Target you audience: Learn to Speak Republican

[fmontez]

Target you audience: Learn to Speak Republican

I am sure you have all noticed that National has a wide variety of Slim Jims available, each targeting a specific population. As a Precinct Captain one major mistake I have seen is this belief that all Ron Paul supporters agree with his position on the Iraq War.

Talking about the war is not the best way to approach conservative voters; I highly suggest speaking about Ron Paul’s economic platform. If you have too you can even downplay the whole Iraq war policy, after all your 99% friend is not your 1% enemy.

As a die hard Republican and Ron Paul supporter I still get my feathers in a ruffle if a fellow RP Supporter talks to firmly about the Iraq war. I also encourage supporters to not wax poetic about 9/11 conspiracy, fraud, the CFR, Diebold, and some of the other far fringe issues (let them bring up those ideas first.)

Insults and threats against other Republican Candidates, President Bush, and/or the GOP is also not a great idea when wooing a Republican.

[acptulsa]

Ronald Reagan deregulated industries, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission, did his part. Since then we've seen Republicans as likely to grow the federal government as Democrats. Just look at this huge new bureaucracy designed to stick their noses into our business.

Of this field, only Ron Paul is fit to wear Ron Reagan's mantle!

[WillInMiami]

Target you audience: Learn to Speak Republican

I am sure you have all noticed that National has a wide variety of Slim Jims available, each targeting a specific population. As a Precinct Captain one major mistake I have seen is this belief that all Ron Paul supporters agree with his position on the Iraq War.

Talking about the war is not the best way to approach conservative voters; I highly suggest speaking about Ron Paul’s economic platform. If you have too you can even downplay the whole Iraq war policy, after all your 99% friend is not your 1% enemy.

As a die hard Republican and Ron Paul supporter I still get my feathers in a ruffle if a fellow RP Supporter talks to firmly about the Iraq war. I also encourage supporters to not wax poetic about 9/11 conspiracy, fraud, the CFR, Diebold, and some of the other far fringe issues (let them bring up those ideas first.)

Insults and threats against other Republican Candidates, President Bush, and/or the GOP is also not a great idea when wooing a Republican.

I've been saying that on this board for several months. So many of the people here thought they could convert enough democrats to win the nomination and I've been telling them it was a pipe-dream. Did they listen? Did they get pissed and say nasty shit to me? You can answer those questions I'm sure...

PS. I've been a conservative/republican since I was 17 (35 now). Still - none of the young people here bothered to listen. They talk MUCH more than they listen...

[billjarrett]

Ronald Reagan deregulated industries, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission, did his part. Since then we've seen Republicans as likely to grow the federal government as Democrats. Just look at this huge new bureaucracy designed to stick their noses into our business.

Of this field, only Ron Paul is fit to wear Ron Reagan's mantle!

I agree with the premise of this thread, that economy is issue #1 when cavassing. Just a question though, since it's mentioned in this quote. I am normally a deregulating, free market kind of guy. However, I think the media conglomerations that have happened since Reagan put an end to the rules on how much of the media these people can own has really had bad effects. This is one issue that I have trouble with conflicting beliefs of my own. Anyone have a perspective on this? How we can deregulate media, but not end up with Murdochs?

[JohnnyWrath]

Noticed the same thing...many in the grassroots are not only NOT targeting Republicans, they slam on them every chance they get.....then wonder why he didn't do as well as they hoped in a Republican primary. Many seem to believe that people who have never cared or voted will somehow rise up and overtake the major parties...

Also, people get angry every time Ron Paul tries to target Republicans...it is silly at times.

[vauge]

As a die hard Republican and Ron Paul supporter I still get my feathers in a ruffle if a fellow RP Supporter talks to firmly about the Iraq war. I also encourage supporters to not wax poetic about 9/11 conspiracy, fraud, the CFR, Diebold, and some of the other far fringe issues (let them bring up those ideas first.)

