A blimp is a BAD IDEA - here is why

[devil21]

This was us:



At 36:00 you get the Blimp.

I chased after it and recorded and posted the first video on YT of the blimp in the wild That was fun!

[mosquitobite]

If this thing with Rand doesn't work out (elected or unelected), we all (with some exceptions) have the responsibility and knowledge to be the leaders--I think many of us are already doing that via local office. We have to be creative because "our" media attempts aren't really working well.

I have a lot more to say about this particular topic, but I'll have to sleep on it until after Thanksgiving and the aftermath of exhaustion.

Amen Amy! That's what Ron Paul expects of us!

[Lucille]

I loved the blimp.

[Anti Federalist]

I loved the blimp.

Teh Collinz says you're a poopy head for that.

[jllundqu]

Is that what you think Rand is doing? Or is that what you think his campaign staff will do?

Both. I think Rand is not seen, nor is he projecting an image of a champion of liberty and the constitution, rather he is positioning himself as a conservative republican who leans libertarian. We need a lightning rod of liberty to ignite the brushfires in the minds of men (and women). Rand does not risk enough... he tries to play to the 'base' versus saying what he really thinks no matter who the audience is.

[Matt Collins]

If you're not the candidate you like the ability to "shape the message." So as if you are working in the campaign your job is to find people most responsive to your candidate's message since you can't shape it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

huh?

[Matt Collins]

You could always have had Ron come out sounding like John "Warmonger" McCain, or Rick "Holier-than-Thou" Santorum. The audience would have been jumping out of their seats to cheer him on (that's the GOP you want to impress!)

But that's not Ron. Ron Paul, Inc. might have been able to convince him he was losing, but you couldn't give him a reason to sell his soul. Thank God.

You are confused... shaping one's message does not equate to "selling out"

[Matt Collins]

'08 was special. We'll never get it back. RevMarch is still my favorite project.



This was all grassroots, Matt. You now just seem like someone who wants to kill grassroots enthusiasm.

No one is trying to kill grassroots enthusiasm, but it needs leadership, guidance, and direction. We need to learn what it takes to win and how to be effective by doing effective things. Marches and blimps and sign waves are ineffective.

This is how a movement matures and advances its agenda instead of just being an angry mob.

[Matt Collins]

Edit: And the thought of this probably scares the piss out of people like Matt.

Uh no, not at all. Ron and thus Rand were built on grassroots.

[Matt Collins]

You're preaching to the choir. One of the arguments Matt and I had often during the 2012 cycle was over my insistence that we needed more than "likely Republican voters" to win. And I put my money where my mouth was by reaching out to Democrats with the simple message that "Obama is running unopposed. You might as well vote for the antiwar republican in the primary." I had moderate success winning over at least 8 voters. Granted they were all family members but they were voters Ron wouldn't have had otherwise.

Person-to-person that might work (personal sales are always the most effective) but there is no way that I know of to mass market that for a Republican primary.

[Deborah K]

Both. I think Rand is not seen, nor is he projecting an image of a champion of liberty and the constitution, rather he is positioning himself as a conservative republican who leans libertarian. We need a lightning rod of liberty to ignite the brushfires in the minds of men (and women). Rand does not risk enough... he tries to play to the 'base' versus saying what he really thinks no matter who the audience is.

Perhaps he is building his base using established tactics - for the time being. His father has his ear. I have no doubt of that.

[Matt Collins]

The grassroots needs to organize big events that will attract media attention and show the voting public that Rand has a diverse base of supporters. Nothing will prove the diversity more than the speakers who are invited to the event. Of course, it won't work if there are people like Benton/Collins who insist on controlling the grassroots message because of their fears of a fringe influence - cuz there's nothing like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Maybe, but the message must be controlled otherwise the candidate gets defined instead of being able to define themselves.

[Matt Collins]

They want us as far away from Rand as it's possible to be.

No, not at all, but it is important that people involved understand the effective methods that work and how to implement them. In other words, many in the grassroots need to become more mature in their approach to advancing the liberty agenda.

[Matt Collins]

The likes of Benton/Collins involvement in the campaign is my litmus test. If they are involved, it will be clear enough to me that the grassroots is not considered a friend, and is not needed. Already been there - done that. Not going there ever again.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

[Matt Collins]

I agree with this, and it's precisely for the reason that Matt dismisses Ron as "unelectable". Ron didn't care what the establishment, caviar-n-champagne country club Republicans thought of him....he didn't care what the hypocritical holier-than-thou evangelicals who hold up pro-life signs while salivating to send another 10,000 troops somewhere to kill Mooslim babies thought of him. He didn't alter his words for their comfort. Ron spoke TRUTH to power and didn't care what people thought about it. If you liked him, you'd vote for him.....but he wouldn't "tailor his message so the audience wouldn't boo him" just because. Oh, no. He wouldn't have earned my undying respect had he been that kind of man.

