Poll: Should Paul Make it a Priority to Come Prepared With More Numbers?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Not just a straight poll, but I want to hear what people think. I don't want him to change who he is in any way. He's an intellectual to me, and a happy grandpa to some. Nothing wrong with that. Reasonable numbers or facts won't change that. I have my own opinion. Here it is.




You make an excellent point here. It is imperative that Ron Paul have the facts and figures at his fingertips when answering questions that have and will come up repeatedly during the campaign. The campaign needs to take some of the money raised to hire a top notch research team to delve into relevant facts and figures.
Ron Paul simply must be much better prepared to answer with specifics than he was on the Russert show today. This is a far different thing than hiring a media consultant to conduct focus group sessions to find out what he "should" say. If you abolish the IRS, where will the money come from to fund the necessary functions of government? Potential supporters want a specific answer to this question with facts and figures related to today's budget. How many military bases are there around the world and how many troops and specifically how much money will be saved if they are brought home? Here again, he needs to give specific numbers.

I think Ron did very well today, but I believe the campaign staff should have done a much better job of providing him with specific facts to use in answering possible questions that they might have anticipated that Russert would ask.

I agree. I'm purposely quoting the entire post because i think the entire post is important.

Ya know when I really cringed today?? When Russert... pretty much twice... said "Do you know what the number is?" The he let Ron stall for a while. Then Russert said "I know the number. This is the number. Now what do you think?"

He should know the numbers, because his philosophy is unusually sound. When he doesn't come up with solid and accurate figures, it makes it sound like he hasn't thought it through. A lot of us know that's not the case, but figures help.

Pretty much, he needs to start applying the philosophies to real numbers. They'll hold up. He'll also be taking the lead in that area. Seriously, wtf does "I'll make sure everyone has healthcare" mean? The best thing Paul could do is start talking about real numbers, then expect that of other candidates as well.



I don't really care about semantics, speech impediments, or smooth talking. I really care more about Ron citing facts, sources, statistics, numbers...he needs to lay out specific plans, immediate action.

All it really takes is for an aide to guide him through the steps. It'll just be emphasizing what he already stands for.


Agree, totally. Ron should have numbers, given that people are uncomfortable with the sort of change he's proposing. Then, he should also expect numbers of the costs to the country that other candidates would like to incur. Think about it... Ron's the only one talking about savings. He can justify the savings with philosophy, but people still expect numbers. Every other candidate needs to justify their spending. Let's see that exchange take place. :)

Ron needs numbers.

[Ron LOL]

I think Ron Paul's point is that the numbers don't matter. I don't know if I agree with him here, but I think this is his point.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

We know that. We're here. Some people need the numbers, and we want to oblige them, because the numbers are sound. They're mostly cuts. Not spending projections. Everyone else will have spending projections. Not to mention, if Ron's talking about abolishing the income tax, it's reasonable for him to know how much revenue disappears. Wouldn't we expect that from another candidate? Not to mention, it's as close to fact as you can get.

[homah]

It makes no sense not to have as much information as possible. You don't need to quote the numbers during every interview, but when someone like Russert asks a pointed question about exactly how much money we would save by eliminating xyz and Paul says he doesn't know the number, it doesn't come off well.

[Paulitician]

It's a plus but I'm not too worried about it. Even I didn't know how many troops exactly are on foreign soil. But then again, I'm with Ron on this one that I see it more ideologically: I don't know the exact number I just know it's far too many.

Having numbers would make his arguments more convincing because they do give the audience a sense of things.

[takadi]

I think Ron Paul's point is that the numbers don't matter. I don't know if I agree with him here, but I think this is his point.

What??

His main policies are getting rid of the income tax and reforming monetary policy! How don't numbers matter!? Yes the philosophical goal is behind it, but no one is going to believe it if you don't back it up with sources or numbers.

I'm sure I could run on getting rid of world hunger and providing ponies to every little girl. The philosophical intentions are good, but where's the realism? Where are the facts and evidence that it's feasible?

Of course my example was hyperbole, but people do think that abolishing the income tax is whacko. Ron needs to back it up with concrete numbers to prove his detractors wrong

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Of course my example was hyperbole, but people do think that abolishing the income tax is whacko. Ron needs to back it up with concrete numbers to prove his detractors wrong

And he can come up with reasonable figures that will hold up to reasonable scrutiny. I wouldn't support him otherwise, and I know many of you wouldn't.

Ron can give real numbers on his cuts. We know it. Let's see Hillary explain how much we're paying for all of those Christmas gifts she'd like to give us.

[johnscr]

And he can come up with reasonable figures that will hold up to reasonable scrutiny. I wouldn't support him otherwise, and I know many of you wouldn't.

Ron can give real numbers on his cuts. We know it. Let's see Hillary explain how much we're paying for all of those Christmas gifts she'd like to give us.

And what would you have him base those numbers on ? There is no question whatsoever that it is possible to cut enough from the budget to eliminate the income tax. The bigger question is whether the political will exists in Congress to make those cuts.