Insults and threats against other Republican Candidates, President Bush, and/or the GOP is also not a great idea when wooing a Republican.

QFT!

[Goldwater Conservative]

You should mention it, because they'll eventually find out anyway and probably from someone you don't want explaining Paul's position (Democrat: "I LOVE Paul's position on the war!" or Republican: "Cut and run OMG the Ayrabs are in your cereal!").

You should mention his position on taxes, spending, federalism, gun rights, property rights, and border security... but then frame his position on the Iraq war in traditionally conservative language about "America first" and the economic repercussions of nation-building and being stretched so thin. Cite the "violence down by 90% in Basra after the British left" figure if you have to, because "leaving a vacuum" is usually their main concern.

Remember, he's for a strong national defense and military, but opposed to what is effectively "socialism for the world at America's expense even as the world continually disrespects America." He IS not against intelligence agencies, he just wants to rebuild them so they DON'T get us into messes and DO give us the information we need to prevent terrorist attacks. Paul HAS said that taking action when there is an imminent threat is on the table (that is, he wouldn't sit around if he KNEW something bad was going to happen).

Generally, don't get into "blowback" other than to explain his position is NOT "blame America" defeatism or pacifism and IS a hypothesis supported by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report. Mention that he stood with Reagan on SDI when many others laughed at the idea (correct me if I'm wrong about that). Describe him as a "Goldwater conservative" who even has Goldwater's very conservative son actively supporting him. He also gets the most donations from members of the military, and was himself drafted into the Air Force during the Cuban missile crisis and proudly served as a flight surgeon.

Those are just some suggestions based on my experience with trying to convert so-called conservative Republicans. And remember, Reagan also "couldn't win"... until he swept incumbent Jimmy Carter 44 states to 6, and challenger Walter Mondale 49 states to 1 four years later. :)

[Zyphlin]

Target you audience: Learn to Speak Republican

I am sure you have all noticed that National has a wide variety of Slim Jims available, each targeting a specific population. As a Precinct Captain one major mistake I have seen is this belief that all Ron Paul supporters agree with his position on the Iraq War.

Talking about the war is not the best way to approach conservative voters; I highly suggest speaking about Ron Paul’s economic platform. If you have too you can even downplay the whole Iraq war policy, after all your 99% friend is not your 1% enemy.

As a die hard Republican and Ron Paul supporter I still get my feathers in a ruffle if a fellow RP Supporter talks to firmly about the Iraq war. I also encourage supporters to not wax poetic about 9/11 conspiracy, fraud, the CFR, Diebold, and some of the other far fringe issues (let them bring up those ideas first.)

Insults and threats against other Republican Candidates, President Bush, and/or the GOP is also not a great idea when wooing a Republican.


I've been saying that on this board for several months. So many of the people here thought they could convert enough democrats to win the nomination and I've been telling them it was a pipe-dream. Did they listen? Did they get pissed and say nasty shit to me? You can answer those questions I'm sure...

PS. I've been a conservative/republican since I was 17 (35 now). Still - none of the young people here bothered to listen. They talk MUCH more than they listen...

Excellent point. I'm a moderate republican on the fence about Ron Paul right now. I agree with him on a vast majority of his domestic issues and agree with a lot of his foreign policy. My biggest sticking point in regards to policy is his immediate Iraq pull out. That is something I disagree with. Now for me, I'm a very politically interested and inclined person. I was able to hear his stance on that and not disqualify him completely which allowed me to learn about his other positions.

For many people, they will listen to the stances of your candidate up until the point that they hit something they really don't like, and then they will hear no more. At that point they won't research any farther either. If the first thing you tell them is the War stance, and they dislike that greatly, you've lost them.

Conversely, if you tell them about economic policy, gun control policy, immigration policy, educational policy, and then move into foreign policy and then finally the War what you've done is left them with enough information for them to go "You know, I disagree with him on the war, but I really liked X, Y, and Z..." where as you'd have just "I disagree with him on the war" if you lead with that.

