What if? Part II

[Noodles]

In a previous post,

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=37043#post37043

I relayed one of my fears. Sadly, it looks like I was close to being correct.

My next fear is that we are only going to poll 4-5% in Iowa. IF this happens, God forbid, where do we go from there? Do people start giving up, or do we double our intensity? What is the strategy?

Also, what kind of timeline are we looking at realistically as far as expected advances in polling percentages, donations, etc. Just wondering what the consensus is on this. I guess what I'm asking is, are we on track, ahead of the curve, behind the 8-ball, etc. What are your opinions?

[nayjevin]

are you talking about the caucus or straw polls?

[Noodles]

The caucus, I guess. I know there's time, I'm just posing a hypothetical. Or a prediction, to be honest. (must stop negativity:mad: )

Also, just looking for opinions on the big picture, New Hampshire and beyond.

[nayjevin]

there's value to the what if, no doubt.

are iowa caucuses paper ballots? if they are i think we have nothing to worry about.

if they are electronic, i would say we should try to organize a signature petition / exit poll strategy to verify the numbers.

I think Paul is at least 3-4% now. 1/10 people I hand a flyer to know who he is, and almost NONE of those people disagree with him. The only obstacle I've found is that they don't think he can win. I would say if we all stopped right now at the grassroots level, the continual appearances of RP on radio and television will still increase that number.

The greatest thing we have going for us is:

"who are you voting for?"
"rudy mcromneyson/hillbama"
"why"
"idunno"

"who are you voting for?"
"ron paul"
"why?"
" www.ronpaul2008.com
www.ronpaullibrary.com
www.ronpaulaudio.com "

i heard recently that something like 80% of people look online before voting.
our online presence is such that almost anyone who does will find paul eventually. anywhere smear can be found, there are rational people debunking the weak arguments. the truth just sticks.

[Trance Dance Master]

What if Ron Paul's internet support team was of more value to his campaign than if he raised $500 million in Q2.

http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/12/ron-paul-got-7300000-worth-of-free-internet-advertising/

Ron Paul got $7,300,000 worth of free Internet advertising
Published by 7effbee on June 12th, 2007 | Tagged republican party, election 2008, ron paul


Technorati has about 73,000 blog posts listed for Ron Paul. It would be fair to say that the average traffic to each of these blog posts is 1000 visits. This may range from 0 for small blogs, to millions for large ones.

That is 73,000,000 visits. If we consider the possibility of him using Adwords or a similar service and paying a $0.10 cost per click, he would have had to pay $7.3 million to get this kind of traffic.

Also Ron Paul has the most enthusiastic supporters of any candidate in decades. Paul has volunteers which do all the tough campaign work that people like Hillary Clinton pay for.

The value of this hardcore libertarian base is priceless. There are several million people who would vote libertarian if they did not vote for the “lesser evil”. In 1980 the Libertarian party got close to 1 million votes. This is the most active base of any party bar none. The cost for one to replicate this would be 100’s of millions of dollars.

[LibertyEagle]

In a previous post,

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=37043#post37043

I relayed one of my fears. Sadly, it looks like I was close to being correct.

My next fear is that we are only going to poll 4-5% in Iowa. IF this happens, God forbid, where do we go from there? Do people start giving up, or do we double our intensity? What is the strategy?

Also, what kind of timeline are we looking at realistically as far as expected advances in polling percentages, donations, etc. Just wondering what the consensus is on this. I guess what I'm asking is, are we on track, ahead of the curve, behind the 8-ball, etc. What are your opinions?

We have absolutely NO choice whatsoever. We have to double, or triple our intensity, if that is possible. We must win this thing, come hell or high water. There is no do-over. Our country's sovereignty and our very freedom is at stake here.

CHARGE!...................... :D

[Silverback]

I'm not sweating anything at this point.

The real primary campaign will begin in Sept.-Oct., when the Iraq situation comes to a head.

Until then numbers mean little, so long as we're growing and keeping Ron viable.

[LastoftheMohicans]

are iowa caucuses paper ballots? if they are i think we have nothing to worry about.

if they are electronic, i would say we should try to organize a signature petition / exit poll strategy to verify the numbers.



If my memory serves me correctly, I believe there was massive vote fraud in the caucuses against Pat Buchanan in 1996. He also probably won AZ but there was fraud there, too. The only reason he won in NH was because vote fraud was (and hopefully is) more difficult there.

With that said, I have always been suspicious of Buchanan. I never understood why he didn't complain about the vote fraud. He's either an Insider posing as an anti-Establishment figure (and doing a damn convincing job at it) or he is a party loyalist that considers it unpatriotic somehow to go against the tide.

[Original_Intent]

In a previous post,

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=37043#post37043

I relayed one of my fears. Sadly, it looks like I was close to being correct.

My next fear is that we are only going to poll 4-5% in Iowa. IF this happens, God forbid, where do we go from there? Do people start giving up, or do we double our intensity? What is the strategy?

Also, what kind of timeline are we looking at realistically as far as expected advances in polling percentages, donations, etc. Just wondering what the consensus is on this. I guess what I'm asking is, are we on track, ahead of the curve, behind the 8-ball, etc. What are your opinions?

I am behind Ron Paul as long as he is running - regardless of polls, caucuses or primaries. If he does not win the primaries, then I will probably follow his endorsement or look at the Constitution Party or LP.

[LibertyEagle]

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe there was massive vote fraud in the caucuses against Pat Buchanan in 1996. He also probably won AZ but there was fraud there, too. The only reason he won in NH was because vote fraud was (and hopefully is) more difficult there.

With that said, I have always been suspicious of Buchanan. I never understood why he didn't complain about the vote fraud. He's either an Insider posing as an anti-Establishment figure (and doing a damn convincing job at it) or he is a party loyalist that considers it unpatriotic somehow to go against the tide.

It could also be that he thought he didn't have enough proof and would end up looking like a whiner or something.

[JaylieWoW]

I'm writing him in if I have to. A vote for any of the other candidates is a wasted vote. At least my vote will count towards sound principles and the truth. Again, I don't ever want to say "I told you so" to anyone, but if Americans are too lazy to do their own research and form their own opinions then they deserve 8 years of Hillary Clinton. Which, I firmly predict is what will happen if Ron Paul is not nominated, barring some new scandal with her. I find it hilarious that many refer to Ron Paul supporters as zombies. What the heck does that make Clinton supporters?

[LibertyEagle]

What the heck does that make Clinton supporters?

Idiots? :mad: :D