, all of the populist rancor, all of the virtue.... it's on our side. We've just got to continue to spend time helping others come to the conclusions that we have.



YOu are correct about this.

Indeed, I am.

It's important to recognize how to best to communicate the message, though. With a lot of guys it's as simple as appealing to their belief that we're being screwed, which we are, and that the establishment fat cats should go funk themselves, and that Paul is the only one willing to do that and leave us alone in the process. With some women it isn't that easy. "Cut a trillion bucks from the budget, work to keep taxes down, end the bailouts and leave you alone," doesn't always have the same appeal. So you speak to them about something they know about, something that will resonate with them. Many of the women around me are nurses. They know healthcare. The Liberty message is so flexible that it's easy to describe to them how Paul would keep the federal government off their backs, eliminate a lot of the waste they have to deal with, and allow them to provide care more effectively to the people who really need it. Then, as the conversation goes on and they describe more of their concerns on the topic, it's as simple as describing how Liberty addresses those issues as well.

There are plenty of ways to communicate the message. The best thing we can do is tailor it to the specific we're going after, and arm ourselves with more knowledge, more charm, and more empathy than supporters of every other campaign.

As we've said - our message is right on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. All we have to do is know it and communicate it.

green73
02-05-2012, 02:34 PM
Even more evidence that democracy fails.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:36 PM
I will tell you what it is. Both women and older voters are irrationally scared of EVERYTHING. Ron Paul represents the unknown and a scary future of self-reliance. The majority of them will never come around.

If you ain't scared about what's coming down the pike, either YOU haven't been paying attention or OTHERS are exaggerating.

If SECURITY is so irrational, why aren't Nice Guys overrunning Washington DC to forcibly stem the flow of money into that bottomless pit?



Lets be happy with the few we have that use thought rather then emotions to make their choice.

And after losing, do you recommend NO CRYING OVER SPILT MILK?




Both groups are extremely susceptible to MSM propaganda, especially the older folks.

Will you concede the possibility that the MSM propaganda machine has ALSO caused a few unforced errors in the Ron Paul camp?




You would think a women's intuition would tell them that Ron Paul is the only one to be trusted, but attractiveness, power and security unfortunately seem to play a much bigger part in what they want.

Will you concede that ATTRACTIVENESS plays a disproportionate role in men's gravitational pull?

Will you concede that trusting someone to be HONEST is a far cry from trusting someone to DEFEND you?

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-05-2012, 02:36 PM
This is a big part of it. There are also more elderly women than men, who depend on social security to survive. I AM one of those women who headed a single parent family, and have never had need of any social safety net, because I worked my ass off and was fortunate enough not to need it, and YES, at times suffered, but at the same time, I believe there must be some sort of safety net out there. Being a Baby Boomer, I do want my social security when the time comes. I am 54 years old, single, and have paid my dues. I am not prepared for retirement without it, and neither are many others who grew up with the assumption this is what one did and how one did it. You don't change the rules of the game this far in. That being said, it also needs to be noted that Ron Paul is not the only one who mentions reforming Socvial security/Medicare. It is a
ALL of them. He is just the one that gets hammered for it. Social Security can be solvent if they would just raise the income limit for which they collect it. But why should our government do what makes sense and is so simple?

While I empathize with your situation and the perseverance it must have took to reach where you are today, if you counting on Social Security you are screwed, and the fact is that if anyone counted on it you are screwed. SS was never meant to be counted upon. Of course we can accurately predict what such policies consequences will be on the ethics and morality of the people (dependence, destruction of self-reliance, self-dependability, pride, etc.), and it is borne out with what we see today.

You may want what you have paid in, but what you paid in is GONE. Everything you will receive comes from me, my generation, and other working folk who have that much less to save for their retirement. I think what everything is pointing to is that people need to realize we are bankrupt and the standard of living that people enjoy in this country is unsustainable and an illusion. We are a poor nation, a poor people. That reality will soon catch up to us. For far too long this dependence on Government has bred corruption, arrogance, and an entitlement mentality (I own what you have).

You realize that when your generation retires the national debt is going to BALLOON even more? Healthcare costs are going to skyrocket thanks to all the Government promises and monies funneled.

This doesn't even reach one of the more important aspects: SS is a road to destitution thanks to the Federal Reserve. If you rely on SS you will live in abject destitution and poverty. As the Government has to print more money for its programs, wars, and handouts that money primarily enriches and goes to the interests in charge of and in bed with the Government. The blood-money interests, the banking interests, the Corporate interests. The Government doth not care about you, the common man. SS doesn't get a COLA increase for 3 years and then this year they give a meager 3% raise while inflation is 8-10% or more. You've just lost 20-25% of SS purchasing power over the last 4 or so years. Expect that to get even worse as time goes on.

