PDA

View Full Version : If the campaign isn't funding anti-Romney Ads Shouldn't we do it?




skyorbit
04-16-2012, 11:02 PM
Remember the High Tide ad from 2008? It was epic. Why doesn't some body form a PAC and we all raise money specifically for the purpose of bashing Romney into the ground? Along with explaining why Ron Paul is the correct candidate for the job? Compare/contract Mitt Romney.

TRacy

zeloc
04-16-2012, 11:10 PM
Remember the High Tide ad from 2008? It was epic. Why doesn't some body form a PAC and we all raise money specifically for the purpose of bashing Romney into the ground? Along with explaining why Ron Paul is the correct candidate for the job? Compare/contract Mitt Romney.

TRacy

No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

coffeewithchess
04-16-2012, 11:18 PM
No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

????? Not sure what evidence you're talking about, but attack/contrast ads can make or break campaigns. Santorum attacked Romney, and ran a very good campaign (considering he had no record to run on), and won many states...RP's campaign helped Romney's campaign win Michigan by running a Santorum attack ad in Michigan.

Now, there is evidence of running false/stupid attack ads hurting campaigns, but if you're point out voting records and using candidates' own words, that can be very helpful. Compare and contrast...that's how every "attack" ad should go. "This guy is bad...because of ABC...and this is why RP is 10000000000000000000000000000000000 times better. Consistency."

RickyJ
04-16-2012, 11:22 PM
No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

That's why they are used all the time, because they just don't work. Yeah, whatever you say! :rolleyes:

J_White
04-17-2012, 12:06 AM
http://blog.nopdesign.sk/en/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/orly-mini.jpg

O RLY ?
Attack ads did not harm Paul before Iowa ?
Attack ads did not harm Gingrich around Iowa ?
Attacks on Romney did not make a difference in MN, MO and CO ?


No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

this is a good idea, since the campaign is not touching this with a long pole !

floridasun1983
04-17-2012, 12:12 AM
No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.100% categorically false. They teach whole courses at universities about attack ads and why, despite people complaining about them, they work.

Attack ads work, period.

Paul Or Nothing II
04-17-2012, 01:48 AM
No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

This campaign proves that attacking others doesn't make Ron Paul more likeable amongst the voters, he's gotten stuck with this "unelectable" tag for 4 years now, with MSM repeating it over & over, so unless his "electability" is addressed, there's no way mainstream voters are going to vote for him, no matter how much Romney is attacked

On the other hand, if Ron Paul is presented as the only conservative option that CAN beat Obama, due to his appeal amonst Independents & Democrats, then that will automatically kill Romney anyway because his only appeal is "electabiliy" & with a more electable conservative option in sight, voters would desert Romney & rush to Paul, just like they rushed to Santorum because he positioned himself as anti-Obamney!

AuH2O
04-17-2012, 09:12 AM
No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

Okay okay then -- NEW IDEA. Somebody form a PAC and run attack ads against RON.

coffeewithchess
04-17-2012, 10:07 AM
Okay okay then -- NEW IDEA. Somebody form a PAC and run attack ads against RON.

GENIUS idea! *starting paperwork

"Americans Against the Constitution" "What was so bad about England? Nothing. Our founding fathers were asking a bit much to be taxed...AND represented. What's it matter if you are tax and represented? Exactly, it doesn't matter. We love Washington D.C., and the big government politicians. We have approved of nearly every single Republican candidate so far, but there is one that's history of supporting and voting according to the Constitution...is HORRENDOUS. Meet Ron Paul. If you want the federal budget balanced in the next 4 years, vote for this guy. If you want more debt and more ObamaCare and Obamanomics, vote for Mitt or Barack. They do not know or understand the Constitution (run clips) and we like that, because neither do we. MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Crystallas
04-17-2012, 10:08 AM
Blah blah blah on attack ads opinions.

The bottom line is that we can't compete with Goldman Sachs, and their strong reach. Thus, we are using as many alternate strategies as possible.

Blue
04-17-2012, 10:09 AM
No, we shouldn't. There is ample evidence that attack ads don't work, in fact as hard as it is to believe, it actually makes voters MORE likely to vote for their person who is the subject of the attack ad.

