# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  10 Lessons from Rand, Amash, and Schiff

## Jordan

*10 Lessons from Rand, Amash, and Schiff*

With the primary battles now over for three of the most well known liberty candidates, it is time to sit back, reflect, and take a lesson from each primary race.  In the paragraphs below, I hope to outline a few key points for each candidate and how we should better allocate our resources to winning elections.

Rand Paul
Rand Paul was hands down our easiest victory.  Old GOP talking points and ideas still persist throughout Kentucky and this was a state where we could simply waltz to victory.  Luckily, even without political experience, Rand Paul had the name to be able to take a senate seat without any prior government position.  This is rare, but so is today's political climate.

*Polls and Politics
*
We should note that Rand's victory did not come out of thin air.  From the very first polling of the race, Rand Paul was within 11 points at 37-26.  These kind of poll numbers helped establish the idea that Rand Paul could win the primary, and gave him legitimacy both in the media and with potential voters.  Unlike previous campaigns that had significant late momentum (Medina, and in some ways, Schiff), Rand had a foundation.  I would argue that without good early poll numbers, candidates do not deserve our support.

*Politicking*

I don't think there was a single person running as a liberty candidate that put in as much sweat equity as Rand Paul put into winning the Senate race.  All over the state he took the time to meet with groups of people big and small (some as few as 20 people in “meet and great” settings).  This kind of work ethic and “pedal to the metal” campaigning is the kind that we should support in the future.  Having a candidate speak directly to the electorate makes our job—funding and providing general support--easier. 

*Advertising*

Rand benefited in that he raised as much or more than Trey Grayson in virtually every single quarter.  This allowed him to go toe to toe with Trey and attack him on being a Washington insider.  

However, if Rand didn't already have a strong position in Western Kentucky, Rand would have been at a severe disadvantage.  The Western Kentucky DMAs  are largely made up of populations living in Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee.  Having to run TV ads in these areas would have dried up his funds faster than ever, and would have forced his campaign to spend huge amounts of donated dollars just to reach a very small Kentucky population.  In my own DMA that includes some of Western Kentucky, there are more than 1 million people, but the vast majority reside in Indiana and Illinois and cannot vote for a KY politician.  Those are wasted dollars.

Justin Amash

Justin “motha-$#@!in” Amash was probably the best candidate least known by the liberty movement.  He donated more than $1000 to Ron Paul's presidential election and put his mouth where his money was in each of his votes on the MI State House Floor.  Despite being a liberty candidate through and through, support in the Liberty movement was weak at best, but thanks to his work in the Michigan state house, he bested a large republican field for Congress.

We can learn more from Justin Amash than we can either Rand or Schiff.  Amash's victory should be used as a roadmap for all future liberty campaigns.  Run for state house, vote like a libertarian, run in a heavily GOP district, then win in an anti-establishment year.

*Purely Grassroots*

Amash earned respect from constituents in the Michigan state house by explaining each and every vote in real time.  His principled stances (frequently being the only “No” vote) earned him headline after headline, and media mention after media mention.  Of all the liberty candidates this year, he got the most free publicity and it certainly helped his name recognition in the republican primary for MI-3 Republican primary.

*Patience*

The biggest thing we can learn from Amash's campaign is that running for a lower office is the best way to establish credibility, name recognition, and a voting record that generates support.  Just imagine if the hundreds of thousands of dollars we've spent on federal races were allocated to state house races.  State house races typically cost just $100,000 for an easy victory.  We've spent 10 times that much on just one loser.

The liberty movement should help nurture small campaigns that can lead to huge political success in the future.  If we can fund serious candidates in state house races, we can create a monster of a political victory in just a few short years.  Off the top of my head, I should mention Glen Bradley (GunnyFreedom on the forums) who in recent polling is ahead by double digits for NC state house.  He could easily be another cheap victory in the state house, then in the US house a few years later.

Peter Schiff

He's fiery, he loves the camera, and he's not one to be silenced.  Well known in the liberty camp, but a relatively unknown in the mainstream, Peter Schiff was to be one of our best candidates up for election this year.

Unfortunately, Schiff didn't even come close to winning his primary.  But rather than simply moving on after a terrible loss, we should be sure to take some notes from his campaign, as well.

*Know Your Opponent/District*

Peter Schiff was sure to be an excellent contender against Chris Dodd.  Dodd's favorability was in the toilet, his position/knowledge on the financial crisis was polar opposite of Peter's.  Dodd, however, dropped out early and Schiff should have followed.  

Richard Blumenthal, a candidate with awesome name recognition (Schiff had practically zero at this point), was sure to win the general election.  Blumenthal had his own baggage, but being a Dem in a largely Democratic state will be enough to insure his victory, regardless of how much Linda spent.

