The most important part of the campaign is coming up in just a few weeks. It's the last three to four weeks before the vote is taken. Here is a little secret about campaigning, which isn't really a secret.

A very large number of voters, often a plurality, do not truly decide their vote until the final days or week of the campaign.

Although this is fairly well known, it is rarely properly seized upon by political campaigns, which all too often flame out months before the actual vote takes place. Many of the most successful political campaigns do not ramp up until near the end; the very best combine a strong early-recognition strategy with an outreach effort that builds towards the end of the campaign that ultimately has the goal of "peaking" on election day.

The best example of a campaign that executed this strategy 100% perfectly is Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts early last year. Brown's campaign hit on all the right fundamentals early on, built strong name ID, and closed the deal down the stretch. A campaign that was (rightly) given no chance of winning Ted Kennedy's seat found itself within ten points with a few weeks to go, and several points up on election night.

Ron Paul is polling in the low double digits in Iowa and New Hampshire, each a week apart from the other, and Iowa setting a lot of the "tone" for the New Hampshire contest. If the cards are played correctly, Ron Paul could almost certainly turn that support into a caucus win – and, very possibly, a strong New Hampshire finish (i.e., in the 20s, perhaps no more than 10-15 points behind Romney, which would be essentially a win). Doing these two things would build the momentum for the rest of the campaign.

I am going to make a post before long analyzing the Iowa caucus threshold to victory, but for now, what political considerations must be employed to ensure that we finish strong?

How Can Ron Paul Close the Deal?

The official campaign almost certainly has a good strategy in place for how to do this, I can only assume. However, we as a grassroots owe it to ourselves to keep our efforts in line with theirs and to similarly work with them on "closing the deal" in the final weeks of the campaign. Here are a few things to keep in mind as that period rapidly approaches, a few things that we and the campaign both will need to focus on in order to win in Iowa.

