PDA

View Full Version : We have 3 options ...




coboman
01-03-2008, 11:55 PM
OPTION 1
Think positive.
Continue to do what we are doing, only more of it.
And believe that, while the polls in Iowa were right, the polls for NH are wrong (and the national polls, are dead wrong!).

OPTION 2
Decide to take a whole new approach.
Realize that the campaigns that are succeeding are professional in every way.
//// DEMAND to Ron Paul, to fire his current staff //// *this portion of option 2 eliminated*
DEMAND to Ron Paul to hire a new professional staff of seasoned experts.
PR people that know how to get him on TV. An advertising agency that creates compelling ads, and buys media time effectively.
DEMAND that every one of our dollars translates to votes! That includes professional coordination of buses to take people to vote.
Donate tons of money to this more effective campaign.

OPTION 3
Quit

Neo189
01-03-2008, 11:58 PM
Option 2. Definitely.

idiom
01-03-2008, 11:59 PM
Oh, woops, the options correlate to something?

robskicks
01-03-2008, 11:59 PM
Trolls

dvictr
01-04-2008, 12:00 AM
dumb ass poll

FrankRep
01-04-2008, 12:02 AM
We have double digits and we beat Rudy.

We are validated now and will be taken more seriously.

Give me liberty
01-04-2008, 12:02 AM
We have to think positive.

apc3161
01-04-2008, 12:03 AM
When I turned on the news, I heard that Hillary was paying to bus people to the caucuses, Edwards was paying for baby sitters so people could come out, Romney did all of the above and had the most efficient campaign imaginable.

Then I thought about the official Ron Paul campaign. When they came out with an infomercial, they decided to use a speech that won Ron Paul 5% of the straw poll vote a few months earlier. To a non-idiot, this would suggest that the speech wasn't very good or effective. Regardless the campaign thought it was good enough and decided to pay money to re-air this speech in 30 minute increments across Iowa.

The official campaign is out of its league. They've admitted they don't even know how to spend the money. They need to swallow their pride, admit that no one expected this much support or money, and get out of the way. We need real professionals running the campaign. They have the money, now they just need the right campaign staff.

I say to Kent Snyder the RP campaign chairman, you did a good job, thanks for getting us here, but you are now out of your league. If you really want Ron Paul to win, you will step aside and bring in real professionals who have done this stuff before and have a ton of experience. That's not to say we should fire all of the current management staffers, we just need to bring in more qualified and experienced campaign staffers.

This isn't the time to be overly kind or overly loyal. Its time to be realistic and say to ourselves that we need a real professional campaign staff to win this thing. That is the only way we can save this country.

coboman
01-04-2008, 12:04 AM
dumb ass poll
That would be option4. Please elaborate on your strategy.



We have double digits and we beat Rudy.
We are validated now and will be taken more seriously.
Guess that is option 1. What we are doing, only more of it.

jasonuher
01-04-2008, 12:05 AM
LOL, discount an option 2, I wasn't aware the options meant something.

As for my real response? Some compromise between 1 and 2.

itsnobody
01-04-2008, 12:10 AM
Positive thinking doesn't work, it's just another delusional lie, otherwise since basically all Ron Paul supporters were positive about Iowa, we should've gotten 1st place, so Option 1 is out

Option 2 sounds a bit too radical

Many people have already taken Option 3

Duckman
01-04-2008, 12:11 AM
When I turned on the news, I heard that Hillary was paying to bus people to the caucuses, Edwards was paying for baby sitters so people could come out, Romney did all of the above and had the most efficient campaign imaginable.

Then I thought about the official Ron Paul campaign. When they came out with an infomercial, they decided to use a speech that won Ron Paul 5% of the straw poll vote a few months earlier. To a non-idiot, this would suggest that the speech wasn't very good or effective. Regardless the campaign thought it was good enough and decided to pay money to re-air this speech in 30 minute increments across Iowa.

The official campaign is out of its league. They've admitted they don't even know how to spend the money. They need to swallow their pride, admit that no one expected this much support or money, and get out of the way. We need real professionals running the campaign. They have the money, now they just need the right campaign staff.

I say to Kent Snyder the RP campaign chairman, you did a good job, thanks for getting us here, but you are now out of your league. If you really want Ron Paul to win, you will step aside and bring in real professionals who have done this stuff before and have a ton of experience.