Where is this "ample evidence" you speak of?

jolynna
04-17-2012, 10:22 AM
100% categorically false. They teach whole courses at universities about attack ads and why, despite people complaining about them, they work.

Attack ads work, period.

I pulled a sign for a local candidate up and put it away BECAUSE OF an attack ad. It told me something about the local candidate I didn't know but that further research backed up.

I SELDOM watch commercials because I have a DVR, BUT, that ONE negative ad I accidentally caught turned my whole view around about a certain local candidate.

jolynna
04-17-2012, 10:29 AM
This campaign proves that attacking others doesn't make Ron Paul more likeable amongst the voters, he's gotten stuck with this "unelectable" tag for 4 years now, with MSM repeating it over & over, so unless his "electability" is addressed, there's no way mainstream voters are going to vote for him, no matter how much Romney is attacked

On the other hand, if Ron Paul is presented as the only conservative option that CAN beat Obama, due to his appeal amonst Independents & Democrats, then that will automatically kill Romney anyway because his only appeal is "electabiliy" & with a more electable conservative option in sight, voters would desert Romney & rush to Paul, just like they rushed to Santorum because he positioned himself as anti-Obamney!

The AD that got my lifelong, steadfast, diehard GOP parents to vote for Lyndon Johnson instead of Barry Goldwater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao

Would an ad about Johnson's VIRTUES or Johnson's ELECTABILITY have made my GOP loving parents vote for a <shudder> democrat? No.

There are some pretty SCARY things that Romney advocates (unlimited detention, the 72 Fusian Centers that are about to become 500 Mobile Spy Centers, no more internet freedom, conducting covert wars and invading other countries for strategic global & investment advantages, doing away with medicare, increasing Pentagon spending by almost a trillion dollars annually, trade war with China, another bailout for TBTF banks and the IMF).

The ad Johnson did against Goldwater was MISLEADING and an exaggeration, but just putting out facts that are truthful, although they also are scary, is filling a hole that the media has left. It is WRONG for facts to NOT be put out there.

In my opinion.

MisfitToy
04-17-2012, 10:34 AM
Simple and easy for the brain to absorb:

Want a Republican in office? Vote for Ron Paul. Want Obama in office? Vote for Romney.

Crystallas
04-17-2012, 10:45 AM
Simple and easy for the brain to absorb:

Want a Republican in office? Vote for Ron paul. Want Obama in office? Vote for Romney.

LOL

kylejack
04-17-2012, 10:51 AM
The campaign's not running ads because people aren't donating much anymore. People aren't going to donate to a PAC either, unless you can find a billionaire who wants to drop some coin. The Paypal dude dropped a bunch of money into that PAC that spent a lot of advertising in Florida, which had to be the worst idea ever.

coffeewithchess
04-17-2012, 11:01 AM
The campaign's not running ads because people aren't donating much anymore. People aren't going to donate to a PAC either, unless you can find a billionaire who wants to drop some coin. The Paypal dude dropped a bunch of money into that PAC that spent a lot of advertising in Florida, which had to be the worst idea ever.

Ummm, not sure if you consider over $1 million not much, or over $30 million not much. The fact is Ron Paul's campaign has raised more money than all the other Republican candidates, except Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, especially Santorum, ran very professionally produced Romney attack ads with less money than Ron Paul's campaign.
It costs very little to make an internet ad these days, especially considering some grassroots supporters throw together ads in a few days/hours and at their own time/cost.
There's no excuse for the campaign to allow Romney to waltz into the nomination with the media's help.

sailingaway
04-17-2012, 11:15 AM
Ummm, not sure if you consider over $1 million not much, or over $30 million not much. The fact is Ron Paul's campaign has raised more money than all the other Republican candidates, except Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, especially Santorum, ran very professionally produced Romney attack ads with less money than Ron Paul's campaign.
It costs very little to make an internet ad these days, especially considering some grassroots supporters throw together ads in a few days/hours and at their own time/cost.
There's no excuse for the campaign to allow Romney to waltz into the nomination with the media's help.

