PDA

View Full Version : I doubt we won any votes in this debate




Joey Wahoo
12-12-2007, 02:30 PM
Lets face it, Ron Paul is not a slick one-liner politician and he never will be. These types of events don't permit him to shine. Those of us who've seen him give a thirty minute speech know he can be dynamite. Its a pity most Americans never will.

In my opinion, he needs to understand that he must say ATTENTION GRABBING things when he only has 15 or 30 seconds to speak. Even if they are controversial. ESPECIALLY if they are controversial.

Example: Why not say "I will work to end the IRS and the income tax completely, and I will replace it with nothing."

Boom. Takes 5 seconds to say and would be the most quoted sound bite of the entire debate.

Sigh.

Lets just hope we can get the message out sufficiently before caucus day.

ctb619
12-12-2007, 02:31 PM
People say this after every debate.

Rex
12-12-2007, 02:31 PM
sadly I agree

angrydragon
12-12-2007, 02:31 PM
I hope and think you're wrong. =)

Dorfsmith
12-12-2007, 02:32 PM
I hope and think you're wrong. =)

X2

Luther
12-12-2007, 02:32 PM
Ron Paul does not perform well in this kind of "debate" format.

garyallen59
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
whats wrong with you guys, this was as good as debates get as far as fair time dispersement paul got his message out loud and clear and everyone heard

Luther
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
I would like to see Ron Paul in a real debate, where he could challenge the assertions of other candidates and he could defend his own positions against the criticisms of others.

RonPaulFTFW
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
People come to paul because of what he says.

When they hear his stance on the war, and the economy.........they will come because he is different.

The way it's always been.

split_lipz
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
I think he did great!

What else did you want him to say? He laid things out very clearly.

Dorfsmith
12-12-2007, 02:33 PM
whats wrong with you guys, this was as good as debates get as far as fair time dispersement paul got his message out loud and clear and everyone heard

Paul nailed education and was able to express his views on foreign policy. Those are both important to voters. :cool:

garyallen59
12-12-2007, 02:34 PM
sometimes i think we expect too much from paul on this board his message will resonate with people who have never heard it

Micahyah
12-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Yeah this debate was not a big positive for us, which sucks because it's the last one before the caucus.

This debate in a nutshell was con artist candidates copying Paul's language because they realized how much of a buzz his message has around the country.

shadowhooch
12-12-2007, 02:35 PM
I thought Ron did awesome in this debate. His answers were concise and clear and he got his message accross well.

Sorry, I DO NOT want "one-line zingers" like Alan Keyes. They doesn't sway me one bit.

RonPaulFTFW
12-12-2007, 02:36 PM
He helped people understand his education stance.

davidhperry
12-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Just to encourage folks, people like Ron Paul because he stands on principle. If you support him, you already know that he's not slick, good-looking, witty, etc. He has his foibles and shortcomings, to be sure. However, people ARE attracted to his ideas, just as we were when we decided to learn more about him.

Let's keep pushing - a lot of our progress has been under the radar and that's going to be even more shocking once this whole election tips.

dspectre
12-12-2007, 02:37 PM
I really wouldn't worry about it, most people aren't watching these debates. Knowing this, do you think they are watching this one at 1 in the afternoon?

Original_Intent
12-12-2007, 02:37 PM
I think someone was too focused on the little "approval rating" chart on the right hand side of the screen.

Frankly this was the best debate so far for Ron Paul to get some speaking time and to explain his answers.

The little approval rating chart hurt us among people who want to follow the crowd. If there was anyone watching who was looking for real answers, I think this debate served us well.

Bigboyen
12-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Ok debate - but in the situation we are now we don't have time to use a lot of time of convince every voter. We needed a great showing and we didn't get it. And even other did take Paul’s message and delivered it in a better package.

Joey Wahoo
12-12-2007, 02:38 PM
Yeah this debate was not a big positive for us, which sucks because it's the last one before the caucus.

This debate in a nutshell was con artist candidates copying Paul's language because they realized how much of a buzz his message has around the country.

This is my point. Be honest about it. Lets say you knew nothing about these candidates other than what you heard today, and lets say you were looking for the candidate most likely to restrain federal government, follow the constitution and reduce spending and taxes.

Would you choose Ron Paul? Probably not.

To be fair, he did make the foreign policy point very effectively, as well as the defense of personal liberties (albeit in a general way only)

garyallen59
12-12-2007, 02:39 PM
I think someone was too focused on the little "approval rating" chart on the right hand side of the screen..

thats the reason why i watched it on cspan

homah
12-12-2007, 02:39 PM
Unfortunately, I agree. Debates are not the best platform for Paul to get his message across.

Just watch the CNN post-debate coverage. They are interviewing undecided Republicans who appear to be completely braindead.