New Hampshire was a good sign of something Ron Paul supporters must understand. While it is true that many in the GOP are upset with the Iraq War and would rather us not be there, that does not necessarily correlate with wanting us to pull out immediately. Many feel that despite not wanting to be over there, at this point we are too far entrenched in there and too much at stake, and to leave without making sure everything is stable and settled would not only be a waste of all the money we’ve spent but would likely cause use MORE trouble in the future and in 5-10 years we’d have to be going back in there to fix the mess we left.

In regards to the more “fringe” stuff, I can’t agree more. There’s a reason these things are called “fringe”. They are not part of the mainstream. Perhaps you think they should be, or that everyone is “sheeple”, but the fact of the matter that crusading about it while trying to gain a vote is going to lose you more supporters then it gains. Conspiracy theories have always been a thing that is generally held by a minority of people, and for the simple reason that many of them take a very specific mind set or leap of faith to believe the “facts” as presented. The 9/11 truthers one for example means you have to have the mindset that the federal government would willing kill a vast amount of their people knowingly in a covert op and be able to cover it up (you must convince an American public that thinks that the government can’t deal with immigration correctly that they could pull this off) or that somehow there is a great network of jewish people that are specifically out to get us for their own power. With the basic fact that the majority of the population do not have the mindsets needed for these type of things, I’d highly agree that keeping away from them when trying to bring people into voting for your guy is extremely intelligent.

[MikeStanart]

If you're campaigning for Paul; don't try and campaign on issues that Paul has spoken out against. You're simply hurting your candidate's credibility.

You know who you are.

[WillInMiami]

If you're campaigning for Paul; don't try and campaign on issues that Paul has spoken out against. You're simply hurting your candidate's credibility.

You know who you are.


BINGO! Tell REPUBLICANS things that they will like! Pro-gun, Pro-state's rights, pro-property ownership, pro-individual, pro-free market, smaller federal government with fewer powers, etc...

[acptulsa]

If you're campaigning for Paul; don't try and campaign on issues that Paul has spoken out against. You're simply hurting your candidate's credibility.

I almost agree completely. His anti-tax voting record, however, is his greatest asset as far as the mainstream Republican is concerned.

[Blowback]

Their Takin Our Jobz!!!!

[fmontez]

I've been saying that on this board for several months. So many of the people here thought they could convert enough democrats to win the nomination and I've been telling them it was a pipe-dream. Did they listen? Did they get pissed and say nasty shit to me? You can answer those questions I'm sure...

PS. I've been a conservative/republican since I was 17 (35 now). Still - none of the young people here bothered to listen. They talk MUCH more than they listen...

You speak the truth, if anyone believes that liberals and marxists will give up their nanny/welfare state because of the Iraq war they are sadly mistaken. Ron Paul will rise or fall on the sails of the GOP. The more we go after liberal voters the more we alienate Republicans..

[S3eker]

Learn to speak neo-con

[Thom1776]

"The SURGE is working."

If that's what they want to hear, then tell them that. That means that our troops can start coming home soon.

The main issue now is THE ECONOMY!

We can save billions of dollars by turning over more control to the Iraqi government and bringing more and more of our troops home.

[Anti Federalist]

BINGO! Tell REPUBLICANS things that they will like! Pro-gun, Pro-state's rights, pro-property ownership, pro-individual, pro-free market, smaller federal government with fewer powers, etc...

I did.

You know what?

They were not very interested.

The war and the terrorists behind every rock and tree were about it.

[zakkubin]

I'm short on time now but the presentation I use works nearly 100% of the time.

I focus on the BIG PICTURE and what makes Paul right. I show David Walker talking about how much in BILLIONS we need to save. I carry current event topics to show EVIDENCE of our nations economy. EX: yesterday Citigroup had to be bailed out by a Saudi Prince b.c. China refused to loan the money.

I end up showing how to save our country we have two options:

1- cut entitlement programs here, deny social security to baby boomers, etc.

or

2- cut spending over seas. Use money saved to pay for promised programs here and allow people to opt out.


