RP! Stop campaigning at colleges and hit the small rallies.

[klamath]

I believe this is a fatal flaw in the campaign strategy. RP and the campaign are addicted to the young enthusiastic crowds at colleges but they are preaching to the already converted.
older voters do not like big massive crowds. Young people thrive off the crowd size and the excitement it brings. To older people this is behind them, and they don't like fighting the traffic and crowds. Older interested voters are very happy going to small venues with 50 to 300 people to see a candidate they are interested in but won't fight large crowds to do this.
People are cheering our large crowd sizes but in reality those large crowds are harming us. Santorum gets it. Hit every small town and venue. 50 or so interested voters will go to a local Veteran hall but they will NOT got to the nearest College town and fight crowds and traffic.
People are jeering the small crowds of the Romney and Santorum rallies but those 300 people are 300 different local people in those towns, not 3000 kids gathered at a college from 50 different states.

[SonofThunder]

Agree. More Q&A sessions at townhalls where the people who ACTUALLY GO AND VOTE live.

[brendan.orourke]

I support this thread.

[Plague-of-Locutus]

I believe this is a fatal flaw in the campaign strategy. RP and the campaign are addicted to the young enthusiastic crowds at colleges but they are preaching to the already converted.
older voters do not like big massive crowds. Young people thrive off the crowd size and the excitement it brings. To older people this is behind them, and they don't like fighting the traffic and crowds. Older interested voters are very happy going to small venues with 50 to 300 people to see a candidate they are interested in but won't fight large crowds to do this.
People are cheering our large crowd sizes but in reality those large crowds are harming us. Santorum gets it. Hit every small town and venue. 50 or so interested voters will go to a local Veteran hall but they will NOT got to the nearest College town and fight crowds and traffic.
People are jeering the small crowds of the Romney and Santorum rallies but those 300 people are 300 different local people in those towns, not 3000 kids gathered at a college from 50 different states.

Don't you think the same energetic youth will swarm over all of the small town hall like venues and achieve the same result? You can't stop the people from flocking to the Rockstar. It is not RPs style to exclude anyone.

[klamath]

Don't you think the same energetic youth will swarm over all of the small town hall like venues and achieve the same result? You can't stop the people from flocking to the Rockstar. It is not RPs style to exclude anyone.
No because the majority of those people are local dorm kids. RP isn't going to get 3000 people turning out for every local whistle stop.

[tbone717]

It would be amazing that something that is so apparent to a bunch of armchair warriors escapes the thinking of a highly skilled campaign staff. Unless their intentions are different than we perceive.

[bobburn]

Because Santorum and the others aren't going to college campuses...wait, Santorum is making a swing through TN right now visiting every college that'll have him.

[Okie RP fan]

It would be amazing that something that is so apparent to a bunch of armchair warriors escapes the thinking of a highly skilled campaign staff. Unless their intentions are different than we perceive.

God forbid people hold and opinion different from the campaign. They may be "professional," but there are some things that may slip past them or some things they may or may not realize they are doing wrong.

This has been brought up before. If Ron were to actually go to the rural and older demographics, he would probably have better numbers, and I'm being purely speculative. It's been proven that the young don't vote in numbers compared to the older generations. If Ron were to simply reach out to the older crowd, then it would appear that he is truly trying to win. At this point, it is becoming clear that this is leaning more towards an educational and outreach campaign more than anything. And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, in my opinion. But the point is, the old vote, the young don't.

[freshjiva]

Ron Paul holds small townhalls in states the Campaign is targeting for a serious effort. He did this in Iowa and New Hampshire routinely. My guess is that we'll see smaller townhalls in Idaho/North Dakota/Washington soon.

[tbone717]

Because Santorum and the others aren't going to college campuses...wait, Santorum is making a swing through TN right now visiting every college that'll have him.

True but in addition to that he is doing an event at a lodge, a hotel, a church and a GOP dinner. On a positive note it looks like Paul is doing two town halls on Friday. Now what remains to be seen is are these Q&A with citizen events or simply a rah rah event for the base.