We've consumed and spent our capital. It's time to experience the consequence of that action -- Poverty & Destitution.

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 02:42 PM
Sooo, will you vocalize agreement with an assertion that MEN LACK INTELLIGENCE & TRUSTWORTHINESS, the same way that you vocalized agreement with an assertion that "women don't use logic to formulate conclusions"?

Sure. Why not?

History bears it out.

nbhadja
02-05-2012, 02:43 PM
Sooo, it was illogical WOMEN behind our invasion of Iraq, a country that did NOT conspire on 9/11?

Which bitch de-pegged the dollar from gold?

Well the women along with most men did support the candidates who support paper currency and the Iraqi war. Women came in droves to vote for Hillary, who voted for the Iraqi war.........however there is a certain candidate who is for the gold standard and against the Iraqi war who the women are dropping the ball on big time by not supporting AGAIN....

LibertyEagle
02-05-2012, 02:47 PM
You being a woman and being a Ron Paul supporter doesn't take away from the fact that Romney and Gingrich did well with women last night in Nevada. It doesn't take away from the fact that he is doing poorly in Minnesota with women. I am not bashing women. The reason I am discussing this with you and others is because I am truly astonished that he polls so poorly with them. I was watching Fox News once where a woman said she is voting for Dr. Paul because she can see it in his eyes that he is telling the truth and he is honest. To me, women are much better at judging character than men because they have to.

But, even that doesn't take away from the fact that he is polling poorly with them. If the women were backing Romney and/or Santorum, followed by Paul and Gingrich last, I could see your point. But, as I said, Gingrich was second behind Romney among women who voted. That is what I am trying to say. It is on them, not us.

Ron has a message of liberty. I don't want to pander to any group. It is up to them to take it or leave it.

I am very disappointed with how we are polling among women.

They are misunderstanding his message and badly. If people are misunderstanding him, he is not spreading anything at all.

It would be one thing if it was clear to everyone and they did not accept it. But, that is not what is happening.

It really is a shame.

pinkmandy
02-05-2012, 02:48 PM
I did an informal poll on my facebook and a woman's message board where I've been a longtime member. My poll question to women was "What are your top 3 concerns that you believe govt needs to address".

Dozens answered.

Without fail every single one of them (except for a Paul supporter) answered with 2 of the same issues out of their top 3. They were education and healthcare. Over and over again. This is what they want to hear about, this is what affects them (in their minds) more than anything else. They were mostly mothers as well.

Education
Healthcare

The 3rd issue was divided among honesty and the economy (as in jobs).

They're not paying attention to end the fed. The wars. The erosion of rights. All the things that get most of us here going. I'm guessing that's why many aren't paying attention to Paul. I think his message benefits both but it isn't put out there very much- how his policies would affect healthcare and education- and this is what women need to hear more about imo.

We have the honesty issue in the bag but they need to hear about it. They need to understand his positions on healthcare and education. But, really, they need to understand that honesty is most important because someone's position on any other issue is irrelevant if there is a lack of integrity and honesty. Most people have to understand that really. Many seem to on the surface but treat it as a joke, something that just "is", and can't seem to fathom another way.

Visualization works- especially for women (imo). Paint the picture. A series of videos made "in the future" of a Paul presidency might be a good idea, addressing each issue.

And, imo, most people are irrational. I consider pretty much anyone voting for Obama who claims to care about ending wars, economy, rights, etc. to be irrational. I consider pretty much anyone voting for Newt, Mitt, Rick, etc. who also claim to care about small govt, free markets and the Constitution to be irrational. There are so many things I find to be irrational in this world today- carried out by men and women, young and old- that I'd have to write a book (or two) if I wanted to discuss it all. It is hardly the domain of any one group, that's for sure.

cheapseats
02-05-2012, 02:50 PM
Well the women along with most men did support the candidates who support paper currency and the Iraqi war.

The Citizenry was no more informed then than now, probably less.



Women came in droves to vote for Hillary

And Blacks came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama.

And there are always a CONSPICUOUS number of White Guys surrounding Ron Paul.

The very issue is how to appeal to people who are NOT in lockstep with you.



.........however there is a certain candidate........the women are dropping the ball.........

Silly, silly women.

No Free Beer
02-05-2012, 02:51 PM
They are misunderstanding his message and badly. If people are misunderstanding him, he is not spreading anything at all.

It would be one thing if it was clear to everyone and they did not accept it. But, that is not what is happening.

It really is a shame.

Or they are just rejecting it...

Boss
02-05-2012, 02:59 PM
Its sad to see this discussion devolving into a finger-pointing match of who to blame (can we agree on the MSM and special interests, at least?), with hidden (and not-so-hidden) undertones of machismo and feminism.