• Early money is much better than late money. Media buys for the final week or so of the campaign need to be in at least two to three weeks before that, and therefore fundraising must be strong before the Dec. 16 moneybomb.
• Door knocking is invaluable. Especially late in a campaign, a good one-on-one personal impression with a candidate or a friendly campaign volunteer is truly the most effective thing that anyone can do in order to boost their chances of victory. Ron Paul's campaign and our grassroots need to coordinate an awesome door-to-door effort that focuses on voters who are likely caucus attendees, especially likely-to-caucus independent voters, with whom we have strong support.
• Educational efforts are worthless at some point. As the days tick down towards the caucus, the effort to "inform" and "convert" voters has to stop. I would say that after the first week of December, the entire focus must be on turning out identified voters, and finding un-ID'd voters. Not a one of us cannot afford to waste time trying to show people how Ron Paul is right on Iran, or something similar. If they haven't learned it by then, they won't in time, and your efforts are better spent figuring out how to get-out-the-vote.
• Phone call efforts are extremely important, and timeliness of the efforts even moreso. Right now, the phone efforts are targeted at Voter ID. The campaign is trying to figure out "who are our supporters?" Those efforts are exceptionally important but really cannot go much beyond the middle of December. At that point, it becomes more worth the campaign's while to maintain contact with already ID'd voters and ensure turnout via the phone effort. You still have many voters deciding at that point, but it is impossible to ID and then reach out to a huge new subset of voters within a few weeks' time.
• Paid media must crest in the final week. The campaign certainly knows this, but all paid media (including grassroots efforts) should really build up to crest during that final week before the caucus.
• Focus on effective methods of outreach, as opposed to ineffective ones. Sign-waving is fun, but hardly effective. Same goes with other kinds of efforts which seek to somehow stick "Ron Paul" out in front of someone. For all the time you could be spending in the final weeks of the campaign spray painting something or floating a colored balloon, you could be shaking hands with prospective voters at a local event, knocking doors, or making calls.
• STAY ON MESSAGE. This is so important it deserves a little extra attention. So many campaigns, including the 2007-2008 Ron Paul campaign, get sidetracked as the last days of the campaign tick away. For Ron Paul in 2007, it was a disastrous Meet the Press interview and the old newsletter controversy that had the campaign answering allegations of racism, irrelevant issues like the Civil Rights bill, and other things. For our campaign to win, no matter what happens, both the campaign and WE especially have to STAY ON MESSAGE. Stick to our talking points, stick to our guns, don't get sidetracked. Whether you are on the phone, at a door, at a party, or speaking at the caucus, don't go down rabbit holes and DO NOT get into non-advantageous issues. That brings me to another point.
• Positive, winning issues should be the focus. We are blessed to have a candidate in Ron Paul who KNOWS his stuff. And he sure talks about it... on every little minutiae and detail of everything that he is asked about. Unfortunately, this gets him involved talking about issues that are losers for us. Same thing happens with our grassroots... how many times have you seen Ron Paul supporters miss a golden opportunity to win a vote because of an insistence on talking about the Fed, or the gold standard, or foreign policy, or something to that effect, when the voter only needed to hear Paul's pro-life stance or his strong pro-austerity fiscal policy? If you think it is principled to focus on losing issues then you are wrong. The Fed this year is certainly more of a winning issue, but I recall being in New Hampshire in 2008, whereupon I heard supporters talking about the Fed to potential voters who couldn't have cared less. FOCUS ON BIG, SWEEPING PRINCIPLES. RON PAUL: CUT A TRILLION DOLLARS, BALANCE THE BUDGET, CREATE JOBS. This is what we need in the final days. The less we bring out about Ron Paul to an undecided voter that might turn them off, the better!
• Keep your cool. The final days of a campaign are stressful. It is natural to be nervous and unsure of victory, to feel a little insecure even. But you cannot allow this to in any way detract from your efforts or putting in the best job you can at the end. If we in the grassroots think it is stressful, then we should not forget that the campaign itself is feeling that stress a million times over. But none of us – not the campaign nor our volunteers – can lose hope and give up. This is why maintaining composure is so important. This means when you speak with voters, keep a level head and remember to STAY ON MESSAGE (there it is again!).
• Be positive. Negativity kills campaigns as time winds down. If we cannibalize one another, what do we need enemies for? Constructive criticism is a great and useful thing, but outright negativity should be shunned. We must be positive, because we have a lot to be positive about. In line with that...
• Act like winners. Ron Paul has done this much better this year. He is confident, and we all can see and feel it. He knows that he is in this thing to actually win it, not to just run a quixotic effort to educate. He has the message, he has the team, and he is the candidate. Remember when Ron Paul said at the debate "well, now I'm pretty high in the polls," well we need to carry the same kind of confidence. Don't ever be discouraged by someone saying "we can't win." We know we can, and we have to express that through everything we do. Attitude here is more instructive than words could ever be; you don't have to say "I'm on a winning campaign" to express that by doing a great job and being confident in your work.

The time of reckoning is approaching and the campaign's early stages are quickly coming to a close.

It is almost time for us to ensure we finish strong.

Ron Paul has gained so much respect in large part because he is a man of character.

If Ron Paul were just some guy, who had done some bad things or had a sordid past, who cussed and made angry remarks about his fellow candidates, who had questioned others on a personal level, he would not be nearly as effective a leader for the liberty movement... maybe he wouldn't be at all.

Ron Paul is who he is because he is a good man of strong convictions. Ron Paul runs into battle, sure, but it is on the battlefield of politics and ideas, not on the battlefield of ad hominem attacks, character assassinations, or mud-slinging.

He rarely speaks ill of his fellow candidates, or of Barack Obama, instead preferring to trade in the currency of powerful ideas. Ideas which are more powerful than any pot-shot. Ideas which can move mountains and change the tide of our nation's future.

If we are to win people over to Ron Paul, I think we could take a few lessons from the old man himself. We need to learn how to be cool and collected in our person, yet strong in our convictions, just like he has. After all, we were drawn to him in the first place. We know how effective he is as a messenger of these ideas.

Ron Paul is too humble to ever claim to be a moral example. But he clearly is one.

Here, then, are a few discernible Ron Paul life principles:

Humility. He never toots his own horn.

Kindness. He does not speak ill of others.

Charity. He has given much of himself and his life to others.

Perseverance. He works towards his goals with purpose.

Hard work. He always gives his best effort to what he does.