[jbuttell]

umm, while I agree it'll using on Q and A might be more productive, the idea that he shouldn't do college stops I can't agree with. It's a false notion that he's only attracting large crowds at colleges.. it follows him everywhere he goes. You give way too much credit to Santorum withers with their small crowds - trust me, it isn't by design. They'd love it if they could attract crowds like Rons.

I also take issue with the idea that people will go out of their way to go to a rally, but not vote. I just don't buy it.

[EBounding]

No matter where he is, he needs to do more Q&A and less stump.

[D.A.S.]

No matter where he is, he needs to do more Q&A and less stump.

Exactly! People have his speech memorized by now, more or less, but what needs to happen is taking questions from the crowd. And someone like Ron Paul can handle this sort of a debate because he has nothing to hide and is a quick thinker on his feet. That will impress the electorate a lot more, I think, than a full hour of speech.

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

Agree. More Q&A sessions at townhalls where the people who ACTUALLY GO AND VOTE live.

Yes. Perhaps the next fb meeting with Doug this can be brought up. By looking at the age demographics of the voters and who is getting what, it makes sense to Q and A for the older voters who are not on the internet, and hearing mistruths about Paul on the TV.

The college kids have all seen dozens of RP tubes by now.

[BKom]

It would be amazing that something that is so apparent to a bunch of armchair warriors escapes the thinking of a highly skilled campaign staff. Unless their intentions are different than we perceive.

It seems clear now that the strategy has been to build the mailing list. That is a very different target than winning the election. Building a mailing list means lots of money for those who are running the campaign and C4L and the ancillary groups (NAGR, Right To Work, English First) that those people came from and will be going back to. Poaching that list is the goal of a lot of people.

[klamath]

Ron Paul holds small townhalls in states the Campaign is targeting for a serious effort. He did this in Iowa and New Hampshire routinely. My guess is that we'll see smaller townhalls in Idaho/North Dakota/Washington soon.
Note. he did the best in those states....

[klamath]

No matter where he is, he needs to do more Q&A and less stump.
I agree. It is a lot of times one issue that is sticking in their craw about RP that keeps voters from voting for him. Seeing him answer in person that issue could sell.

[klamath]

Because Santorum and the others aren't going to college campuses...wait, Santorum is making a swing through TN right now visiting every college that'll have him.
And before that he visited every county in the state of Iowa not every college. He took a campaign that was going nowhere to a national campaign.

[tbone717]

It seems clear now that the strategy has been to build the mailing list. That is a very different target than winning the election. Building a mailing list means lots of money for those who are running the campaign and C4L and the ancillary groups (NAGR, Right To Work, English First) that those people came from and will be going back to. Poaching that list is the goal of a lot of people.

Personally, and from what I have heard from others, they are looking ahead 4 years.

[BKom]

Personally, and from what I have heard from others, they are looking ahead 4 years.

Then they should all resign because as far as I know, they all work for Ron, and he's not going to run when he's 80.

[A. Havnes]

I agree. Visiting college campuses is an integral part to success, but there are other parts that make up that formula, too. Hitting the smaller areas is proving quite profitable for the Santorum wagon.

[socal]

Small venues would have the problem of overflow crowds who could not gain access to the event. I don't see what's wrong with large events, including at college campuses, but only a 15 min speech and a 1 hour Q&A.

[Romulus]

+rep to the OP.

The only problem... town halls become slammed with the youth perhaps?

[bluesc]

It seems clear now that the strategy has been to build the mailing list. That is a very different target than winning the election. Building a mailing list means lots of money for those who are running the campaign and C4L and the ancillary groups (NAGR, Right To Work, English First) that those people came from and will be going back to. Poaching that list is the goal of a lot of people.

walt is that you?

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

It seems clear now that the strategy has been to build the mailing list. That is a very different target than winning the election. Building a mailing list means lots of money for those who are running the campaign and C4L and the ancillary groups (NAGR, Right To Work, English First) that those people came from and will be going back to. Poaching that list is the goal of a lot of people.

But haven't they pretty much canned the email for autograph/picture segment of the raucous rally? Lately, hasn't he been going from one 200 or 300 person event to another without that? So, all that the many of the excellent posts on this thread are saying is why not make better use of his time at the different venues whether they be 2 or 3 hundred or thousand, he could always allocate most of that time to letting undecided voters come all the way up to the stage and have a dialog with the doctor. If those hayseed campaign guys want to scrounge around for email addresses while Ron is holding court everybody else could ignore them.