I hate to say, but if you goal is to WIN, that seems true.

stevedasbach
01-04-2008, 12:11 AM
Other.

Any "professional" PR firm would tell you that what we have done can't be done. They have no idea how to run a candidate like Dr. Paul promoting a message like his.

PR firms who have never been involved in presidential campaigns don't know how to publicise a presidential candidate.

The people with national experience on successful presidential campaigns certainly weren't available to be hired prior to Iowa. There may be some who would consider coming on board now that it has been demonstrated that enough money can be raised to run a competitive campaign and that Dr. Paul can pull double digit vote totals.

That doesn't mean the campaign doesn't need to make changes. They need to honestly examine what worked and what didn't, they need to see if they can bring on some experienced professionals, some people may need to be reassigned or replaced, and they definitely need to find a way to improve communications with the grassroots. However, firing his entire team and bringing in new people would be a complete disaster.

idiom
01-04-2008, 12:11 AM
Gotta save the money for the Super Tuesday efforts. Hillary is in serious trouble now.

Iowa was of low importance to us. The 10% has validated us though and we can get on with the campaign proper.

CrownThyGood
01-04-2008, 12:19 AM
oops 1111111111111111111

silverhandorder
01-04-2008, 12:22 AM
I do not agree with parts of option 2 so I voted for one. National campaign has to step it up. I am not against firing staff if it needs to be done. Do not forget that we are running two war machines at once. So National is only part of our strength and we need to bring it to the grass roots level. We also need to reestablish good communication between the two.

Shink
01-04-2008, 12:23 AM
Option 2 MINUS FIRING HIS STAFF. Those calling for this are just lashing out about the results here in Iowa. RON DIDN'T CAMPAIGN VERY HARD HERE FOR A REASON!!!!

RPinSEAZ
01-04-2008, 12:25 AM
This poll sounds like something set up by Fox News with it's ridiculously biased premise.

xerxesdarius
01-04-2008, 12:28 AM
All who advocate option 2, please go to CNN.com and carefully review the responses to the questions on the entrance poll.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAREP

The fact that we got 10% of these voters is ASTOUNDING!

NH, NV and WY will be different.

nc4rp
01-04-2008, 12:31 AM
our current path got us here, continue on.

SECRET ANSWER: focus chi

NYgs23
01-04-2008, 12:32 AM
A shake-up in the campaign might be a good idea, though I'm not sure exactly how it would work or even whether the grassroots could convince the campaign to do this. We don't want a bunch of handlers coming in trying to turn Ron Paul into the typical joke-cracking smarm merchant. That would just annoy him and, if he accepted their advice, he'd alienate his base. However, some professional strategists and advertizers might be OK. How do we get the campaign to hire them?

coboman
01-04-2008, 12:33 AM
This poll sounds like something set up by Fox News with it's ridiculously biased premise.

I eliminated the firing of the staff in option 2.

I did make the poll biased, but I still believe these are our options. Please elaborate on another strategy to follow.

UziSprayTF
01-04-2008, 12:36 AM
Option 1 with some sugar and spice. We need to be more focused on the church goers.

It is very simple to win over the religious right. First look up all the churches in your area and get the names of the pastor, youth pastor and deacons (titles will change depending on denomination) then look up their address using the Internets. (Serious Business)

Second visit the pastor, youth pastor and deacons and explain these simple talking points:
- Ron Paul has been faithfully married to his wife for 50 years
- Ron Paul is a deep Christian
- Ron Paul has NEVER voted against his principles
- Ron Paul is against abortion and has actually voted that way
- Ron Paul is against gay marriage

That is all you need to tell them. I have convinced so many Christians to vote for him just by saying those lines. IF, and only IF, they ask about either Huckabee or lack of MSM presence you explain that:
- Huckabee has been investigated on ethics commissions many many times
- Huckabee has pardoned criminals who later went on to brake the law again
- That Huckabee is probably trying to do what he thinks is best, but you cant ethically see yourself voting for him

on MSM presence you need to frame it as the *SECULAR* media that does not want Ron Paul to be heard, even though he has raised the most amount of money.

But really, all you should need is the talking points above. What happens after that is the pastor will talk to his deacons about the election and the deacons to their wives and the wives to the other church members and it spirals from there. Karl Rove is not stupid when he went after that section of the GOP for Bush, we NEED them if we are going to win.