Santorum had less money in the beginning, when he ran nothing, but had MORE money on hand in the last couple of months, when he ran those ads. Ron spent a ton on early states, that was the plan all along, and necessary given the media black out. So how much Ron had in JANUARY isn't really relevant to what he can spend now, when on top of ads he has active caucus action going on in multiple states plus multiple primary dates still ahead. Unfortunately, while ads might work in PA and Ron is spending some money in TX, some of the primaries such as California are pretty cost prohibitive except on cable.

I wonder, since Ron bought a six figure media buy in TX for his one ad the day Santorum dropped out, and it had Santorum in it and was going to be revamped, if he might now replace that with an anti Romney ad, though....

which is why I keep bumping examples of videos in that vein.

I'd like to see ads too. I do expect at least mailers from the information Matt was looking for.

Paul Or Nothing II
04-17-2012, 12:09 PM
The AD that got my lifelong, steadfast, diehard GOP parents to vote for Lyndon Johnson instead of Barry Goldwater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao

Would an ad about Johnson's VIRTUES or Johnson's ELECTABILITY have made my GOP loving parents vote for a <shudder> democrat? No.

Firstly, I don't think Johnson was tagged & bagged so much by the media for 4 years like Ron has been as "unelectable" & that thing MUST be shed if Ron is to get anywhere close to a victory

Secondly, most people don't support Romney because they particularly like him, his ONLY appeal is that he's perceived as "most electable" so if we present Ron Paul as "conservative who's more electable than Romney & CAN beat Obama" then that AUTOMATICALLY undercuts Romney base, if they see a better CONSERVATIVE alternative to Romney


Simple and easy for the brain to absorb:

Want a Republican in office? Vote for Ron Paul. Want Obama in office? Vote for Romney.

Someone had suggested - A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama!

Here's mine - Who represents conservatives better? Paul or Obamney


Ummm, not sure if you consider over $1 million not much, or over $30 million not much. The fact is Ron Paul's campaign has raised more money than all the other Republican candidates, except Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, especially Santorum, ran very professionally produced Romney attack ads with less money than Ron Paul's campaign.
It costs very little to make an internet ad these days, especially considering some grassroots supporters throw together ads in a few days/hours and at their own time/cost.
There's no excuse for the campaign to allow Romney to waltz into the nomination with the media's help.

I agree the money hasn't been spent as well as it could've been, although Santorum did get a lot of free MSM coverage, he himself only raised $15m & that's impressive considering his success

And we're yet to even tell the voting public that MSM is lying about Ron & that he IS electable & CAN beat Obama
We MUST do this ASAP

coffeewithchess
04-17-2012, 12:18 PM
And we're yet to even tell the voting public that MSM is lying about Ron & that he IS electable & CAN beat Obama
We MUST do this ASAP

YOU SIR! Did you see the new one yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcgXQA9d7is

jolynna
04-17-2012, 01:25 PM
YOU SIR! Did you see the new one yet?


Thank YOU! I just tweeted it. Keep them coming. More please!

I tried to give you a +rep but I have to spread reputation around first.

PolicyReader
04-17-2012, 01:48 PM
YOU SIR! Did you see the new one yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcgXQA9d7is

First I love spreading this around (and it's predecessors, keep 'em coming :D )


Second I agree that electability needs to be addressed but an attack add can, and should address it. One of the main reasons Willard won't win is his positions are too carbon copy compared to Obama. An ad that hammers how alike those two are and makes the case that Romney loses because if it, that you need a candidate who provides a contrast, who provides real Change and who incites [i]excitement and involvement [Paul rally montage ? :) ] is needed to win the November election. [Voice over of Paul scoring better in Polls vs Obama than Mitt. Image of split screen comparing same day rallies for Romney vs Paul]. Close with something like "Ron Paul, vote for a winner!" [Positive image of Paul] "Not four more years of the same" [Split screen of Mitt and Barry, maybe with 'stamp' graphic tagged on top showing issues they share, Bailouts, Indefinite detention, Increased spending, Destruction of Social Security]

Idea off the top of my head, I'm sure it could use some polish but I trust it gets the fundamental idea across.
I think getting a proposal outlined for an ad and then doing a Kickstarter and/or PAC for funding would be a good idea.