Pete Kay
12-12-2007, 02:39 PM
I didn't catch the entire debate, but from what I saw I thought he did poorly. His past few debates have been less than stellar. I honestly think he his censoring himself to try to appeal to a more mainstream audience, but he has lost the punch that wowed me in the first few debates.

garyallen59
12-12-2007, 02:40 PM
I didn't catch the entire debate, but from what I saw I thought he did poorly. His past few debates have been less than stellar. I honestly think he his censoring himself to try to appeal to a more mainstream audience, but he has lost the punch that wowed me in the first few debates.

you're wrong

Cam
12-12-2007, 02:41 PM
As always it is the message not the man . . . if our country is full of citizens needing a slick car salesman, we lose. But I have more faith in our people. We want substance over style. Time is running out. Hit the streets and help RP bring substance to the country.

Delain
12-12-2007, 02:41 PM
I dunno. These debates or not his specialty, I agree, but the fact that he isnt another slick talker I find one of the most appealing things about him.

Luther
12-12-2007, 02:42 PM
People come to paul because of what he says.

When they hear his stance on the war, and the economy.........they will come because he is different.

The way it's always been.


Right. His appeal is substance, not style.

shadowhooch
12-12-2007, 02:42 PM
I think someone was too focused on the little "approval rating" chart on the right hand side of the screen.

Frankly this was the best debate so far for Ron Paul to get some speaking time and to explain his answers.

The little approval rating chart hurt us among people who want to follow the crowd. If there was anyone watching who was looking for real answers, I think this debate served us well.

I watched it online and there was no chart. From my view, Ron Paul had an outstanding debate.

That chart probably scewed viewers if you think Ron did poorly.

Ron Paul Fan
12-12-2007, 02:42 PM
Ron Paul is Ron Paul. He's not going to turn into slick Mitt Romney. Not now. Not ever. I missed the first part of the debate, but I thought his last two answers were excellent! He's the only one who actually answered the last one. Read the Constitution! I bet we picked up quite a few votes today.

angrydragon
12-12-2007, 02:42 PM
Ron Paul didn't come off as a snake's oil salesman, so I think he did good. All of the candidates were trying to say they were better than one another, except for Ron Paul

LynnB
12-12-2007, 02:44 PM
To tell you the truth, in the past, debates have never changed my mind about who to vote for, and if no one appealed to me before the debates, I didn't watch them. (Paul's on!)

realist
12-12-2007, 02:47 PM
I think Dr. Paul was true to himself as always. The problem in this debate was the other candidates. Where previously their disagreement with our views accentuated our positions, in this debate they've "adopted" our views to thier benefit and our detriment. They sound more and more like us and the only folks that will see this are those familiar with their old tactics. Not good for us IMHO.

ConstitutionGal
12-12-2007, 02:47 PM
I watched the debate on-line so I wasn't getting any 'spin' from anywhere and, for the most part, the audience seemed receptive to Dr. Paul. I liked the more equitable time allotment and I think the moderator did an excellent job with keeping the others within the given time-frames. The only one who really gave her trouble was Keyes and that will only look bad on him.

Dr. Paul gave good, conciese answers and elaborated as much as possible in the given time. I think he probably picked up a few more supporters today and, hopefully, got a few more people curious enough to check him out who will become supporters after they see more of him and his consistency.

All in all, I think it went well.

Pete Kay
12-12-2007, 02:47 PM
you're wrong

Well, I see that you're an excellent debater.

Joey Wahoo
12-12-2007, 02:49 PM
I watched it online and there was no chart. From my view, Ron Paul had an outstanding debate.

That chart probably scewed viewers if you think Ron did poorly.

I watched it online too, so I don't even know what chart y'all are talking about.

Everyone critical of my original post needs to focus on what I said. I didn't say he had a good or bad debate. I said I doubt we won any new votes because of it.

I may be wrong and I hope I am, but I doubt any undecided Iowa voters watching this debate were swayed to Ron Paul as a result of it.

R_Harris
12-12-2007, 02:49 PM
Well, here is another way to look at the debate:

Do you think he LOST any supporters, or might have turned off anyone who was beginning to think about voting for him?

I am noticing SOMEWHAT of a softening up of people over on Townhall.com, although you will always have the hard core neocons who hate him over his foreign policy positions. Do you think he might have positively impacted some of these people who may have had an unfavorable view of him but are now starting to come around?

Lord Xar
12-12-2007, 02:55 PM
People say this after every debate.

yes, but the thing is.. the campaign doesn't listen or doesn't care.

I mean, if we say this EVERY debate, then his handlers must also know this.

The problem, he needs to have someone - maybe too late now, to give him 15 second bits that encapsolate each stance - as mentioned above by the OP.

grizzums
12-12-2007, 02:57 PM
Unfortunately, I agree. Debates are not the best platform for Paul to get his message across.