The actual numbers will based on many factors. What will the budget and deficit be in 2010, the first budget he would get to work on ? What would congress allow to be cut ? These things will determine what is cut and how much.

Do you have any doubts that Ron Paul and his advisers cannot add and subtract properly when the time is right ? Or that he won't do whatever he can to make those cuts ?

Citing precise numbers now just leaves him open to attack later on when reality dictates the proper course of action.

[Bold As Love]

They say that 86.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.;)

Seriously though, Clinton was a master at quoting stats and numbers and I think he kind of charmed/hypnotized the MSM types with this kind of thing. He must have been fairly accurate or they surely would have called him on it, right?

I don't know, to me, Reagan was a bit of a story teller. I don't remember him being a big stat guy, yet I think he was incredible with communicating his message.

I think the strength with Ron Paul is in the substance of his message. Russert was well-prepared with his numbers today and likely highlighted that in his scouting report for this interview.

I don't personally trust number quoters too much, but I do see your point. I was most impressed with the appearance on C-Span the other night with the stump speech in NH "eggs and politics".

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

And what would you have him base those numbers on ? There is no question whatsoever that it is possible to cut enough from the budget to eliminate the income tax. The bigger question is whether the political will exists in Congress to make those cuts.

The actual numbers will based on many factors. What will the budget and deficit be in 2010, the first budget he would get to work on ? What would congress allow to be cut ? These things will determine what is cut and how much.

Do you have any doubts that Ron Paul and his advisers cannot add and subtract properly when the time is right ? Or that he won't do whatever he can to make those cuts ?

Citing precise numbers now just leaves him open to attack later on when reality dictates the proper course of action.

I agree with you for the most part. But why is it that Russert can come up with a plausible number and Paul can't? I'm not new to economics or statistics. You don't have to explain the finer points to me. Maybe you're sophisticated enough to take apart Russert's number and explain the flaws there. For the most part, it's pretty reasonable to take tax receipts from prior years, economic growth, adjust for upward tax brackets, etc, etc to get a reasonable figure for the next year or two. We have a country full of economists that do that all the time.

My point is that Paul should be in the ballpark. "I dunno" isn't acceptable for the spending plans of any other candidate. Why should "I dunno" be acceptable from Paul? It's not. He doesn't have to call it a fact. He can provide the math, open it to professional scrutiny, or whatever. "I dunno" isn't good enough. If you're worried about him getting nailed down on a dollar value, then have him suggest a range. That's fair, responsible, and a lot better than "Ummmm, I'm not really sure." when he's talking about what seems like a radical proposal to the average person.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I think the strength with Ron Paul is in the substance of his message.

It is, but everybody doesn't understand algebra. Similarly, macroeconomics is hard for a lot of people. People who study math with peers will find that there are some people who can intuitively figure out what a variable in a large equation is doing without working it out. Without bringing some numbers into it, we're asking regular people to solve equations for different variables and predict outcomes... all by themselves. It's too much to ask of people to solve these things on their own in abstract, when some real numbers can be applied. Nobody learns math starting with algebra.

[Joe3113]

Bah! You can use statistics to prove anything.......40 percent of all people know that.

[Paul4Prez]

The danger of trying to dazzle them with numbers is twofold: the audience might get bored and tune out, or you might mix up the numbers and get skewered in the media for it.

No one else has a detailed budget plan out yet. Those details should be worked out during the general election campaign. For right now, saying he will save hundreds of billions by bringing the troops home, and eliminating all foreign aid and the departments of Education and Energy is more than enough detail, along with the fact that federal government receipts would be at about the level of 1997 if the income tax were repealed.

[Corydoras]

If he can remember "600,000" about the Civil War, he can learn a few other numbers.
He's a doctor, after all.

[jorlowitz]

Even if the actual numbers are not as important as the overall thrust of the philosophy, Paul cannot pretend they're irrelevant.

For one, as a person immersed in reading about these issues, it seems that Paul would have come across them in the past and be able to recall them like he recalls other quotes and rhetorical moves. When he does not, it makes it seem like he has only a loose grasp of the debate.

Secondly, as a person promoting MAJOR changes, in order to convince others, Paul could be more not less aware of the reality that he wants to change. This protects him from the charge that his libertarian philosophy is merely academic--something that works on paper but cannot take the real world into account.

Thirdly, as a person running for president of the United States, Paul's ability to demonstrate a SERIOUS commitment to these changes and to convincing other people of their worth is something that would help him. He cannot go around acting like these issues are decided simply because Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises said so. Most people have never heard of them. Most people don't agree with Ayn Rand. Most people don't understand the details and are not familiar with the premises of Ron Paul's approach. If he wants to bring more people aboard he could aim more at being a teacher--who is ready and willing to take questions--and less like the doctor who simply writes you a prescription and then moves onto the next patient.

*note: I know Paul is often on the defensive, and therefore looking to counterpunch, but he could be proactive and LEAD the interview towards the issues he wants to cover. Paul's campaign will not grow if he simply 'responds' to the charges against him. He could start at the beginning and lay out his entire philosophy piece by piece...