There aren't many people like Ron Paul in the world. But we can certainly keep in mind when we are spreading the message of liberty and trying to win people over to Ron Paul's side in this Republican primary, and promoting liberty even beyond that, that we could learn something from the messenger. And if we are honestly good towards others and remember to be good-natured like Ron Paul, maybe we'll be more effective.

If we focus more on being examples of good character, then we can win more people over.

We are lucky to have a man of integrity like Ron Paul leading this liberty movement.


Please note: I do not think I'm anything special. Not by a long shot. But I can't help but notice that Ron Paul is special, and in this way that I think we, his ardent supporters, sometimes forget.

The short answer is, Yes.
However short answers rarely suffice, so I have done the research to bolster Dr. Paul's point that we subsidize German socialism through our military expenditures. Feel free to use this information to support the idea that Ron Paul has incredible depth of insight into our foreign policy, even on such a minute level as EU troop deployment and its economic effects.


US Spending on Bases in Germany Versus German Military Spending

German Active Duty Soldiers
Army: 74,287
Air Force: 35,752
Navy: 15,916
source: Federal Ministry of Defence, Germany

US Troops in Germany
Army: Approximately 50,000
Air Force: Approximately 15,000
sources: Slate Magazine, Die Welt (German)

German spending on the military in 2011 is projected to be about $41.2bn, or €31.54bn. Germany contributes about $1bn towards U.S. base upkeep. However, the United States spends approximately $1bn maintaining Ramstein Air Base alone, and the 43 other bases cost about $240m each. source: German Information Center, citing a Council on Foreign Relations Report

Analysis:
All told, the United States spends somewhere north of $11 billion maintaining bases in Germany.
Comparing that to the $41.2 billion Germany spends on its own military, we contribute another 20 percent more, or one-quarter of what they spend on their own military. It's hard to say that we don't contribute to Germany's having to spend less on their own military. The numbers bear it out.

US Troops' Economic Impact On German Economy

Heritage Foundation Finds a Relationship

source: The Heritage Foundation

Analysis:
Given the fact that the United States conservatively has about 65,000 troops in Germany, we can safely assume that the economic impact is significantly greater than the 1 percent GDP effect that US troops have in Germany. Heritage's analysis does not reveal the numbers specifically for Germany, so we must infer. That doesn't mean it is a 6.5% GDP increase per annum that can be correlated with troop deployment levels in Germany, but it is surely higher - and the Heritage Foundation data shows this, as Germany is the single non-mission country overseas in which the U.S. has the highest troop deployment at a given time. To put it another way, since WWII, Germany has had more US troops stationed than any other nation on a regular basis.

Proposed Troop Reduction Estimates Economic Loss in German Newspaper

From earlier this year:


sources: Aviation Week, Die Welt (German), Die Welt (English translation by Babelfish)

From this newspaper report, we know that a reduction of 5,507 troops results in an estimated tax loss to Germany of €13.5 million. Other reductions totaling 4,964 civilian and other personnel are mentioned; to factor in the other personnel, we shall estimate that the 5,507 troops and their families account for a tax loss of approximately 7 million euros on the high end, and on the low end, perhaps 6 million euros.

Given our low estimate of 65,000 troops in Germany from earlier, 5,507 troops represents about 8.47% of the force that we have had there. Given the two estimates of 7 million and 6 million euros for the liberal and conservative estimates respectively:

8.47x = 7,000,000 (100) = ~ €82.64m ($114,596,888)
8.47x = 6,000,000 (100) = ~ €70.84m ($98,233,828)

Analysis:
The active duty troops and their families that have been stationed in Germany are funding the German government, at a minimum, between 70.8 million and 82.6 million euros per year.

Germany's 2010 budget was approximately €325.4bn. As a result, our troops' spending make up around 0.025% of Germany's revenue. Does that seem significant? Perhaps it doesn't... but consider this: if we were to apply the same percentage to U.S. tax revenue in 2010 ($2.16 trillion) we would come up with $540,000,000. Not huge money in terms of our federal leviathan, but sufficiently enough for someone to say that it certainly has an impact upon our revenues. When you consider that Germany's tax revenues are only a small amount of the total amount spent by our troops in Germany, you realize that the total economic impact they have is in fact far greater.

Considering total spending by us into Germany, it is hard to conclude anything other than we are expatriating billions of dollars.

