PDA

View Full Version : I am confused




BillyDkid
01-09-2008, 08:06 AM
Okay, I have to admit I was furious about NH. It strikes me as simply absurd that we came in 5th in the Live Free or Die state. There is just no excuse for it. Then I read where someone posted that part of the strategy was not to win in NH. I find this incredibly implausible. The only way we gain credibility is to do well in the voting. That is the only way. And now the media has further excuse for ignoring and dismissing us. And all the new donors we would have gotten by a good showing - gone. I'm sorry and you can call me names - but this falls on the campaign. We did not have a fraction of the TV advertising of the other candidates and why? To be frugal with the 20 million we sent to the campaign?

Chris Matthews said and the other pundits agreed that McCain now has clear sailing to the nomination. I don't actually believe that, but you know as well as I do that the media creates self fulfilling prophecies. If people hear that constantly they take it forgranted that it is true. This idea of being conservative with your cash for the long run win each defeat makes you seem more and more unviable to the populace at large is mind boggling. The campaign should have made a MAJOR investment of time and money in NH. Instead we ended fulfilling the medias expectations and proving them right. It has to stop and there has to be a new strategy. There has to be a real effort by the campaign to win.

They need to take the risk and go all in somewhere. New money can only come in from new supporters and the campaign has to make a serious effort to reach those people and make them hear us. Optimism is fine, but realism is the only thing that is going to win us the nomination. God is NOT going to reach down and magically open people's hearts to the message of liberty. This is not a fairy tale and the good guys only always win in the movies. The grassroots has more than done their part and they will continue to do so - until they reach the point where they feel it is hopeless and each bad showing pushes us closer and closer to that point. This has to be turned around and it has to start to happen now.

The campaign has to start playing like they are in the big leagues and like they are as good as the other guys. There was no excuse for not winning or at least doing very well in NH and to loose to the likes of McCain (the 100 years war) and Huckabee and Guiliani in this state is simply infuriating. I'm done losing and the campaign needs to make up its mind that it is done too. They have to get out of this underdog/also ran mind set and stop depending on people like us to make this happen because we can't do it for ourselves. We can wave all the signs in the world and march down the street and knock on doors, but we can not have a fraction of the influence that mass media does and if the media will not give us the time and the credibility that they give to the likes of Huckabee and McCain then we have to buy it ourselves.

The campaign has to produce professional and effective adds and present Dr. Paul as a man who people can envision as their commander in chief. Most people are simply not smart enough to really understand the message - but they do understand the trillion dollar deficit and they do understand people dying pointlessly and they do understand not being able to pay for healthcare and they can understand that inflation is making their money worthless. We can not win the game unless we are in it and up to this point it seems the campaign has been playing and pretending at running for President. They need hired guns who understand the game. I love that Dr. Paul doesn't have a huge staff of high paid advisors telling him what to say and that he doesn't base his opinions on opinion polls, but they need to spend some of that money on political professionals who know how to make things happen. This is crunch time. We'll wave signs and knock on doors and we'll give them the money, but they need to start using it like we are playing in the big leagues. My two cents. Please don't flame me. I don't flame others for their opinions.

MsDoodahs
01-09-2008, 08:12 AM
Seems to be a contradiction, doesn't it?

The most libertarian candidate in the race comes in 5th in the state we've all been told is THE most libertarian leaning in the country.

Contradictions do not exist.

When you think you see one, recheck your premises.

Do that.

:)

Wyurm
01-09-2008, 08:33 AM
The idea is this. Would it be better to waste all the money on the two first states? or would the money be better spent on a great big gob of states?

BillyDkid
01-09-2008, 08:44 AM
The idea is this. Would it be better to waste all the money on the two first states? or would the money be better spent on a great big gob of states?I disagree with your premise that spending the money on the early primaries is wasting it (and I certainly don't mean blowing your whole wad) - but unless we are seen as viable as indicated by early results our hopes in the big states become exponentially less plausible. If we had come in second or even third - that would have been almost as big a story as McCain winning. You can have all the money in the world (as has been demonstrated in many other elections) and still not have a prayer if you are viewed as not viable. This 5th place finish in NH is a step backward however you cut it and it give us just one more obstacle to over come. With each success you gain momentum and with each failure you lose it and for us momentum and traction is everything. People - not just supporters - need to see Dr. Paul as a realistic candidate for President and every poor showing makes that harder to do.

Redcard
01-09-2008, 08:45 AM
Uh.. maybe New Hampshire isn't as Libertarian as we thought. Maybe Libertarians are not as common as we thought. I mean, even the Free State Project has only gotten 500 people or so to move, which wouldn't even be enough to move Paul from Fifth to Fourth.

The fact is, the people don't want him as president. The people who want change do not think it can come from the Republican party, the trust is GONE in that party.

It has nothing to do with Paul's message. It has everything to do with the party he's in.

SeanEdwards
01-09-2008, 08:52 AM
The idea is this. Would it be better to waste all the money on the two first states? or would the money be better spent on a great big gob of states?

Yes, because winning would generate more donations.

We don't get a prize for coming in dead last and saving money while doing it.

militant
01-09-2008, 09:20 AM
Contradictions do not exist.

When you think you see one, recheck your premises.

Do that.

:)

great use of a randian device. it's true, something is amiss, the hand-counted areas showed double digits, sometimes near or even above 20%. one would think the more populated areas, which were more likely to have the electronic counting, would have more internet users and thus a higher percentage of independents and paul supporters. there was a thread about this last night, i'm going to go look for it, i wonder what the general consensus was.

coboman
01-09-2008, 09:28 AM
The idea is this. Would it be better to waste all the money on the two first states? or would the money be better spent on a great big gob of states?
WASTE? There was no better investment than winning those two states.

They asked for 12 million to win both, and we gave them almost 20 million. Just to win those two states.

If they saved one penny to be able to go on until Feb 5th, is because they are inept.

I don't agree that this is a battle that is won in the long haul. This is a battle of perceptions, and the first impression is the longest lasting.

Removing this stigma of having finished 5th in two states, is going to cost far more money. And having finished first in any state, would have brought millions in free publicity, and a whole new base of enthusiastic donors.

InTheoryTV
01-09-2008, 09:38 AM
In regards to having less TV ads running in NH:

If I recall correctly I believe the reason was that by time we had the 2nd money bomb a lot of the TV time had already been bought up and there wasn't as many free spots open to be purchased.

webber53
01-09-2008, 09:39 AM
From ABC,
Please read!

h ttp://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

amy31416
01-09-2008, 09:46 AM
From ABC,
Please read!

h ttp://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

That's about the Democratic race, he states "On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side - where, it should be noted, we have not just one groundbreaking candidate in Barack Obama, but also another, in Hillary Clinton."

Doesn't say anything about Ron Paul or any of the other Republican candidates, except to say the polls were accurate.

BillyDkid
01-09-2008, 11:51 AM
In regards to having less TV ads running in NH:

If I recall correctly I believe the reason was that by time we had the 2nd money bomb a lot of the TV time had already been bought up and there wasn't as many free spots open to be purchased.Well, that was sort of a concern of some of us in regard to the whole money bomb approach. I have no idea what would have happened without the money bombs - maybe there would have just been less money altogether. Who knows.

Spideynw
01-09-2008, 12:21 PM
He could have spent more money, and still have come in fifth place. He is smart to save his money for other states.