[bluesc]

Personally, and from what I have heard from others, they are looking ahead 4 years.

Yep.

[bluesc]

Then they should all resign because as far as I know

No, they should be fired. Not for incompetence, but for a lack of loyalty.

Shame Ron would never do that.

[wgadget]

Ron is looking toward the future when he speaks to large crowds of young people.

[jscoppe]

Depends on your goal.

If you are seeking to grow the movement, what they're doing is spot on. If they're trying to win this election, it's a mistake.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Personally, and from what I have heard from others, they are looking ahead 4 years.

Whether their motivations are merely to line their pockets for the next for years or not isn't the issue. The issue is they don't have the courage of Ron's convictions, so even if their highest loyalty was being patriots for profit, if they believed Ron's unfiltered ideas were popular they would unleash Ron in Q&A marathon sessions and let the whole country hear what he really thinks.

So I think the issue isn't their ambitions. Its their non-belief in Ron's ideas.

[ssjevot]

Depends on your goal.

If you are seeking to grow the movement, what they're doing is spot on. If they're trying to win this election, it's a mistake.

Growing the movement is far more important and far better use of resources. Putting everything into winning this election is like making a short-term investment that has an extremely low probability of paying off. Growing the movement is a long-term investment that has a very high probability of paying off. Way too many people here think we have to win this election or it's all over. Hate to break it to you, but it was always a long-shot and the GOP would rather lose than have Ron Paul as their nominee, so we should stop trying to force everything to change at once and concentrate on the long-term.

[Mr. Perfidy]

College kids are one of the only groups left in america with the free time and inclination to show up to an event- In 2007 I tried to make a list of places where people gather face-to-face, for the purpose of some kind of culture, education, or interaction, and the only thing on my list was, "Sports games." Americans are just sad, anti-social, living-room high-def tan people; once they get to work, that and their immediate family is just about their only reality. Where do adults where you all are from just get together? I do not see it here. He is probably just trying to go where there will be an audience.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Also- lets say Im in my 40s and have a 9-5 and such. Am I likely to get to an event of guys my own age all bitcing about their commutes and their wives and their kids, or am I more likely to turn out to a campus that symbolises the glory of my youth, where I will see energetic fighters of the future and pretty ladies?

[bluesc]

Also- lets say Im in my 40s and have a 9-5 and such. Am I likely to get to an event of guys my own age all bitcing about their commutes and their wives and their kids, or am I more likely to turn out to a campus that symbolises the glory of my youth, where I will see energetic fighters of the future and pretty ladies?

Probably more likely to watch some TV. If you're a Republican, you might watch Fox News. Of course, Ron declined the invite to Huckabee's forum on Fox.

[Mr. Perfidy]

yeah probably TV is the way to go. But they will choose TV over attending anything that features any speaker anyway. That's what I am talking about- they are a kinda useless demographic, speaking in the sense of public assembly and visibility.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Depends on your goal.

If you are seeking to grow the movement, what they're doing is spot on. If they're trying to win this election, it's a mistake.

How is unleashing Ron and letting everybody know the full details of his ideas by way of dialogs with voters and the press NOT the best thing that could grow this movement? You'll have plenty of time to scurry around and elicit email addresses as you do now anyway--not that it matters.

I think there's only one reason many people don't want to do this and that's because they are ashamed of letting Ron's libertarian positions get a full unfiltered hearing.

[speciallyblend]

three of a kind leaves only one, Ron Paul 2012, move forward be ready and stay armed!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprFYMvWXLo<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprFYMvWXLo">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprFYMvWXLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprFYMvWXLo)

[NoOneButPaul]

Growing the movement is far more important and far better use of resources. Putting everything into winning this election is like making a short-term investment that has an extremely low probability of paying off. Growing the movement is a long-term investment that has a very high probability of paying off. Way too many people here think we have to win this election or it's all over. Hate to break it to you, but it was always a long-shot and the GOP would rather lose than have Ron Paul as their nominee, so we should stop trying to force everything to change at once and concentrate on the long-term.