And did he win the nomination using that approach?

[Deborah K]

No one is trying to kill grassroots enthusiasm, but it needs leadership, guidance, and direction. We need to learn what it takes to win and how to be effective by doing effective things. Marches and blimps and sign waves are ineffective.

This is how a movement matures and advances its agenda instead of just being an angry mob.

Those "ineffective" tactics got us where we are, Matt. The grassroots doesn't need leadership, guidance and direction from anyone other than the candidate for which we campaign. Got that? Not from you, not from Benton, not from any paid operative.

[Matt Collins]

oh wait... isn't this exactly what Tom Woods said that the job of a campaign manager was... the one you and Benton got all butthurt about because he had the gall to say it... ON THE INTERNET?!?

Tom's message there wasn't as bad as the fact of when and where that he said it.

Either you and Benton thought Ron Paul was a horrible candidate that couldn't be taught to tailor his message

....

[Matt Collins]

I respect what Collins is trying to do--that fire and intensity are enormous weapons at Ron/Rand's disposal, but he and his ilk need to realize that by their very nature any attempt to harness, channel or control these weapons will backfire and ultimately serve to extinguish that very fire. Rand 2016 is going to have to come to grips with this if it is to succeed.

You are saying that you don't want the grassroots to have direction, leadership, and focus?

[Matt Collins]

Collins exhorts us to play by the rules while Preibus is busy changing the rules. Yet Matt will deny to his dying day that he was--wittingly or unwittingly--helping Preibus out with that.

Uh no, exactly the opposite... Nice try at lying though...

[Deborah K]

Maybe, but the message must be controlled otherwise the candidate gets defined instead of being able to define themselves.

Yeah, and that has worked so well, hasn't it? Benton is considered an enemy by most in the grassroots, and you are rapidly losing credibility, and Rand lost a large portion of Ron's hard-core base.

We are GRASSROOTS! Don't presume to tell us how to support our choice!

[Matt Collins]

Yeah, and that has worked so well, hasn't it?

Actually it has... Rand is polling #1 in NH right now and in the top tier in Iowa too.

[Matt Collins]

We can't afford to buy Fox from Rupert Murdoch.

The target audience you think we should focus on to the exclusion of every other American will vote for Rin Tin Tin if Rupert Murdoch tells them to (Santorum was hardly smarter), Rupert Murdoch won't tell them to vote for someone who might actually represent them, and we can't afford to buy Fox News.

You dont have to buy FNC, you just have to know how to handle them as Rand does. And you have to also do direct marketing as well.

We tell you we are growing the party, you see numbers proving the party is growing and you know the only area of growth it has is us, and in all your minor marketing moguldom you spend all your time telling us you have no time because you're too busy telling us we don't count and our new recruits don't count.

If Henry Ford had been stupid enough to refuse to sell cars to people who had never owned a car before, you'd have never heard of Henry Ford. You'd be more likely to have heard of E.L. Cord or Erksine than Henry Ford.

If Henry Ford had been stupid enough to refuse to sell cars to people who had never owned a car before, you'd have never heard of Henry Ford.

Again, you fail to understand how this works..... it is much easier to convince people already going to the polls to vote for your guy, than it is to convince people to go to the polls to vote for your guy. The goal is to get elected, and you don't do that by chasing after people who are not likely to vote.

You're trying to deflect us from success and redirect us into complete irrelevance.

Not at all... if you hope to win an election, then you have to market to voters. It's really just that simple.

spending all your time trying to torpedo our initiatives instead of coming up with complimentary initiatives has led to failure, and will continue to.

No, my goal is to get people to quit doing immature and ineffective things and to learn how to win and achieve victory (sign waves, marches, and blimps aren't it).

[Matt Collins]

And I agree that focusing only on "likely republican voters" was a mistake when you had a candidate that had cross party appeal and limited "likely republican voter" appeal.

it is much easier to convince people already going to the polls to vote for your guy, than it is to convince people to go to the polls to vote for your guy. The goal is to get elected, and you don't do that by chasing after people who are not likely to vote.