Just watch the CNN post-debate coverage. They are interviewing undecided Republicans who appear to be completely braindead.

Yup...Sit down interviews with Stossel are the appropriate forum for Dr. Paul to get his message out and unfortunately regardless of the fact that it would be a ratings bonanza for ABC they prefer to do their best to use a smoke screen to hide their blatant attempt to drown his message....

WE WILL NEVER STAND FOR IT! THIS IS ABOUT MORE THAN DR PAUL...THIS A MOVEMENT DAMMIT >>>> A REVOLUTION!

Everyone keep your focus...."surprise, surprise" will be words used over and over again after these primaries get going, theres not a doubt in my mind.

Lord Xar
12-12-2007, 03:04 PM
I thought Ron did awesome in this debate. His answers were concise and clear and he got his message accross well.

Sorry, I DO NOT want "one-line zingers" like Alan Keyes. They doesn't sway me one bit.

Let us put it this way..

MARKETING!!!!

When you see commercials on television etc.. the MOST effective marketing campaigns are the ones who can bottle and express a sentiment in the shortest soundbite. IT DOES NOT MATTER how concise or specific - what mattes is if the JIST of the message can be delivered in an effective way. That is it.

With voters, you do NOT HAVE 10 minutes of uniterrupted time. You have 30 seconds to make a point. It is fairly obvious given that there have been numerous debates and this format is a known quantity. If you have not adjusted your message to fit the format - then you are not learning.

LSUiLike
12-12-2007, 03:05 PM
I was pretty disappointed by the debate. I'm glad it was at 200p EST on a Wednesday. I feel like Paul didn't get his message out and anyone undecided who watched on the major news networks was likely unimpressed. He kind of seemed like a one issue candidate. I'm happy we can focus on getting the message out in other ways now.

Badger Paul
12-12-2007, 03:15 PM
When it comes to Iowa, all of this debate talk and won or lost votes really doesn't matter. What matters is can you get your people to the precinct caucuses on Jan. 3 more than the other fellow. And if we do that then what happened here today or what didn't happen is moot.

drednot
12-12-2007, 03:30 PM
I just watched the Ron Paul You Tube highlights and I have to say I don't understand the negativity.

He got his points across effectively, he didn't stumble, didn't get cut off, and didn't get stumped. Better than the previous debates.

He was a little obscure on the export of manufacturing jobs, and the Cuba reference made me nervous, but at least he sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

Cinaed
12-12-2007, 03:34 PM
I just watched the Ron Paul You Tube highlights and I have to say I don't understand the negativity.

He got his points across effectively, he didn't stumble, didn't get cut off, and didn't get stumped. Better than the previous debates.

He was a little obscure on the export of manufacturing jobs, and the Cuba reference made me nervous, but at least he sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

Okay, now imagine if all the other candidates took many of Paul's position's and explained them in a more emotionally seductive manner. Then couple that with the sheepherding graph on the screen, and that equals wtf.

Wilkero
12-12-2007, 04:06 PM
To call this or any of the other gatherings where candidates get together and compete for sound bites a "debate" is undeniably misleading. This is a sound bite competition where candidates try to prey on people's emotions, biases and prejudices in order to make themselves seem more likable. It doesn't bother me at all if Ron Paul doesn't seem to do well. His positions make the most rational sense. Plus, I actually thought he performed pretty well this time.

Those immediate reaction graphs are ridiculous. All they do is gauge immediate emotional response to the speaker. Half the time, it was going up or down before they said anything substantive. That is not a good measurement of performance. Not only that, but the results can be very misleading. For example, how do they decide where the line goes that we see? Is it an average of the responses? If so, then if almost everyone gave a very mild positive response, except for a couple of people who gave very negative responses, the graph would go down significantly, given the small sample size. It's meaningless.

crasster
12-12-2007, 04:17 PM
I thought it was a pretty fair debate for the most part. I also thought Ron's answers were clear and great.

I really think this was one of the best debates for him. I don't get some of you saying it wasn't that good.

He wasn't officially screwed for time, they cut people off, and let everybody answer.

I thought his answers were A+ 100% good. I do think we gained voters today.

AlexMerced
12-12-2007, 04:20 PM
we'll always get votes with every debate, even alan keys will get votes from this debate

austin356
12-12-2007, 04:24 PM
We will do better when Keyes, Hunter, and Tancredo (second favorite) get off the stage.

Their following is soo minimal it will do nothing to increase the "splitting up the vote" effect, but continues to harm Paul by making the debates more about sound bites. Less candidates = better discussion.