If Schiff shouldn't have quit after Dodd made his exit, he most certainly should have after Linda entered, and we should have cut our support.

*What Campaign?*

I say this in the best way possible, but Peter Schiff lacked severely in voter outreach.  Rather than appeal to the people who would show up to vote, Schiff tried to make friends at the RTCs, preaching to the political class.  As we know, this strategy backfired greatly in that Schiff, after failing to get enough votes at the convention, had to waste resources to get signatures to be on the ballot.

It wasn't until the final few weeks until Schiff used the strategy that Rand used to win Kentucky—get out and talk to people.  The RV tour through CT was months too late.

*Advertising*

Connecticut is one of the worst places to run a candidate with limited funds.  The New York City Designated Market Area includes 1 out of every 15 Americans, or some 20 million people.  Of those 20 million people, only a small percentage are going to show up to vote.  Needless to say, the best form of advertising (TV) was simply too expensive for Peter to utilize.  He had to advertise to 20 million people just to potentially get the votes of 100,000.  

As much as this forum may hate television, it remains the best way to get the word out about a product/service/campaign.  In a recent survey, more than 40% of respondents said that a TV ad contains enough information to buy a product.  Have you ever seen an Apple advertisement?  Car advertisements?  Pharma and household product ads?  They contain almost NO information, but have enough impact to get people to spend their money on a product.  TV is essential to winning an election.

*Phone Calls Are Worth Something, but not Everything*

Phonebanking was far more productive than I could have imagined, helping to increase Schiff's name recognition and developing a dialogue between the grassroots and ordinary voters.  Schiff polled at 15% before the election was held, and then came in at 22%, a 50% disparity between the the day before the election and the day of.  I can't help but think this gain is due in a large part to phone banking.

Phone banking, however, needs to be used in unison with other media.  Let TV and Radio be the cannons, and phone banking the sniper rifle.  With a larger media buy, and continued phone banking, I bet Schiff could have pulled off at least 30% at the polls.  The simple fact of the matter is that people didn't know his name, and hearing his name for the first time, from a telemarketer no less, is probably not the best marketing strategy.  Make do with what you can, I guess.

*One Term Candidates are a Bad Investment*

Peter Schiff would have probably lasted just one term in the senate representing a state like Connecticut.   Compare that to Rand, who will have that seat for as long as he desires, and Amash, who won't lose a general election unless he murders someone in his heavily GOP district.

This movement will take time.  There is no sense in putting candidates in the senate representing states that go from dem to republican with each election cycle.  We need to focus our energy in places where, after winning the for the first time, we can just sit back and win each and every year without much energy.

----------


## Jordan

Things We Can Learn from All Candidates
*Polls are Legit*

I thought after Ron Paul performed just as well as the polls had predicted that we would drop the idea that polling company numbers are BS.  They aren't.  We need to understand that everything can be quantified and that finding a sample that matches the general population is not rocket science.  There are far more difficult things that statisticians do on a daily basis.  

*Education Campaigns No Longer Provide a Good ROI*

Education campaigns are no longer a good investment for the liberty movement.  We simply don't have the time or resources to educate people with candidacies that aren't meant to win.  Sure, we're all here because of Ron Paul's 2008 run, but should he run again in 2012, he'll be blasting his message to the very same people that heard him the first time.  Those who would be in our camp, for the most part, are already in our camp.

We have to start winning to get any credibility.  And we can't just win 10 out of 100 races.  For credibility/feasibility purposes, we would be much better served with 4 out of 5 wins than 8 out of 50.  The GOP will never, ever take us seriously until we win with consistency.  

*State House Races Should Be Priority*

With the funding and organization of the modern liberty movement, we should be able to win at the very minimum 50 state house seats per election cycle, no if ands or buts about it.  If we play our cards right, and do some very basic risk/reward modeling, two years after big wins in state house seats we could have 50 Justin Amashs in Congress.  Tell me that won't give us a serious voting block, and a huge amount of pull in DC.  

The Midwest provides us the best opportunity to enact this plan.  We can, for less than $100,000 each, set ourselves up for huge victories that will provide us with residual representation in Congress.  Is this plan as fun as running 2-3 huge campaigns? No.  Does it provide the instant gratification we seem to long for?  No.  But for a movement who could probably write a $#@!ing book on time preference, why can't we understand that this movement will only work with a long term strategy?

The biggest idea behind libertarianism is decentralization and localized control.  This should be a piece of our electoral strategy, as well.

*There is Nothing Wrong with Dumping Losers*

Let's stop being David and start funding our Goliaths.  I understand it is fun to fight the machine and back underdog candidates, but all we're really doing is pissing our money, resources, and credibility down the toilet.  If a candidate isn't performing well, or is the kind of person we'd rather not have associated with the liberty movement, then its probably best we just cut ties and support.  

