PDA

View Full Version : Without the Blimp spending so much time in SC




ItsTime
01-20-2008, 11:48 AM
What do you think Ron Pauls % would have been if the blimp did not spend so much time in SC?

Acidlump
01-20-2008, 12:00 PM
the blimp spent 90% of its time in Florida and not a lot in Carolina. He probably would've gotten fifth no matter what.

Paul10
01-20-2008, 12:01 PM
...

goldstandard
01-20-2008, 12:02 PM
the same

yongrel
01-20-2008, 12:02 PM
Now that RP did poorly in SC, can we all finally admit what a gross misapropriation of funding the blimp is?

The blimp does 2 things right now:

1) Makes some existing Ron Paul supporters happy

2) Sucks money away from the campaign and other grassroots actions.

I would like to point out the conspicuous absence of "converts voters" from the above list.

Lovecraftian4Paul
01-20-2008, 12:03 PM
I agree that the blimp is probably not the best source of founding. However, I also agree that it did spend most of its time elsewhere. Let's wait for Florida before making a definitive conclusion. However, it might all be for naught anyway, if the blimp operators have decided to absolutely terminate its campaign since they are a bit short of the $100,000 needed by the 18th.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-20-2008, 12:12 PM
The blimp doesn't help, and it probably hurts. This movement is already viewed as "kooky" or "quixotic" by a lot of old school Republicans, so having a blimp that generates local "oddball news" segments does not help us. For the money they spent, we could have put up hundreds of billboards across the state, or run thousands of commercials.

ItsTime
01-20-2008, 04:52 PM
hmm interesting


The blimp doesn't help, and it probably hurts. This movement is already viewed as "kooky" or "quixotic" by a lot of old school Republicans, so having a blimp that generates local "oddball news" segments does not help us. For the money they spent, we could have put up hundreds of billboards across the state, or run thousands of commercials.

Thomas Paine
01-20-2008, 07:15 PM
The question is whether the blimp is getting people to vote for Ron Paul. I submit that the blimp is not convincing a sufficient number of people to vote for Ron Paul to justify the expense of keeping the blimp airborne. Case in point, Ghouliani has spent tens of millions of dollars and has finished behind Ron Paul in four out of five states. Thus, even though Ghouliani has spent more money than Ron Paul, Ghouliani is getting less bang for his buck. Similarly, we are getting less bang for our bucks spent on keeping the blimp airborne than we would if the same donations were utilized for GOTV efforts on the ground. In short, the blimp has passed the point of diminishing returns and is draining money away from the national campaign. It's time to ground the blimp.

Knightskye
01-20-2008, 07:17 PM
What has a better chance of being seen, though? A commercial or a blimp?

T206
01-20-2008, 07:18 PM
The blimp doesn't help

+1....billion

acroso
01-20-2008, 07:19 PM
...but some people are maxed out on donations so they can give to that i guess.

T206
01-20-2008, 07:21 PM
...but some people are maxed out on donations so they can give to that i guess.

Give it to chip-ins for TV and Radio advertisements that actually have an impact.

Cyclone
01-20-2008, 07:21 PM
Today someone said to me, Isn't Ron Paul that guy they always make fun of with on TV? I said yes, and tried to blame it on the media. Then he said, well, the guy does have a blimp flying around with his name on it. You can't blame that foolishness on the media. I sighed and said, no that is just some supporters who thought it was a great way to get his name out there. He said, well, it gets his name out there and makes him look like a joke.

Then he said he was disgusted with all candidates and after I told him all about Paul's platform, he said he wished he had known that a while ago. He is an Ind and it is too late now for him to vote in the primary - but he would really liked Paul by the time I was done. He said he would try to help him if he could.

So, not only do I agree with those above, but now I am wondering if the blimp isn't hurting? He looks goofier than ever and for a candidate that already gets portrayed that way, does that help us?

Thomas Paine
01-20-2008, 07:21 PM
What has a better chance of being seen, though? A commercial or a blimp?

Expand the choices to include billboards, direct mail campaigns, newspaper ads, push polling, radio ads, etc. The blimp was a cute campaign gimmick but its time for another campaign gimmick. In the meantime, money that is being donated to the blimp could be better spent on campaign advertising that targets identified favorable voters.

ItsTime
01-20-2008, 07:23 PM
Much like yourself, I like the gimmick of getting people to the polls :D


Expand the choices to include billboards, direct mail campaigns, newspaper ads, push polling, radio ads, etc. The blimp was a cute campaign gimmick but its time for another campaign gimmick. In the meantime, money that is being donated to the blimp could be better spent on campaign advertising that targets identified favorable voters.

FTL
01-20-2008, 07:26 PM
What has a better chance of being seen, though? A commercial or a blimp?


How about the blimp in a TV commercial? That way everyone can see it at least once.

Flying it around all over the place seems like a waste of money.