Is $23 million really needed?

[Naraku]

This is something I was wondering about because I don't think it's right. These are Super Tuesday states.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia

Of them I don't think Alaska or West Virginia will need much in the way of ads and California, because of its set up, will be more about turnout, though having ads in the Northern and Western parts could be effective.

Several of these, I think, don't need to be plastered by official ads. I think Colorado and Alaska should be focused on for possible wins, but wouldn't need the same kind of exposure as other states. West Virginia is more about getting people reminded.

I think $23 million sounds great, but obviously it's about game plan and I don't think there really is a need for this much money. Without momentum before Super Tuesday it will be pointless and momentum will reduce the need for as much money. Romney spent millions trying to win Iowa and lost, it blew up in his face.

I also think that's exceeding expectations. Only a New Hampshire win could make this much possible.

However, I think Paul should start getting a focused fundraising. For instance, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are all in generally the same area so perhaps having things focused on raising money for ads there first, since I think that's where things are weakest for February 5th.

Having another time to focus on the Sunbelt is great. California is a whole other beast and I think the focus should be on looking at districts and regions. For instance, some of the more liberal districts shouldn't be pummeled with ads, but instead be focused on through grassroots organizing, which may be more crucial than ads. However, in the North and West there should be a focus on more ads.

In fact, focusing on local distribution will be cheaper and more cost-effective if it's only done in those areas or regions where it's majority Republican. San Diego is big on immigration so an immigration ad would be good locally.

So I really think the campaign may be overblowing the idea of a need for $23 million.

[skolwulf]

IMO we must believe the campaign, if they say they need $23 million, I am assuming they mean they need $23 million and we should do our best to meet this goal as soon as possible.

Raising this much will only help build momentum and show that the Ron Paul Revolution is as vital and growing as ever - a very good perception for the public to have going into Super Tuesday.

[slacker921]

Huckabee is getting more online donations than Ron Paul at the moment http://ronpaulgraphs.com/directory.h...&list=huckabee
AND getting far, far more free and friendly media exposure.

Look at the 2004 election.. http://www.opensecrets.org/president...asp?cycle=2004
Howard Dean raised $51 Million and that was 4 years ago.

$23 Million is very reasonable imho

Maybe more important is signing up to be a precinct captain and getting out and knocking on doors and putting signs out. http://voters.ronpaul2008.com over 1700 people already have signed up so that's a good step in the right direction.

[faisal]

They really do, plus the states before super tuesday, like Nevada. It's like partitioning only 1 million per state. It's not that much. We need more of the grassroots.

[gracebkr]

People need to donate anything. We should ask for donations right after tax returns start coming in. When is George Washington's birthday?

[mtmedlin]

He never said that he needed $23 million, they said in order to do all the things that have been mentioned in all the super tuesday states, they would need $23 million. I wish they would just drop about $10 mill in California alone.

[BirdsAreWild]

It sounds as if you don't think we need to do any advertising because it is Super Tuesday.

We need to do as much advertising as possible. Advertising costs money. The print ads, mailers, radio time, TV time for 20 states adds up pretty darn quickly.

Are you trying to subdue our movement?

[angrydragon]

Yes I think they need it!

[LukeNM]

What part of "YES" don't you understand?

[Nicketas]

I retract all previous statements.

[John P Slevin]

...I don't think Alaska or West Virginia will need much in the way of ads and California, because of its set up, will be more about turnout, though having ads in the Northern and Western parts could be effective.

Several of these, I think, don't need to be plastered by official ads. I think Colorado and Alaska should be focused on for possible wins, but wouldn't need the same kind of exposure as other states. West Virginia is more about getting people reminded.

I've quoted only a few of the thoughtless remarks you compiled...you made many other stupid assertions, but here I'll comment only on the first few.

It's good you think Alaska and West Virginia don't need any ads, and California, the largest state only needs turn-out, no money too, except for San Diego, which you think could use an issue specific ad.

Why don't you go look-up how much money is spent, typically, on national campaigns and explain how Ron Paul's campaign can get its' message out without help from donors.

What a complete waste of time, both for you to write it and for others to have to read it.

NONSENSE.

[faisal]

Ron Paul Needs To Get A Matching Fund!

[mtmedlin]

hey, 3rd part candidacies are expensive.

[RonRules]

I just spent 4 hours with great guys in Irvine, CA. making 250 home made yard signs for a sign bomb. Totally grass roots stuff, with paint dripping everywhere.

One million RON PAUL DOLLARS is worth at least 10 million Huckabee dollars and 100 million Romney dollars.

Hillary dollars -- priceless.

[Charles Wilson]

IMO we must believe the campaign, if they say they need $23 million, I am assuming they mean they need $23 million and we should do our best to meet this goal as soon as possible.

Raising this much will only help build momentum and show that the Ron Paul Revolution is as vital and growing as ever - a very good perception for the public to have going into Super Tuesday.

I agree that HQ needs 23 million but I believe that they should ask for Federal matching funds and we raise the rest. I want to see Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and all of the other neocons pony up a few dollars via their taxes.

[Nicketas]

I retract all previous statements.

[OptionsTrader]

IMO we must believe the campaign, if they say they need $23 million, I am assuming they mean they need $23 million and we should do our best to meet this goal as soon as possible.

Raising this much will only help build momentum and show that the Ron Paul Revolution is as vital and growing as ever - a very good perception for the public to have going into Super Tuesday.

Agreed.

