PDA

View Full Version : Campaign needs to aim for first place finish and campaign until right before the vote




dirtdigger
02-11-2012, 10:02 PM
(1) Stop surrendering states without a fight. Even if Ron Paul has no chance of winning, the campaign needs to fight hard and make other candidates afraid of losing the opportunity to win due to losing vote share to Ron Paul. This is called TAKING THE BATTLE TO THE ENEMY CAMP. The campaign needs to attack the strongholds of the other candidates and weaken their support there.

(2) The message on the economy is missing. Ron Paul strength is his views on the economy. His base knows his position. Others need to know it too! Instead of letting Rick Santorum hijack the message on the economy, how about getting aggressive on this front?

(3) The campaign managers need to keep campaigning until before the vote. Instead, what we read is that Ron Paul goes home to Texas a couple of days before the vote or that he has looked past the state to the next one. This is BAD strategy.

(4) Start aiming for FIRST PLACE finish. The aim is NOT to lose and finish second.

Campaign Managers, note: If your strategy is to try only in states where Ron Paul is ALREADY strong, you are USELESS. You become useful only when you deliver STRONG FINISHES in states where his position is weak. If you believe that you should let things automatically fall in place by running only in states where Ron Paul is already popular without any effort from you, you should not call yourself campaign managers. In that case, you would are just people who make travel arrangements.

Paul Or Nothing II
02-12-2012, 09:07 AM
Do you think campaign is actively seeking NOT to be first? *facepalm* Of course, they're trying but the majority is completely brainwashed by MSM if you haven't noticed yet! There's no magic wand! What are they supposed to do if majority is thick as planks?

I'm sure they're trying & as for "surrendering states", they won't have the money to run if they aren't being picky so they MUST be picky unless you know someone who's willing to throw in a few 10s of millions of dollars :D

And by the way, how many presidential campaigns have you managed? If campaign managers could crown presidents........*sigh*
It's alright to be critical but at least it should be constructive criticism, how do you expect campaign-managers to ensure "strong finishes in weak states"? Can you give any clues as to how they could go about accomplishing that based on your wealth of experience? May be they'll listen!

They're doing what they CAN, that is, to get as many delegates as they can & it's seem to be doing alright for the moment.

Let me suggest how we can possibly get more GOP-voters to support Paul - Tell them that if Paul isn't the nominee then they'll be re-electing Obama because Paul-supporters won't vote GOP, Paul could even run 3rd party & polls suggest that he might get about 15% in the General-Election so if GOP-voters don't want another 4 years of Obama then they'd support Paul & GOP had better nominate Paul!

virgil47
02-12-2012, 01:33 PM
Do you think campaign is actively seeking NOT to be first? *facepalm* Of course, they're trying but the majority is completely brainwashed by MSM if you haven't noticed yet! There's no magic wand! What are they supposed to do if majority is thick as planks?

I'm sure they're trying & as for "surrendering states", they won't have the money to run if they aren't being picky so they MUST be picky unless you know someone who's willing to throw in a few 10s of millions of dollars :D

And by the way, how many presidential campaigns have you managed? If campaign managers could crown presidents........*sigh*
It's alright to be critical but at least it should be constructive criticism, how do you expect campaign-managers to ensure "strong finishes in weak states"? Can you give any clues as to how they could go about accomplishing that based on your wealth of experience? May be they'll listen!

They're doing what they CAN, that is, to get as many delegates as they can & it's seem to be doing alright for the moment.

Let me suggest how we can possibly get more GOP-voters to support Paul - Tell them that if Paul isn't the nominee then they'll be re-electing Obama because Paul-supporters won't vote GOP, Paul could even run 3rd party & polls suggest that he might get about 15% in the General-Election so if GOP-voters don't want another 4 years of Obama then they'd support Paul & GOP had better nominate Paul!

The reason the money supplies are dwindling is because his campaign has "NOT" helped him to win even one state. It is so simple a 5th grader can understand it...no win ...no money. No one and I mean no one wants to knowingly back a loser.
Also I for one would be making a huge effort to get the word out to the largest voting block in the country that Ron Paul is not out to destroy their retirements. There is no such thing as a weak state! I realize that in a series of fishing contests it is possible to win the overall series and not have won one individual contest. However having said that running for the Presidency is not the same thing at all especially if the people counting the votes are against you.
If Ron truly wants to be the President he "MUST" win several states and do so with so many votes that electioneering will simply be impossible.

jemuf
02-16-2012, 10:08 PM
Do you think campaign is actively seeking NOT to be first? *facepalm* Of course, they're trying ...

...that is, to get as many delegates as they can & it's seem to be doing alright for the moment.

... even run 3rd party & polls suggest that he might get about 15% in the General-Election so if GOP-voters don't want another 4 years of Obama then they'd support Paul & GOP had better nominate Paul!

The OP's criticism WAS constructive.

I love all the posters who say things like "where's your proof?" or "do you think you could do better? What's your experience?"

So now opinions need proof. And we all need experience in an area before we can criticize the people who work in the area. Do we need experience to praise? Does anyone ever ask for proof from people who agree with them?

I criticize politicians all the time, but I've never been one. Isn't this whole grassroots movement essentially criticism of politics? Damn...I didn't know I was in the midst of so many politicians.

Well maybe THAT explains it then.

BUSHLIED
02-16-2012, 10:30 PM
I agree with the OP's sentiment. But I don't think is going to help. We've been saying this for 5 years now. The campaign has it's own thing going on. It absolutely baffles me. I tried to analyze it myself and came to the conclusion that Ron, himself, personally has no interest in hard campaigning. PERIOD. NO matter what the campaign says or how much money comes in..he's not going to take the fight to Santorum et al. Ron doesn't want to. Furthermore, he has virtually stopped hitting Romney and has even come to his defense. Unless there is some really weird pact, that Romney would select Ron as a VP or Cabinet member in exchange for his support. The only two hypotheses that I have expressed make sense to me. The whole stealth delegate campaign is so improbable and sinister that I can't see the campaign devising this from the get-go. Yes, of course the whole idea is to win delegates BUT that would have meant that they predicted a brokered convention to begin with...hard to think they did that. Even if Ron where to control of ALL the delegates from every single caucus state he would only have 1/3 of the delegates towards the magic number of 1,1xx (whatever it is).

The campaign has to win in Primary States to pick up remaining delegates...the race is wide open. Santorum is now being vetted and Gingrich is no where right now...I hope to enlightened at some point.