Conclusion
Ron Paul is right about us subsidizing Germany.
By spending about one-quarter on our bases in Germany of what Germany itself spends on its entire military budget, we give them plenty of reasons to want to keep us - and plenty of extra money that they don't have to spend further bolstering their own defenses.

Introduction
This is a breakdown of Iowa voter participation in the Ames Straw Poll, and what the grassroots and the campaign needs to achieve in order to actually pull of a good finish at the straw poll. I have put it together as a guide so that we can have an idea of what we need to achieve; perhaps it can serve as a reference for some activities in Iowa.

I will update this thread as new ideas and information come forward.

Turnout at the Straw Poll, and Factors Affecting It
In 2007, turnout at the Ames Straw Poll was the second-highest on record. The highest turnout was actually in 1999. Remember, it is only held in years when there is not an incumbent Republican president (i.e., when the nomination is yet undecided).

1999 turnout was 23,685 voters, the highest ever.
2007 turnout was 14,302 voters, second highest.

2007 Ames Straw Poll Votes and Vote Share:
Place Candidate Votes Pct.
1 Mitt Romney 4,516 31.6%
2 Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1%
3 Sam Brownback 2,192 15.3%
4 Tom Tancredo 1,961 13.7%
5 Ron Paul 1,305 9.1%
6 Tommy Thompson1,039 7.3%
7 Fred Thompson 203 1.4%
8 Rudy Giuliani 183 1.3%
9 Duncan Hunter 174 1.2%
10 John McCain 101 0.7%
11 John H. Cox 41 0.3%

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has announced that he will not participate in the Ames Straw Poll:


What will happen as a result of this? Likely, a few specific factors now come into play that actually favor Ron Paul doing well in the Ames Straw Poll:

1. Without Mitt Romney, turnout will likely remain stagnant or even decrease from 2008. This means we will need fewer supporters than we otherwise would to do well in the straw poll.

2. The Ames Straw Poll is all about ground game, and there are really only two candidates that seem to have it in Iowa right now: Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty. Neither of them generates much enthusiasm, but will be focusing heavily on the straw poll as a way to legitimize their campaigns and emerge as strong challengers to Mitt Romney. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has declared that he will skip Iowa entirely.

3. The other big Ames participants right now would look to be Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. While both will undoubtedly have strong enthusiasm ginned up in Iowa, it is unlikely that either will have the sheer ground game it takes to win the Ames Straw Poll, or to even place in the top two or three. Cain simply doesn't have the money nor the organization, and Bachmann would have to pull off an organizing miracle to get her campaign together that quickly. Possible for Bachmann, not Cain.

4. Fewer serious straw poll contenders is a positive for us, because as with Romney not participating, it will reduce turnout. It is also worthwhile to note that several of the candidates (Pawlenty and Santorum in particular) will be drawing from similar bases of support.

5. Despite the fact that Romney is not participating, and that turnout will probably not exceed 2007, there is no reason to believe that the media will not cover the Straw Poll victor and runner-up as much as they did in 2007. In fact, Mike Huckabee's second place finish at the 2007 Straw Poll was, while not quite "victorious," what gave him the credibility he needed to compete strongly in Iowa. The media covered it greatly:



What Do We Need to Win?
So what do we need to win? To place 2nd? History is a great guide here.

We've seen 2007's numbers, but for our purposes let's add in 1999's numbers and compare:

1999 Ames Straw Poll (total votes 23,685) 2007 Ames Straw Poll (total votes 14,302)
1 George W. Bush 7,418 31.3% 1 Mitt Romney 4,516 31.6%
2 Steve Forbes 4,921 20.8% 2 Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1%
3 Elizabeth Dole 3,410 14.4% 3 Sam Brownback 2,192 15.3%
4 Gary Bauer 2,114 8.9% 4 Tom Tancredo 1,961 13.7%
5 Patrick Buchanan 1,719 7.3% 5 Ron Paul 1,305 9.1%


As you can see, these two most-attended straw polls have a pretty consistent theme as far as voter turnout is concerned. First place needs to achieve a mark of around 30%, second place needs to get to around 20%, and third place should shoot for 15%. Beyond that, the numbers begin to matter less and less. The remaining 35 percent of the vote will get split up among plenty of contenders and nobody notices beyond third place, anyway. Actually, in both 1999 and 2007, Elizabeth Dole and Sam Brownback's finishes were relatively unimportant to the media. Both candidates pulled out of the primary before the caucuses were even held.