Completely agree here...

Like I said this morning in another thread, if you want to make a difference find an election to run in and preach the gospel of liberty. We are all young, we have time on our sides, we could run in 15 elections before we were even Paul's age. You might not win the first or second time, but people will come around (Especially as Ron's predictions ring truer and truer). This is a battle that could take decades, we can't lose sight of that because of 1 election.

Getting someone like Rand elected (or whoever the next leader is) will be much easier if we've taken a significant minority of influence within the party itself and actually have enough power to stop the stacked deck against freedom.

Find local elections to run in, and if you've got the guts, find a Rep seat to run for.

With the right message (which we absolutely have) and the proper amount of legwork anyone can win anything...

[NoOneButPaul]

Also have to keep in mind that while TV dominates the psyches of the voters now, as time goes on this will change.

We're already seeing this, the internet is starting to destroy the corporate controlled media and it's only a matter of time before it reaches a breaking point.

Once the 65+ crowd dies off winning these elections will be considerably easier, and TV's influence will be dramatically reduced.

We can, and we will, restore freedom to this country. But don't let yourself believe it's 2012 or bust... this a fight we need to be willing to stick with for the rest of our existence no matter how long or short that may be.

[wstrucke]

It would be amazing that something that is so apparent to a bunch of armchair warriors escapes the thinking of a highly skilled campaign staff. Unless their intentions are different than we perceive.

Last time around we all assumed the professionals knew what they were doing. I'm not saying they don't, but there's nothing wrong with us debating and vetting ideas that could be beneficial.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Truth- we should consider that being a professional has less and less to do with offering any honest contribution to a skill or craft and more to do with self-promotion, networking, and survivor-kinda alliance middle-school clique bullshit.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Growing the movement is far more important and far better use of resources. Putting everything into winning this election is like making a short-term investment that has an extremely low probability of paying off.

How does re-allocating Ron's speaking time so that it is 90-10 in favor of dialog vs. off-the-cuff speech rather than 90-10 the other way around have any impact on resource usage at all? It doesn't. Ron using and staging his town halls more effectively is not an either or matter. This just sounds like bad excuses for keeping a lid on Ron's full dosage libertarian postitions.

[floridasun1983]

I would imagine if you looked at Santorum's, or Romney's schedules, you'll find the real reason we're stuck in neutral. I just looked at Ron's, and there's nothing on the schedule until March 2nd. The reality is if you really want to win an election, you don't campaign for a couple of days and then take a bunch of time off. Why more people aren't upset about this, I don't know.

[tbone717]

I would imagine if you looked at Santorum's, or Romney's schedules, you'll find the real reason we're stuck in neutral. I just looked at Ron's, and there's nothing on the schedule until March 2nd. The reality is if you really want to win an election, you don't campaign for a couple of days and then take a bunch of time off. Why more people aren't upset about this, I don't know.

People are. I think many are getting tired of the same old stuff being done.

[floridasun1983]

People are. I think many are getting tired of the same old stuff being done.There's a vocal minority here who get tar and feathered whenever they question the supposed wisdom of the campaign, but too many here absolutely refuse to have an honest dialog about it. Instead we see thread after thread of ridiculous conspiracy theories and near insane "predictions" about what is going to happen, none of which ever remotely happen. Of course there's an answer for that, too....FRAUD!

Sometimes its more depressing that our own supporters cannot tolerate discussion or disagreement.

[klamath]

Ron is looking toward the future when he speaks to large crowds of young people.That maybe, but looking to the future is also building a vote base that is large as possible. Candidates that have a record of getting large numbers of votes control an agenda and respect while those that don't have a record of recieving large numbers of votes are weak and their ideas are dismissed.
You cannot change the direction of the country by only converting one generation, you have to convert many generations either by addressing the generations you have before you now or be young enough to address each generation as they come of age. RP doesn't have the time to do the latter.