Richandler
12-12-2007, 04:27 PM
People don't want freedoms it's simple as that.

yaz
12-12-2007, 04:42 PM
Huckabee just practices funny things to say over and over before he gets on stage. He said, "Weapons of mass instruction" when a question came up about education... That was the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life but apparently people enjoy that kind of rhetoric.

AlexMerced
12-12-2007, 04:50 PM
I think we did well, there was no in fighting so there no oppuruntiy for RP to own someone, but he go to actually explain his views which I think will do more good than spiffy fights

hasan
12-12-2007, 05:02 PM
the debate was fair but the ppl turning the dials were just retarded. did anyone notice that when tancredo or huckabee say the same thing ron paul says the graph spikes but when ron paul says it the dial just dips? i hate this bias.

RedLightning
12-12-2007, 05:02 PM
I don't think anyone other then us watched the debate anyways.

Jodi
12-12-2007, 07:37 PM
Lets face it, Ron Paul is not a slick one-liner politician and he never will be. These types of events don't permit him to shine. Those of us who've seen him give a thirty minute speech know he can be dynamite. Its a pity most Americans never will.

In my opinion, he needs to understand that he must say ATTENTION GRABBING things when he only has 15 or 30 seconds to speak. Even if they are controversial. ESPECIALLY if they are controversial.

Example: Why not say "I will work to end the IRS and the income tax completely, and I will replace it with nothing."

Boom. Takes 5 seconds to say and would be the most quoted sound bite of the entire debate.

Sigh.



Lets just hope we can get the message out sufficiently before caucus day.

I beg to differ...my mom called me today, she has been Ron Pauling everyone she knows. And her cousin who isn't yet for Ron Paul called her to tell her that she thought Ron Paul did very well in the debates. Shes a little older than my mom(mom is 67). Mom thinks she is coming over to our side!!!!

Duckman
12-12-2007, 08:33 PM
Ron Paul got the recognition he has today because of these debates.

Ron Paul was around last year... and indeed, the last 29 years. Still as 100% rock solid correct as he is today. Have you read "A Foreign Policy of Freedom?" He's been saying the exact same things about interventionism and nation building since at least 1984. 1984!

What's different?

He appeared in these crappy, rigged, NATIONALLY TELEVISED debates. And despite the format, and the best efforts to ignore Ron Paul, when he talks, people LISTEN.

And some of the people who listen get active and recruit more people. And more, and more, and more.

Every debate Ron Paul appears in is a WIN. Sure, it would be even better if the moderators treated Ron like a top-tier candidate. But even when they don't, he STILL gets massive, huge, publicity.

He is about to raise 20 MILLION FREAKING DOLLARS because of his appearance in these sham debates. So don't be so quick to dismiss them!

Convert
12-12-2007, 08:37 PM
I don't want a "slick one-liner politician". I want an honest, principled statesman. TYVM

Theocrat
12-12-2007, 08:44 PM
Lets face it, Ron Paul is not a slick one-liner politician and he never will be. These types of events don't permit him to shine. Those of us who've seen him give a thirty minute speech know he can be dynamite. Its a pity most Americans never will.

In my opinion, he needs to understand that he must say ATTENTION GRABBING things when he only has 15 or 30 seconds to speak. Even if they are controversial. ESPECIALLY if they are controversial.

Example: Why not say "I will work to end the IRS and the income tax completely, and I will replace it with nothing."

Boom. Takes 5 seconds to say and would be the most quoted sound bite of the entire debate.

Sigh.

Lets just hope we can get the message out sufficiently before caucus day.

The problem with the average American is that we have short attention spans, and because our culture loves to be entertained, we tend to give audience to those of sensational character above those who are rational and cogent by nature. The latter describes the character of Congressman Paul. His answers actually require you to think, whereas the other candidates appeal to emotions or pseudo-patriotism. It's all good, though. Dr. Paul still wins all the debates because he's a true patriot!

peruvianRP
12-12-2007, 09:21 PM
i liked it . I htink serious voters liked too.

Dary
12-12-2007, 09:37 PM
I thought Ron rocked this debate. The message was and is clear. I am certain that more people were won over.

Certain!

InRonWeTrust
12-12-2007, 09:48 PM
We will do better when Keyes, Hunter, and Tancredo (second favorite) get off the stage.

Their following is soo minimal it will do nothing to increase the "splitting up the vote" effect, but continues to harm Paul by making the debates more about sound bites. Less candidates = better discussion.

You nailed it. Tancredo and Hunter need to go. They are wasting everyone's time.

Luther
12-12-2007, 09:53 PM
we'll always get votes with every debate, even alan keys will get votes from this debate

He might take a few away from Fuckabee.

Luther
12-12-2007, 09:53 PM
You nailed it. Tancredo and Hunter need to go. They are wasting everyone's time.


But they're not taking any votes away from Ron Paul, so I hope they stay in.