Resources, including time, are limited to you have to start with the low hanging fruit.

The problem in 2012, as I see it, was the failure to somehow translate the wild energy that was used in 2008 to gain name recognition into something that was useful in 2012 when name recognition was no longer needed.

Actually it was, but only in the target states where it was needed.

[Deborah K]

Actually it has... Rand is polling #1 in NH right now and in the top tier in Iowa too.

Prove that controlling the grassroots message is the reason for his polling at #1.

[Matt Collins]

I'm going to give you (Matt) the benefit of a longer explanation now that I'm on the laptop...

You started by saying "you didn't see any other candidates with a blimp did you?"

This does not support your theory that the blimp is a bad idea; in fact, it does just the opposite.

If it was a winning tactic, then other candidates would've been doing it.

When your advertising campaign looks just like everyone else's, people get bored. They stop watching. They throw your brochures away. They hang up on your phone calls.

Guess what, someone wins every election, and marketing is effective. Doesn't matter how much people are sick of the ads, a certain % of the population is going to go and vote so you must market to them if you hope to get elected.

You almost can't avoid seeing something up in the sky with a message on it: a blimp, an airplane with a banner, etc.

Yes you can... the blimp flew near my house in 07... I could see it, but I couldn't read it. If it's too far away or too close or the sun is hitting it wrong, or if you're in your car or in your house you're not likely to see it.

Very few people are likely to see it and receive whatever message it is trying to communicate. And of the people that do, only a tiny % are likely voters in a Republican primary.

I live in a suburb of New Orleans. My city hosts Super Bowls, Sugar Bowls, NCAA Championship Games, NBA All-Star Games, Mardi Gras, a major golf tournament, Final Four tournaments, New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, and many other events. At every one of those events there is a blimp flying over the city: Direct TV, Bud Light, Met Life, Virgin....all of these brands have thought it was worthwhile to advertise that way. I guess they're nuts, right? And guess what? I still remember them out of all the advertising that I see during Super Bowl and Sugar Bowl week. Why? Because it's different.

Yeah, you're right that it is different... it is a different type of marketing all together.

In fact you fail to understand their objectives there... they are trying to brand and create top of mind awareness... that is NOT what candidate marketing is trying to accomplish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-of-mind_awareness They are looking to occupy mental real estate of their (potential) customers.

Candidates do some of that (mostly through yard signs) but that is not what wins voters. If its a close race then yes it can push a candidate over the top, but that is not the type of marketing that wins elections. Direct marketing and personal contact is what wins elections.


I understand why you might think the things that you do, electoral marketing is counter intuitive sometimes.

[Matt Collins]

Prove that controlling the grassroots message is the reason for his polling at #1.

Controlling the candidate's message is why he is polling in #1

[Matt Collins]

We don't need humans to remind people who are Ron Paul supporters to go vote. Let a machine do that.

Personal contact works the best. But ideally you try and do both, the machine makes it so that you ensure everyone gets covered.

And for the work that volunteers have to do, maybe have some kind of incentive program. A free t-shirt for X number of completed calls for example.

Yes, this was one of the ideas that I had in 2012 that I wasn't able to get implemented on the phone from home program.

In the field offices we did buy a ton of food for the volunteers though which kept them happy and at the office.

[Matt Collins]

It's particularly depressing to me to see the official campaigns "schedule" a moneybomb because of an invention of the grassroots, then milk it by extending it through a weekend. Makes me sick.

Wow, so you don't want a candidate to be able to maximize his warchest?

The whole point of the Remember the 5th of November and the Tea Party moneybombs (That's how the present day "tea party" movement got its start btw...from the Ron Paul grassroots) was to show the political power of a decentralized, motivated grassroots base

No, the entire point was to raise funds for the candidate.

[phill4paul]

No, the entire point was to raise funds for the candidate.

No. This is where you show your ignorance in matters of marketing. Any "something" can have more than one point. In this case it it was for a three pointer swoop. First, to raise funds. Second, to garner media attention. Third, to show a grassroots ground swell. But, thanks for playing the marketing game.

[Deborah K]

Controlling the candidate's message is why he is polling in #1

Controlling the candidate's message is a given, Matt. Controlling the grassroots message is another matter. Nice try at baiting and switching though.

I'm through wasting my time with you. You're not relevant. We'll just see how effective it is to try and control the grassroots. If the campaign tries to control the grassroots, then we are, by definition, no longer grassroots, but rather campaign workers.

It backfired last time, it's not going to work this time either.