The winner is when I summarize up all the others.

Democrats- plan to raise taxes on rich to save us.

Republicans- plan to cut taxes to grow economy.

I use walkers stats to show how ridiculous both of these are. We would have to pay over 100% in taxes and or double our economy for 20 straight years.


I say that both parties know about this "big problem" but won't address it since it's politically not good to say your going to cut billions in spending. Instead they are putting it on a credit card for our children to pay.

People understand credit cards and especially the interest rates that compounds.

With my presentation they immediately feel betrayed by whatever party they are in.

From here it's all about adaption. I can mold EVERY policy they bring up to support this initial big picture

[N13]

Keep it simple

balanced budget
reduced spending
reduced waste
lower taxes
Stronger dollar
better treatment for the troops
the constitution is the guide

If they ask a question about something, THEN provide some detail.

[jrich4rpaul]

This is a great post. When talking to Republicans we need to stress Immigration, Health Care, and the Economy.

Democrats are more welcoming to Paul's Foreign Policy.

Almost nobody wants to hear about 9/11 conspiracies, the CFR, the NAU, etc. I'm not saying they're not important (and 9/11 conspiracies have NOTHING TO DO WITH RON PAUL), it just requires too much thinking for the average Fox News viewer.

[JohnnyWrath]

When talking to Republicans we need to stress Immigration, Health Care, and the Economy.

+1.5

[hawks4ronpaul]

Excellent point. I'm a moderate republican on the fence about Ron Paul right now. I agree with him on a vast majority of his domestic issues and agree with a lot of his foreign policy. My biggest sticking point in regards to policy is his immediate Iraq pull out. That is something I disagree with. Now for me, I'm a very politically interested and inclined person. I was able to hear his stance on that and not disqualify him completely which allowed me to learn about his other positions.

For many people, they will listen to the stances of your candidate up until the point that they hit something they really don't like, and then they will hear no more. At that point they won't research any farther either. If the first thing you tell them is the War stance, and they dislike that greatly, you've lost them.

Conversely, if you tell them about economic policy, gun control policy, immigration policy, educational policy, and then move into foreign policy and then finally the War what you've done is left them with enough information for them to go "You know, I disagree with him on the war, but I really liked X, Y, and Z..." where as you'd have just "I disagree with him on the war" if you lead with that.

New Hampshire was a good sign of something Ron Paul supporters must understand. While it is true that many in the GOP are upset with the Iraq War and would rather us not be there, that does not necessarily correlate with wanting us to pull out immediately. Many feel that despite not wanting to be over there, at this point we are too far entrenched in there and too much at stake, and to leave without making sure everything is stable and settled would not only be a waste of all the money we’ve spent but would likely cause use MORE trouble in the future and in 5-10 years we’d have to be going back in there to fix the mess we left.

In regards to the more “fringe” stuff, I can’t agree more. There’s a reason these things are called “fringe”. They are not part of the mainstream. Perhaps you think they should be, or that everyone is “sheeple”, but the fact of the matter that crusading about it while trying to gain a vote is going to lose you more supporters then it gains. Conspiracy theories have always been a thing that is generally held by a minority of people, and for the simple reason that many of them take a very specific mind set or leap of faith to believe the “facts” as presented. The 9/11 truthers one for example means you have to have the mindset that the federal government would willing kill a vast amount of their people knowingly in a covert op and be able to cover it up (you must convince an American public that thinks that the government can’t deal with immigration correctly that they could pull this off) or that somehow there is a great network of jewish people that are specifically out to get us for their own power. With the basic fact that the majority of the population do not have the mindsets needed for these type of things, I’d highly agree that keeping away from them when trying to bring people into voting for your guy is extremely intelligent.

I agree.

Bottom line: It is not about your issues. It is about the voter's issues.

Step #1 Learn the voter's issue.
Step #2 Explain how RP solves his/her issue.

The voter will do half your work for you if you listen before talking.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/