Should We Stay Below the Radar?

[stewie3128]

As I was writing in to Jack Cafferty, it occurred to me that if I claimed that we were going to surprise everyone in the upcoming primaries and caucuses with our huge numbers, that that could backfire, and motivate the other candidates' supporters to show up if they knew their establishment candidates were threatened.

So, should we:

A.) remain quiet lull the other camps into laziness, or
B.) proclaim our revolution and our numbers and attract more supporters to our cause?

Vote now.

Edit: I realized that the title of the thread and the poll question actually ask the opposite things. Please double-check the poll question before voting.:o

[tomveil]

The only reason really to "stay under the radar" would be so there's no attacks from the other candidates.

Luckily for us, Ron Paul has never heard a question he can't answer honestly. Even the obviously slanted debate questions he handles well and with the truth.

I'm not scared of attacks. It will only increase the support as more people hear him answer.

[AisA1787]

I vote for both. Let's proclaim the revolution to people we meet every day and attract them to the cause. Even if you're not in an early primary state (like me) it always helps to get more donors. On the other hand, I'm concerned that if we keep e-mailing the media with messages like "A very high percentage of Paul supporters will actually saddle up and vote, compared to everyone else who will have the usual low turnout, therefore we'll win," it could possibly backfire. That's not a reason to stop e-mailing the media, but if it were me, I'd leave that small argument out... and include everything else, of course.

[celticsman7]

I think our best chance is to stay under the radar. Get third in Iowa (which is fine), get at least third in New Hampshire. We'll be able to steadily rise and then we strike on January 19. That's our only chance to win this thing (assuming no voter fraud). The 19th is Nevada and South Carolina. We have a great chance to win Nevada which is a caucus and come in at least second in South Carolina. Then we ride this momentum into February 5th and win a good amount of Super Tuesday states.

That's our best shot. Stay low. Don't peak too soon.

[snaFU]

I think our best chance is to stay under the radar. Get third in Iowa (which is fine), get at least third in New Hampshire. We'll be able to steadily rise and then we strike on January 19. That's our only chance to win this thing (assuming no voter fraud). The 19th is Nevada and South Carolina. We have a great chance to win Nevada which is a caucus and come in at least second in South Carolina. Then we ride this momentum into February 5th and win a good amount of Super Tuesday states.

That's our best shot. Stay low. Don't peak too soon.

lol, voter fraud.

[Adamsa]

We can be as loud as we want to, they'll dismiss and underestimate us anyway, may as well try to do our best.

[MrCobaltBlue]

The only reason really to "stay under the radar" would be so there's no attacks from the other candidates.

What is there to attack? Some debunked myths of Ron Paul being "Racists"? That he's been married to the same woman for 50 years? That he votes with honesty and integrity? That he's more Christian than anyone of those bible thumper on stage without even saying one word about it (Love thy neighbor anyone?)?

Every time in a debate when a candidate tries to attack him he makes them look like a fool.

[Patriot]

We should DOMINATE the radar!

[bgky4paul]

:D:D:D LOL at thread topic!

As if we have a choice! ;)

I love a good mid-winter shocker to get everyone's juices flowing.

[malibu]

We'll be able to steadily rise and then we strike on January 19. . . .The 19th is Nevada and South Carolina. We have a great chance to win Nevada which is a caucus and come in at least second in South Carolina. Then we ride this momentum into February 5th and win a good amount of Super Tuesday states.


Not a bad idea overall for the January 19 peak --
but with two weeks to Iowa . . .
it ain't such a bad time to warm the jets for mach speed either.

Iowa's Libertarian 2004 US Senate candidate Christy Ann Welty was among the audience at Ron Paul's Univ of Iowa first visit in April -
and we always have thought at least second in the caucus voting was do-able with her 15,000 + voters waiting in the wings
along with another 11,000 Green Party 2004 US Senate candidate voters.

It has always been the surprise second place finish in Iowa - sometimes second to uncommitted (i.e. Jimmy Carter) esp. on the Dem caucus side - which is more complicated.

At GOP caucuses we only need to vote and go at the bare minimum - no 15% bartering bullsh%t.

[westmich4paul]

I think our best chance is to stay under the radar. Get third in Iowa (which is fine), get at least third in New Hampshire. We'll be able to steadily rise and then we strike on January 19. That's our only chance to win this thing (assuming no voter fraud). The 19th is Nevada and South Carolina. We have a great chance to win Nevada which is a caucus and come in at least second in South Carolina. Then we ride this momentum into February 5th and win a good amount of Super Tuesday states.

That's our best shot. Stay low. Don't peak too soon.

and you missed Michigan? jeesh!

[westmich4paul]

I think that is our definate strngth that they ignore is that we are a dedicated bunch and will show in masses come primary day

[Liberty Star]

I don't think it is possible for Ron Paul disciples to stay below the radar :)

They are a fired up, energetic bunch.

[PledgeForPaul]

I think our best chance is to stay under the radar. Get third in Iowa (which is fine), get at least third in New Hampshire. We'll be able to steadily rise and then we strike on January 19. That's our only chance to win this thing (assuming no voter fraud). The 19th is Nevada and South Carolina. We have a great chance to win Nevada which is a caucus and come in at least second in South Carolina. Then we ride this momentum into February 5th and win a good amount of Super Tuesday states.

That's our best shot. Stay low. Don't peak too soon.

We still have a lot of work to do if we want 3rd in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[WilliamC]

The time for laying low is past. Now is the time to rise up and claim this election for Ron Paul.

[CelestialRender]

The correct answer is either...each one in its own time.

Be secretive if you have enough supporters, but they do not.

Be open if they have enough supporters, but you do not.

[CelestialRender]

I don't think it is possible for Ron Paul disciples to stay below the radar :)

They are a fired up, energetic bunch.

Any RP supporters who ARE flying under the radar, make sure not to blow your cover by responding to this. ;)

[charger]

I think we should lay low. With the lack luster competition I don't think they will have a big turnout in the primaries.
Trying to move sheep to vote for Dr. Paul will be difficult. They travel with the herd.
Dr. Pauls supporters are the citizens in this country that don't want or need big brother to hold their hand.
Many of the older American's are afraid of freedom. My family included.
They grew up in an era that the government promised them they would be there for them.
If Dr. Paul becomes a real threat they will Lie to the Sr's. The media and establishment will tell them that he will take away their social security and they will be out voting in record numbers.The Sr's have nothing to do all day but to take time to go vote.
Sr's in my family are easily scared and led.
I say cruise under the radar until we make our first strikes. Then the main stream establishment will have little time to mobilize their herd!

[ShowMeLiberty]

Edit: I realized that the title of the thread and the poll question actually ask the opposite things. Please double-check the poll question before voting.:o

:( I voted first and it turns out I voted wrong.

I say YES - stay under the radar. We'll have far more voters going to primaries than anybody else that way.

[Cleaner44]

At my signal... unleash hell