[klamath]

Growing the movement is far more important and far better use of resources. Putting everything into winning this election is like making a short-term investment that has an extremely low probability of paying off. Growing the movement is a long-term investment that has a very high probability of paying off. Way too many people here think we have to win this election or it's all over. Hate to break it to you, but it was always a long-shot and the GOP would rather lose than have Ron Paul as their nominee, so we should stop trying to force everything to change at once and concentrate on the long-term.
But they are one in the same. If you win great! if you lose with 49% of the vote you have grown the the movement. If you lose with 8% you enter the lose lose realm.

[tbone717]

There's a vocal minority here who get tar and feathered whenever they question the supposed wisdom of the campaign, but too many here absolutely refuse to have an honest dialog about it. Instead we see thread after thread of ridiculous conspiracy theories and near insane "predictions" about what is going to happen, none of which ever remotely happen. Of course there's an answer for that, too....FRAUD!

Sometimes its more depressing that our own supporters cannot tolerate discussion or disagreement.

There will come a time shortly where the moderators and owners of this site will have to make a decision whether it is in the best interest of the libertarian movement to continue to indulge the conspiracy crowd here, or is it best to distance ourselves from that talk and focus on what we can do to grow within the party and work together to support like-minded candidates.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I'm new and I do notice it is the same speech XD... He should do Q&A and walk around the local town to shake peoples hands. An appearance, even for 20-30minutes would do wonders for votes in the local community. Dont even need a speech or anything. Go around shaking hands and waving at people.

Newt talked about a tree in his speech... gg.

[tbone717]

I'm new and I do notice it is the same speech XD... He should do Q&A and walk around the local town to shake peoples hands. An appearance, even for 20-30minutes would do wonders for votes in the local community. Dont even need a speech or anything. Go around shaking hands and waving at people.

Newt talked about a tree in his speech... gg.

Shaking hands and kissing babies is probably the oldest and most time tested way of getting elected. I live in a CD where the GOP registration is strong, but we have a Dem Congressman here (granted he is a blue dog) and a big part of the reason he is able to stay in office is because he shakes hands and kisses babies. You see the guy out at nearly every major community event in the area.

[klamath]

A little history. Reagan was posed to be the run away nonminee in 1980 and his campaign manager Sears decided he didn't need to talk to small groups in iowa. He subsequently lost Iowa. Reagan fired Sears and went back to a town hall style and won a resounding victory in NH and the rest is history.

[tbone717]

A little history. Reagan was posed to be the run away nonminee in 1980 and his campaign manager Sears decided he didn't need to talk to small groups in iowa. He subsequently lost Iowa. Reagan fired Sears and went back to a town hall style and won a resounding victory in NH and the rest is history.

+rep We need to remember what worked before and repeat it, if not now then for every other race we are involved in.

[Butchie]

Wrong thread, sorry.

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe this is a fatal flaw in the campaign strategy. RP and the campaign are addicted to the young enthusiastic crowds at colleges but they are preaching to the already converted.
older voters do not like big massive crowds. Young people thrive off the crowd size and the excitement it brings. To older people this is behind them, and they don't like fighting the traffic and crowds. Older interested voters are very happy going to small venues with 50 to 300 people to see a candidate they are interested in but won't fight large crowds to do this.
People are cheering our large crowd sizes but in reality those large crowds are harming us. Santorum gets it. Hit every small town and venue. 50 or so interested voters will go to a local Veteran hall but they will NOT got to the nearest College town and fight crowds and traffic.
People are jeering the small crowds of the Romney and Santorum rallies but those 300 people are 300 different local people in those towns, not 3000 kids gathered at a college from 50 different states.
This^^ if an official campaign person is watching, plz pass it on.

[Elle]

I believe this is a fatal flaw in the campaign strategy. RP and the campaign are addicted to the young enthusiastic crowds at colleges but they are preaching to the already converted.
older voters do not like big massive crowds. Young people thrive off the crowd size and the excitement it brings. To older people this is behind them, and they don't like fighting the traffic and crowds. Older interested voters are very happy going to small venues with 50 to 300 people to see a candidate they are interested in but won't fight large crowds to do this.
People are cheering our large crowd sizes but in reality those large crowds are harming us. Santorum gets it. Hit every small town and venue. 50 or so interested voters will go to a local Veteran hall but they will NOT got to the nearest College town and fight crowds and traffic.
People are jeering the small crowds of the Romney and Santorum rallies but those 300 people are 300 different local people in those towns, not 3000 kids gathered at a college from 50 different states.

