Still Wrong Message

[zeloc]

From a newspaper article today:

"So far, Paul‘s national campaign has remained mum on any plans for Ohio. Spokesman Gary Howard said a few days ago in an e-mail to the Enquirer that the campaign had no one on the ground yet in the Buckeye State. "

WHY would you possibly say something like this to the media? His response should have been, "we are actively campaigning in Ohio and expect to do very well there." The campaign is giving a lot of messages of weakness, and all this does is reinforce the notion that he is not electable. No one wants to hear about the delegate strategy. That should never have been announced by the campaign. Just a really shoddy job. I don't think it's too late for the campaign to change its message, but will it happen?

It also makes me wonder what the purpose of this forum is. As far as I can tell there is no one from the campaign reading it and there are certainly no responses from anyone in the campaign.

[jemuf]

I feel your pain especially on the delegate strategy.

I know the Paul campaign has a lot on it's plate, but...if one campaign had to hit the mark every time it was the Paul campaign.

The odds were great, the deck was stacked, and the bias is real.

Given the experiences of the 2008 campaign it's hard to understand why I'm complaining about what others were complaining about in '07.

[slacker921]

It also makes me wonder what the purpose of this forum is. As far as I can tell there is no one from the campaign reading it and there are certainly no responses from anyone in the campaign.

IIRC from '08... if the campaign is actively engaged in this forum then the FEC gets involved. The campaign can't intermingle with "grassroots" volunteers and organize their efforts (or something like that). There are people associated with the campaign who read this forum..

[trey4sports]

From a newspaper article today:

"So far, Paul‘s national campaign has remained mum on any plans for Ohio. Spokesman Gary Howard said a few days ago in an e-mail to the Enquirer that the campaign had no one on the ground yet in the Buckeye State. "

WHY would you possibly say something like this to the media? His response should have been, "we are actively campaigning in Ohio and expect to do very well there." The campaign is giving a lot of messages of weakness, and all this does is reinforce the notion that he is not electable. No one wants to hear about the delegate strategy. That should never have been announced by the campaign. Just a really shoddy job. I don't think it's too late for the campaign to change its message, but will it happen?

It also makes me wonder what the purpose of this forum is. As far as I can tell there is no one from the campaign reading it and there are certainly no responses from anyone in the campaign.

The wrong move would be to say that we have campaign staff there and that we are going to do very well when neither are likely to happen.

[zeloc]

I DIDN'T say to say that there are campaign staff there. I said to use "we are actively campaigning." This can mean anything. Having television ads is campaigning. "We" could include the grassroots organization. It could mean any number of things which are true.

You say "neither are likely to happen." This is the case BECAUSE of the signals of weakness. The presentation and statements from the campaign determine the response. Had the campaign given strong messages about Ohio consistently, then it wouldn't be the case that there was not much support there. Florida was another lost opportunity. How many individuals didn't vote for Paul because he had admitted several times that he was doing no campaigning there and because of the wide publicity this got in the media? I'm not saying that any money should have been spent there, but he could have had a stronger showing that might have influenced other states, even if he received no delegates.

Have the results of each state been a reflection of the amount of money or the physical, in-person campaigning that was spent there? Absolutely not. The image that a campaign gives is very important. The candidates that show strength get more votes, and the candidates that show weakness get fewer votes. Even if it is not rational, a lot of Americans won't vote for someone who shows weakness.