Rebel Resource
01-16-2008, 03:36 PM
Here's how the debate might have gone the day after the Tea Party.
Staffer A (The realist)
Staffer B (The fresh-faced optimist)
Staffer C (The cautious pragmatist)
A: We've got a truck full of cash now! And there'll be another money bomb in January for sure!
B: We should start hitting New Hampshire and South Carolina in a really big way, to try for a 2nd/3rd combo, and thus eliminate the unelectability cloud hanging over Paul's head before Super Tuesday.
C: Hold your horses -- Ron is still totally unknown to 60% of America. If we start to spend in a serious way so soon, our effectiveness dollar for dollar is going to be extremely poor.
A: We know we have a solid grassroots base of between 5% and 15% in all the states of America. And we didn't spend a penny on them. It was all because of internet chatter.
B: What are you saying -- we aren't going to spend this money on the early states? If we don't secure a 3rd place before Super Tuesday, that might turn lots of our supporters away. Our next money bomb might then be a disappointment and we'd lose momentum.
C: If you know our base, they aren’t going anywhere. They certainly won't go to any other campaign. A small minority might stop donating or lose hope, but the majority are dedicated. So we should go easy on the spending in the early states, because we can trust our base to come out and vote.
A: This is a true grassroots campaign -- it cannot be stopped. The message spreads from friends, to family, to colleagues, and it's deceivingly slow, but the curve will eventually take off in a big way. I think we just need to pick off the two weakest candidates in the minds of the public before Florida. We don't need to burn too much cash to achieve this, surely.
B: You may be right. But I don't know how we can compete on Super Tuesday without at least a 2nd place somewhere beforehand. There are two major reasons to spend big in NH and SC and arrive at Super Tuesday with a 3rd place average: to solve the 'unelectability problem' and to attract increasing amounts of funds. We'd probably end up with considerably more money if we average 3rd than if we average 4th, thereby justifying such major spending early on.
C: It sounds like a big gamble. What if we spend big and still average 4th? The bang for our buck does not exist right now....the longer we wait to spend, the more time we have to build the foundations. The safest option, as I see it, is to let the grassroots do a lot of the early work for us, and maximise our opportunities in the mainstream media. Of course we should spend, but only just enough so that the primary states know Paul's face, his basic message, and so that our grassroots canvassers have all the basic materials they need.
A: Overspending in December and early January is overkill. It would be inefficient and very risky for the campaign’s long term vision. Let’s cruise the early states and wait for the next money bomb before we commit serious money to Florida and Super Tuesday.
B: Well, if we can do as well as you hope by “cruising” the early states, we would probably have a lot more money for Florida and Super Tuesday.
C: More money, and better knowledge about how to use it: where to spend and what our message should be. With name recognition and public knowledge of Paul’s positions certain to be considerably higher in Florida than they were in New Hampshire, our cash will see far better returns, and by that time everyone will have forgotten about New Hampshire.
A, B and C: Donate on the 21st, you mugheads!!! :D
Staffer A (The realist)
Staffer B (The fresh-faced optimist)
Staffer C (The cautious pragmatist)
A: We've got a truck full of cash now! And there'll be another money bomb in January for sure!
B: We should start hitting New Hampshire and South Carolina in a really big way, to try for a 2nd/3rd combo, and thus eliminate the unelectability cloud hanging over Paul's head before Super Tuesday.
C: Hold your horses -- Ron is still totally unknown to 60% of America. If we start to spend in a serious way so soon, our effectiveness dollar for dollar is going to be extremely poor.
A: We know we have a solid grassroots base of between 5% and 15% in all the states of America. And we didn't spend a penny on them. It was all because of internet chatter.
B: What are you saying -- we aren't going to spend this money on the early states? If we don't secure a 3rd place before Super Tuesday, that might turn lots of our supporters away. Our next money bomb might then be a disappointment and we'd lose momentum.
C: If you know our base, they aren’t going anywhere. They certainly won't go to any other campaign. A small minority might stop donating or lose hope, but the majority are dedicated. So we should go easy on the spending in the early states, because we can trust our base to come out and vote.
A: This is a true grassroots campaign -- it cannot be stopped. The message spreads from friends, to family, to colleagues, and it's deceivingly slow, but the curve will eventually take off in a big way. I think we just need to pick off the two weakest candidates in the minds of the public before Florida. We don't need to burn too much cash to achieve this, surely.
B: You may be right. But I don't know how we can compete on Super Tuesday without at least a 2nd place somewhere beforehand. There are two major reasons to spend big in NH and SC and arrive at Super Tuesday with a 3rd place average: to solve the 'unelectability problem' and to attract increasing amounts of funds. We'd probably end up with considerably more money if we average 3rd than if we average 4th, thereby justifying such major spending early on.
C: It sounds like a big gamble. What if we spend big and still average 4th? The bang for our buck does not exist right now....the longer we wait to spend, the more time we have to build the foundations. The safest option, as I see it, is to let the grassroots do a lot of the early work for us, and maximise our opportunities in the mainstream media. Of course we should spend, but only just enough so that the primary states know Paul's face, his basic message, and so that our grassroots canvassers have all the basic materials they need.
A: Overspending in December and early January is overkill. It would be inefficient and very risky for the campaign’s long term vision. Let’s cruise the early states and wait for the next money bomb before we commit serious money to Florida and Super Tuesday.
B: Well, if we can do as well as you hope by “cruising” the early states, we would probably have a lot more money for Florida and Super Tuesday.
C: More money, and better knowledge about how to use it: where to spend and what our message should be. With name recognition and public knowledge of Paul’s positions certain to be considerably higher in Florida than they were in New Hampshire, our cash will see far better returns, and by that time everyone will have forgotten about New Hampshire.
A, B and C: Donate on the 21st, you mugheads!!! :D