I was at the rally at Michigan State, I am 42. My brother, who is 39, was also with me as was our mother who is 67. The crowd did not consist of entirely students. I saw a lot of students, but I also saw a lot of people that were older than college students and plenty of senior citizens.

Just because some one is older does not mean that they are opposed to large crowds. The aversion to large crowds has to do with personality traits, not age.

The reason Ron Paul chooses larger venues on college campuses is because they will sell out. These venues do not charge as much as a larger venue would off campus. There are plenty of factors that go into deciding where and when an event will be held.

Interested voters will travel and fight traffic. We drove two hours and thirty four minutes, each way, to see Ron Paul and we were not the only ones that traveled to see him.

[Cabal]

I believe this is a fatal flaw in the campaign strategy. RP and the campaign are addicted to the young enthusiastic crowds at colleges but they are preaching to the already converted.
older voters do not like big massive crowds. Young people thrive off the crowd size and the excitement it brings. To older people this is behind them, and they don't like fighting the traffic and crowds. Older interested voters are very happy going to small venues with 50 to 300 people to see a candidate they are interested in but won't fight large crowds to do this.
People are cheering our large crowd sizes but in reality those large crowds are harming us. Santorum gets it. Hit every small town and venue. 50 or so interested voters will go to a local Veteran hall but they will NOT got to the nearest College town and fight crowds and traffic.
People are jeering the small crowds of the Romney and Santorum rallies but those 300 people are 300 different local people in those towns, not 3000 kids gathered at a college from 50 different states.

Are you a campaign expert? Or do you have even moderate experience with national, competitive campaigns? I'm guessing no.

How do you know those who RP speaks to are all already converted? Furthermore, how do you know that speaking elsewhere would net more converts?

Luckily older voters don't necessarily need to attend such events if they do not want to. There are smaller town-hall settings--he does these and Q&A--and the comfort of their own home with YouTube videos, if they are so inclined, and if they are informed of such things.

How do large crowds harm us?

Your post is full of assertion and speculation without one iota of supporting evidence. And assuming I'm correct about your non-existent campaign experience, what makes you believe you know any better than the official campaign staff?

I think most would welcome reasonable and constructive criticism; unfortunately, I don't believe you've offered anything of the sort here quite frankly. As far as I can tell, this is just another rather poor attempt at arm-chair criticism.

[klamath]

I was at the rally at Michigan State, I am 42. My brother, who is 39, was also with me as was our mother who is 67. The crowd did not consist of entirely students. I saw a lot of students, but I also saw a lot of people that were older than college students and plenty of senior citizens.

Just because some one is older does not mean that they are opposed to large crowds. The aversion to large crowds has to do with personality traits, not age.

The reason Ron Paul chooses larger venues on college campuses is because they will sell out. These venues do not charge as much as a larger venue would off campus. There are plenty of factors that go into deciding where and when an event will be held.

Interested voters will travel and fight traffic. We drove two hours and thirty four minutes, each way, to see Ron Paul and we were not the only ones that traveled to see him. Sorry, but what he is doing is not working. 88% of the people did not vote for RP in MI. 12% doesn't win elections and is very low borderline on even controlling enough votes to hold political weight.
I take it that you are a strong RP supporter? Of course you would go and fight the crowds to see RP. Joe blow in the precinct next door that is unsure who he is going to vote for will not fight or drive a long ways to meet a candidate he is totally unsure about. Romney and santorum are doing small venues and are getting ridiculed for their small crowd sizes, yet are beating RP by double digits. Something is wrong.

[ONUV]

also, college kids aren't voting and will never vote in large numbers no matter what the campaign does.

[klamath]

Are you a campaign expert? Or do you have even moderate experience with national, competitive campaigns? I'm guessing no.

How do you know those who RP speaks to are all already converted? Furthermore, how do you know that speaking elsewhere would net more converts?

Luckily older voters don't necessarily need to attend such events if they do not want to. There are smaller town-hall settings--he does these and Q&A--and the comfort of their own home with YouTube videos, if they are so inclined, and if they are informed of such things.