And when we get all of our precincts behind Ron, $23 mil will not be a problem.

http://voters.ronpaul2008.com

[kushaze]

Bloomberg spent $150 million when he ran for mayor of New York. Yes, I think we need the $23 million.

[Dave Pedersen]

Bloomberg spent $150 million when he ran for mayor of New York. Yes, I think we need the $23 million.

Wow.. and New Yorkers were dumb enough to elect him?

[Naraku]

I've quoted only a few of the thoughtless remarks you compiled...you made many other stupid assertions, but here I'll comment only on the first few.

I thought it out quite a bit thank you for not noticing.

It's good you think Alaska and West Virginia don't need any ads

I said I don't believe they need TV ads, which would be expensive. Alaska is a small state and a caucus. There are some 600,000 people in Alaska. A TV ad would be overdoing it. It's most likely turnout would be all that's needed, with maybe some radio ads.

On West Virginia I said that because it is going to be done through on an online convention, where we'll have more delegates than anyone else up for grabs. We have a good chance of hitting that out of the park because of the format.

That's how I'm looking at it, as each specific case and each specific case demands a different strategy.

and California, the largest state only needs turn-out, no money too, except for San Diego, which you think could use an issue specific ad.

California is divided into districts, also you fail to understand organization does require money. However, my point is $23 million is an exceedingly unnecessary amount. In California you have very large meetups in areas where it would be easier to drive turnout in favor of Ron Paul. The strongly democratic districts would be ripe for the taking because of this. Ads in the more Republican areas would be desirable, though. With California it has to be approached on a district-by-district basis, which means statewide ads are really just wastes of money.

Several other states are doing this district division like:

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Oklahoma
Tennessee

So all of these states should have a district-by-district focus and would generally be better to have strong organizational actions than running a statewide ad campaign.

A statewide campaign would be need for those states that do not divide by districts and are not caucuses like:

Arizona
Connecticut
Delaware
Massachusetts
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Utah

Some of these could be concentrated on altogether. For instance, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey are all very close together. If there is a station which can reach all those states and once it would be far more effective than just running ads in each state. Also several states have small populations, which means there would be a greater emphasis on local appeals and turnout such as radio and newspaper ads:

Delaware
Montana
North Dakota

A good strategy does not approach every situation the same way and the same should be true in elections, especially when you have a varied and mixed up process like here.

Why don't you go look-up how much money is spent, typically, on national campaigns and explain how Ron Paul's campaign can get its' message out without help from donors.

I'm not saying they don't need money, but that $23 million is just a little over the top. It would be nice to have it no doubt, but people shouldn't think it's needed.

You can't think of it as a national campaign because this is not how our system works, not even in a general election. It's about winning states and in this case districts even. Ignoring this and not adjusting strategy accordingly is far more thoughtless.

[hueylong]

It's generally projected that $35 million is needed to campaign fully in the Super Tuesday states. So -- we're probably projecting using some existing money, and some new.

[Naraku]

My point is those projections seem to rely on the conventional form of campaigning, rather than taking a detailed approach like I mentioned. There is a great deal of attention paid to TV ads, newspaper ads, and other such things, but Romney spent millions in New Hampshire and Iowa, but got second in both states and actually got only about twice as much as us in Iowa, despite Paul not spending much there.

The conventional form of campaign is proving to be absolutely ineffective and campaigns that rely less on conventional advertising and more on organization or grassroots support are succeeding like with Huckabee and McCain, Huckabee especially. He focused on using the churches and religious communities to build up his support in Iowa and ultimately those are people who traditionally turnout.

Each state, however, demands a different strategy and not just focusing on different issues, but figuring out a different way of going about it. In New York, which is a large state and a winner-take-all primary, there's a need to run a statewide campaign. However, California, despite being larger, demands a district-by-district campaign because the bulk of the delegates are at district level.

There are 159 delegates at district level in California, and each district has three delegates, no matter how small the voter population. The vast majority of districts and thus delegates are in the urban, Democratic, areas where there are going to be less Republican voters. Focusing on organization and turnout is a much better strategy in California than trying to run a statewide campaign.

The same for other states with division by district. Ads in those cases should be tailor made for each district and put in newspapers or in some other limited focus to appeal more directly to potential voters.

Ultimately that demands less money than trying to run TV ads in the entire state. It's possible the campaign has some massive strategy which does take these things into account, but I doubt it. Most likely they're asking for $23 million in order to get a large advertising campaign going with TV ads, radio ads, and a lot of other statewide sort of strategies.

[CarpesDiem]

It sounds as if you don't think we need to do any advertising because it is Super Tuesday.

We need to do as much advertising as possible. Advertising costs money. The print ads, mailers, radio time, TV time for 20 states adds up pretty darn quickly.

Are you trying to subdue our movement?

Advertise the same Stupid, boring, uneffective Ads... that have us going down in the polls?

We want Campaign and Commercial advertisement Changes before our family donates anymore money.

[BigRedBrent]

Advertise the same Stupid, boring, uneffective Ads... that have us going down in the polls?

We want Campaign and Commercial advertisement Changes before our family donates anymore money.

I sadly agree. I have seen more effective adds made by supporters on youtube then the official campaign is using. I hope this forum is being monitored by the official campaign as well.

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Huckabee is saying that to do Florida properly he would need $7 million. I think the $23 million is correct.

Politics are mad expensive. This is the most expensive presidential race ever and we are encouraging it by not rolling over.