RP supporters have, on rare and unfortunate occasion, made generalized statements that are completely out of line with individualist thinking (ex: I've seen a few less-than-tasteful comments about "The Jews" and now about women)

But just as these people (most of them inappropriately venting frustration) are guilty of generalizing and contradicting the ideology of individualism, those who respond defensively are merely compounding the problem and often fight back using generalizations (or hinting at them) as well.

nbhadja
02-05-2012, 03:02 PM
[QUOTE]The Citizenry was no more informed then than now, probably less.


Today thanks to the rise of the internet (and thus the rise of Ron Paul) a certain part of the population, which continuously grows, is more informed than back then. But yes the rest of the population is about the same as a decade ago- equally uninformed.


And there are always a CONSPICUOUS number of White Guys surrounding Ron Paul.

There are a lot of white guys, but this time around minority support for Ron Paul is clearly higher. The polls show that if Ron Paul went up against Obama in an election he would get more minority vote against Obama than any other GOP candidate going up against Obama....that is very impressive especially since the media did the racist letter smearjob on him.

Sadly progress with women has been nearly non existent.


The very issue is how to appeal to people who are NOT in lockstep with you.

As the polls show, progress has been great with minorities compared to 4 years ago, but similar strides have not been made with women.

This is Ron Paul, not Obama. It's not about marketing and image for most of the supporters here. I became a Ron Paul supporter because I found him, and I researched his voting record vs others. Also even if you focus on marketing, image, ads Ron Paul has done a great job making ads and delivering a message. I mean what more can he do? Are women not impressed with Ron Paul on ads and in debates calling out the foreign policy, the federal reserve, the bailout, the big drug companies, the entire corporatist central banker status quo of America?

hazek
02-05-2012, 03:04 PM
Its sad to see this discussion devolving into a finger-pointing match of who to blame (can we agree on the MSM and special interests, at least?), with hidden (and not-so-hidden) undertones of machismo and feminism.

The blame lies squarely with us. We had all the information available to us on exactly why the 2007/08 fail happened and we didn't learn from it.

And if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.


Well, consider this a mistake repeated.

KingNothing
02-05-2012, 03:12 PM
The blame lies squarely with us. We had all the information available to us on exactly why the 2007/08 fail happened and we didn't learn from it.

And if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.


Well, consider this a mistake repeated.

There's only so much the campaign can do. I don't fault them for any decision they've made. As far as the work that we as supporters have done, well, I'm sure we could all do more but for many of us the Liberty movement is a major piece of our lives. We're all invested in it, and we're all working hard. You shouldn't underestimate what we're up against or how far we've come. Never lose track of those things.

hazek
02-05-2012, 03:18 PM
The blame lies with us, as in all of us, the campaign, the PACs and the grassroots and every single supporter out there. ALL OF US.

misterx
02-05-2012, 03:44 PM
Eveyone is overthinking this. Neither men nor women contmplate things as deeply as some of you are suggesting. Women are, by nature, more nurturing and sympathetic. They are more likely to think with their hearts than their brains. Libertarianism demands that you put reason before emotion, which is why so few men or are able to grasp the message.

Feeding the Abscess
02-05-2012, 04:09 PM
It's called the Nanny State for a reason.

Really, if anything, his anti-war stance helps him with women; especially mothers.

Haven't looked at many cross tabs for polls lately, but I'm guessing women still care most about jobs, education, and healthcare. Especially suburban white Republican mothers. Libertarianism doesn't serve those interests in the manner society conditions women (all people, really) to see them.

When communicating with women, listen to them and see what they tell you, rather than tell them what you think they want to hear. Who knows? Might work.

Hyperion
02-05-2012, 04:13 PM
Women don't care as much about Liberty and monetary policy. They care more about security.

This. It's really that simple. Women love the idea of protection and safety nets. It's easy for statists to play the fear card and women are naturally going to believe it.

Boss
02-05-2012, 04:14 PM
The blame lies squarely with us. We had all the information available to us on exactly why the 2007/08 fail happened and we didn't learn from it.

And if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat the same mistakes.


Well, consider this a mistake repeated.

I support and appreciate your vantage point of self-reliance and self-responsibility. But if there are external forces against our movement to a greater extent than they are against all of the other candidates, this doesn't eviscerate our responsibility, it simply means fault can be allocated to more than just us (and thus leads us to discover new ways to prevent these external forces in future states).

Now, philosophically, we can look at a situation and say "Even if they tied us up and held a gun to our heads, it was our fault that he didn't find a way to break free and stop them" - and you can regress this line of logic as far as you want. Its good to hold a world view of such a high degree of personal responsibility (I do). But its counter productive to acquit the guilty on the premise that you have no control over their actions and have all the control over your own.