How do large crowds harm us?

Your post is full of assertion and speculation without one iota of supporting evidence. And assuming I'm correct about your non-existent campaign experience, what makes you believe you know any better than the official campaign staff?

I think most would welcome reasonable and constructive criticism; unfortunately, I don't believe you've offered anything of the sort here quite frankly. As far as I can tell, this is just another rather poor attempt at arm-chair criticism.
Because 8% in AZ and 12% in MI speaks a whole lot about whether they know what they are doing. The proof is in the results and there is flat out no way of getting around that. RP did do small venues in Iowa and NH and came pretty close to winning. Santorum visited every county in Iowa talking to handfuls of people and won.

[socal]

I was at the rally at Michigan State, I am 42. My brother, who is 39, was also with me as was our mother who is 67. The crowd did not consist of entirely students. I saw a lot of students, but I also saw a lot of people that were older than college students and plenty of senior citizens.

Just because some one is older does not mean that they are opposed to large crowds. The aversion to large crowds has to do with personality traits, not age.

The reason Ron Paul chooses larger venues on college campuses is because they will sell out. These venues do not charge as much as a larger venue would off campus. There are plenty of factors that go into deciding where and when an event will be held.

Interested voters will travel and fight traffic. We drove two hours and thirty four minutes, each way, to see Ron Paul and we were not the only ones that traveled to see him.
How do you think it would have turned out if his speech was shorter, and he took Q&A, possibly written or through the internet because of the huge crowd ?

[Anti Federalist]

I'm older, I hate crowds, and I will and have, happily squeezed into packed venues to hear and meet RP.

These things are packed because "our" people are passionate, vocal and committed.

The problem is that there just ain't that many of us, and probably won't ever be that many.

Most people do not want freedom.

[floridasun1983]

Are you a campaign expert? Or do you have even moderate experience with national, competitive campaigns? I'm guessing no.Here's a number for you: Zero. That's the number of states Ron Paul has won aganist a historically weak electoral field. This attack that only self proclaimed experts are qualified to render judgement on something is absurd. After all, many (indeed most) of us agree with Dr. Paul that we need to end the Federal Reserve, but how many of us are actually economists?

[klamath]

I'm older, I hate crowds, and I will and have, happily squeezed into packed venues to hear and meet RP.

These things are packed because "our" people are passionate, vocal and committed.

The problem is that there just ain't that many of us, and probably won't ever be that many.

Most people do not want freedom.
We are hardcore RP supporters. I hate crowds and traffic with a passion but I would travel and fight the crowds if RP made a stop anywhere near me. But if I was undecided I wouldn't go far, but I would if that candidate was in my hometown just to hear what he had to say.

[rpwi]

Something to keep in mind...is that political rallies are never designed to convert those in the crowd. It's just too inefficient. The point of a political rally is it's a trick to get on the local evening news and local papers when normally you wouldn't get such coverage. To that end...big crowds are a very good thing if you're looking for second hand media exposure and I actually love the idea of Paul concentrating on the campuses. He gets the biggest crowds there, great energy...and this encourages the press to cover the event and in a popular light.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Something to keep in mind...is that political rallies are never designed to convert those in the crowd. It's just too inefficient. The point of a political rally is it's a trick to get on the local evening news and local papers when normally you wouldn't get such coverage. To that end...big crowds are a very good thing if you're looking for second hand media exposure and I actually love the idea of Paul concentrating on the campuses. He gets the biggest crowds there, great energy...and this encourages the press to cover the event and in a popular light.

Why not combine the two? Do they think that if after the 30 minute raucous rally speech that if they set a microphone up on the stage and gave undecided voters preference to come down and look Ron in the eye and have him elaborate on his ideas in dialog format for another hour or two that the 4,000 fans would have stayed home? I think they know what would happen. It would be a much more significant event that the press would have to cover. But they're afraid of letting Ron think out loud.

[coffeewithchess]

It would be amazing that something that is so apparent to a bunch of armchair warriors escapes the thinking of a highly skilled campaign staff. Unless their intentions are different than we perceive.