Given all the factors at play, it is reasonable for our purposes that we assume that about the same number of people will attend as in 2007. However, since we are looking to really ensure a victory if at all possible, let's first go off a slightly higher number and assume 15,000 participants in 2011's Ames Straw Poll.

Going off of our 15,000 vote estimate, here is what we need:

To finish first we would need 4,500 votes
To finish second we would need 3,000 votes

What if more people participate? It's possible, given the mood in the country and the average Republican's anger with Barack Obama, that there could be a surge of participation. Again, Romney's absence depresses turnout, so we can safely assume less than in 1999. Let's assume for the second model 20,000 participants in 2011's Ames Straw Poll.

Now,
To finish first we would need 6,000 votes
To finish second we would need 4,000 votes

Finally, just as a point of reference, what if turnout was higher than ever due to the enthusiasm of the electorate in finding a Republican alternative to Obama? It would be highly unlikely, but why not keep it in the back of our minds? Let's assume 25,000 participants in 2011's Ames Straw Poll.

Now,
To finish first we would need 7,500 votes
To finish second we would need 5,000 votes

Since prediction is an inexact science, we of course have no idea how many voters there will actually be. However, given all of what has been looked at here, it is reasonable to assume that if we are able to turn out 4,000 to 5,000 votes for Ron Paul, he will surely finish in the top two in the straw poll and, possibly, win it outright. Using this amount, even if turnout exceeds the record 1999 high, we could still come in third place with 4000 voters if third place gets 15% as history has shown to be the case (which would be 3,750 votes).

We should shoot for getting 4,000 to 5,000 votes in the Ames Straw Poll.

Where Might These Votes Come From?

Of course, it would be great if we could just wave a magic wand and have five thousand people show up to the straw poll for our guy. But it doesn't work that way! So we have to figure out how we are actually going to get the votes to achieve that 4-5 thousand mark?

I will not purport to offer any strategies on how to actually get these votes. That is up to the campaign and the grassroots. However, here are some numbers that we need to keep in mind and consider:

Campaign For Liberty Iowa Membership
According to the Campaign For Liberty, there are 2529 members in the state of Iowa, including 837 who have online user accounts and 92 local coordinators.

2008 Ron Paul Caucus Voters
Source for all 2008 caucus results.
In 2008, 11,841 Iowa voters caucused for Ron Paul.

Of course, it makes sense that voters who live close to Ames, Iowa are more likely to participate in the Straw Poll. So how many Ron paul voters were there in Story County (where Ames is) and the surrounding counties in Iowa?

Story County (where Ames, Iowa is): 561 Ron Paul voters
Polk County (south, where Des Moines is): 2,007 Ron Paul voters
Boone County (to the west): 149 Ron Paul voters
Hamilton County (north): 66 Ron Paul voters
Hardin County (north): 46 Ron Paul voters
Marshall County (east): 110 Ron Paul voters
Jasper County (south): 113 Ron paul voters

Adding it up, the counties in the immediate vicinity of Ames (Story and all touching counties) totaled 3,052 Ron paul voters in 2008.

Ron Paul Donors in Iowa
A clever supporter posted a formula for guesstimating the number of donors in a given state in early 2008 on the Daily Paul. He came up with a figure of around 1600 donors in 2007-2008 who lived in Iowa. This is by taking 673 database-captured Iowa donors up to the point of that article and multiplying it by 2.36, based on total unique donors divided by captured donors in the ronpaulgraphs.com database.


In Conclusion
It is not unreasonable to think that we can win the Ames Straw Poll. But it is going to take a mobilization of support that is almost unheard of for a candidate that doesn't have as many supporters as others do in Iowa. That does not mean it is impossible, and it does not mean we should not do everything we can to win.

If we are able to mobilize many of those who are more involved as Ron Paul supporters (say, a couple thousand who have signed up for C4L and donated) as well as other supporters who might simply have been Ron Paul voters in 2008's caucus, it is well within the realm of possibility that we can do very well.

Best of luck to our friends in Iowa! I hope that those of us outside of the state can be of great assistance.