Yea, a highly skilled staff that has provided the grassroots with how many 1st place wins? The same staff that has ignored very legitimate points for months (or years, if you count the 2008 campaign) by grassroot supporters that they needed to address in a MEANINGFUL way (foreign policy, targeting senior voters, etc.).
The same highly skilled campaign staff that has raised MILLIONS and wasted MILLIONS on attack ads? I mean really now, if the idea of this is simply "spreading the message", they have done a wonderful job of running lots of attack ads instead of using that money to actually "spread a message".

If a little nobody of a site put together a commercial and ran it for $1,200 and it was viewed by more than 1,200,000 people, there is no reason every single cable subscriber has not seen/heard a positive RP message.

I agree with the OP, and this was seen in full evidence at an Iowa event, where the reported asked the first two full rows of students how many could vote in the Iowa Caucus, and a MINORITY of them raised their hands...
Keep going to college campuses, and targeting the young voters that you already have...seems to have worked wonders so far.

[Give me liberty]

I believe this is a fatal flaw in the campaign strategy. RP and the campaign are addicted to the young enthusiastic crowds at colleges but they are preaching to the already converted.
older voters do not like big massive crowds. Young people thrive off the crowd size and the excitement it brings. To older people this is behind them, and they don't like fighting the traffic and crowds. Older interested voters are very happy going to small venues with 50 to 300 people to see a candidate they are interested in but won't fight large crowds to do this.
People are cheering our large crowd sizes but in reality those large crowds are harming us. Santorum gets it. Hit every small town and venue. 50 or so interested voters will go to a local Veteran hall but they will NOT got to the nearest College town and fight crowds and traffic.
People are jeering the small crowds of the Romney and Santorum rallies but those 300 people are 300 different local people in those towns, not 3000 kids gathered at a college from 50 different states.

Sadly i agree with this, Ron Paul needs to be going to townhalls a lot more then just colleges,not just town halls but cities and important key voting areas.

[Elle]

Sorry, but what he is doing is not working. 88% of the people did not vote for RP in MI. 12% doesn't win elections and is very low borderline on even controlling enough votes to hold political weight.
I take it that you are a strong RP supporter? Of course you would go and fight the crowds to see RP. Joe blow in the precinct next door that is unsure who he is going to vote for will not fight or drive a long ways to meet a candidate he is totally unsure about. Romney and santorum are doing small venues and are getting ridiculed for their small crowd sizes, yet are beating RP by double digits. Something is wrong.

Something is WRONG, but it has nothing to do with where Ron Paul holds his rallies and EVERYTHING to do with face time on the TV. Joe Blow that is unsure of who he is going to vote for will vote for the name he hears the most on the radio or the TV. Joe Blow isn't involved politically and knows more about American Idol contestants than he does about candidates that are running in the primary. Ron Paul is getting beat by double digits because the TV is telling the average voter who to vote for and who not to vote for.

[klamath]

Something is WRONG, but it has nothing to do with where Ron Paul holds his rallies and EVERYTHING to do with face time on the TV. Joe Blow that is unsure of who he is going to vote for will vote for the name he hears the most on the radio or the TV. Joe Blow isn't involved politically and knows more about American Idol contestants than he does about candidates that are running in the primary. Ron Paul is getting beat by double digits because the TV is telling the average voter who to vote for and who not to vote for.
Santorum did NOT get face time on tv. Rick Santorum spent days visiting every county and shaking hands with potential voters. Santorum bypassed the TV.
When he started climbing in the polls and the story came out about him climbing, all those voters he talked too felt comfortable about moving in mass to the guy they had met.

[Cabal]

Because 8% in AZ and 12% in MI speaks a whole lot about whether they know what they are doing. The proof is in the results and there is flat out no way of getting around that. RP did do small venues in Iowa and NH and came pretty close to winning. Santorum visited every county in Iowa talking to handfuls of people and won.


Here's a number for you: Zero. That's the number of states Ron Paul has won aganist a historically weak electoral field. This attack that only self proclaimed experts are qualified to render judgement on something is absurd. After all, many (indeed most) of us agree with Dr. Paul that we need to end the Federal Reserve, but how many of us are actually economists?

So now you're assuming our polling results are exclusively the result of speaking on college campuses? Lol.