“But, but we begged them to run!”  Sorry, we don't have the resources.  Cut your losses, and redirect the resources to places we can win.  Again, losing gets us nowhere.

*40% of the vote means 4% of people actually know where you stand*

Just because a candidate captures a certain percentage of the vote does not mean, in any sense, that that percentage of people has a single clue about where the candidate stands on key issues.  Most of them don't even know what a libertarian is.

I would venture to gamble that most of the 2X% of voters who voted for Schiff/Kokesh will go on in later elections to vote for total warmongering, big government, neoconservatives.  That is just simply how it works.  People vote for candidates they "like," issues are too big of concepts for most people, and many have probably spent all of 10 minutes to define their own little political philosophy.

----------


## Krugerrand

I may be blinded by optimism ... but I can't help but think sometimes it's worth throwing common sense out the window and shooting big.

I'm talking about John Dennis.  We will never have a better opportunity to sound the power of the Constitutionalists/Libertarians than taking out Nancy Pelosi.  The prize is so big.  The message would be so loud.  

What better way is there to declare the GOP of Newt and Bush is wrong.  The GOP of Ron Paul is the way to move forward.

Yes, Nancy is in a solid DEM district.  She also is not liked running in an election year that already has the true DEM supporters dismayed and less likely to go to the polls.

JD has views that can and will attract those DEM voters.  While he holds many views not in-line with traditional GOP voters ... they sure as anything will not vote for Pelosi and will vote for him when the smell blood in the water.

----------


## Aratus

john dennis won.
adam kokesh ran well
but did not get the votes
he needed. peter schiif may
decide down the road 2012 is
to be HIS year most totally in full!

----------


## Jordan

> I may be blinded by optimism ... but I can't help but think sometimes it's worth throwing common sense out the window and shooting big.
> 
> I'm talking about John Dennis.  We will never have a better opportunity to sound the power of the Constitutionalists/Libertarians than taking out Nancy Pelosi.  The prize is so big.  The message would be so loud.  
> 
> What better way is there to declare the GOP of Newt and Bush is wrong.  The GOP of Ron Paul is the way to move forward.
> 
> Yes, Nancy is in a solid DEM district.  She also is not liked running in an election year that already has the true DEM supporters dismayed and less likely to go to the polls.
> 
> JD has views that can and will attract those DEM voters.  While he holds many views not in-line with traditional GOP voters ... they sure as anything will not vote for Pelosi and will vote for him when the smell blood in the water.


I just want us to do some risk to reward analysis.  

Risk for John Dennis = a few certain wins in state house seats whereas John Dennis has probably .5% chance of victory.

Reward= Knocking out the Dem speaker of the house with a libertarian.

We can't afford to keep playing the lottery for big wins when we need to start putting points on the board.  If we keep playing the congressional lotto, we'll get a few candidates in who don't have the weight to make a difference.  If we REALLY want to make a difference, we need numbers, and our numbers so far have been mostly losers.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

A decent analysis. I disagree on the value of running underdogs. I think there are many side benefits (and then there is Alvin Greene...). 

I am still of the mind that we should be supportive of any liberty candidate that chooses to take the leap. That is not saying every individual needs to actively "help" every candidate, just that we should not "hurt" those who choose to get behind a candidate, for whatever reason moves them. For certain there are people who will help a local candidate and will not get involved in a distant race. These races provide a great vehicle for many people to get more involved in local politics and learn about the process. Additionally, by running hoards of candidates, we make our enemies spread themselves thin...

I am in complete agreement that we would do well to encourage more people to run on downticket (local) races.

GO GLEN BRADLEY!

----------


## malkusm

I agree with this thread 100%....I think we should be getting behind all of the state house/senate candidates that have been endorsed by the RLC and got past their primaries. I don't have them listed in my General Election candidate thread yet, but so far there are those listed in that thread plus an additional 62(!!!) more that I have yet to add.

I think your estimate of $100K for a state race is extremely high. Many of these races have 15k-20k voters or less. We also have to consider that we should not be the sole contributor to these campaigns - candidates still have to do their part to meet with the establishment, local leaders, business owners, etc. to get the "big money" donations in their races. I think that if we could throw $20-30k into a lot of these races that we can win them (depending on their demographics, etc.)

Good post.

----------


## ChaosControl

I agree with everything mentioned in the OP.
And specifically:



> State House Races Should Be Priority


Seriously, we should decentralize. And if we could control some states we'd actually have a lot of power. Get enough state legislatures on board and you can get constitutional amendments in play, without having to worry about the federal congress.

We could then use that to limit the power of the congress. And as mentioned it is cheaper and easier to win state houses. Sure there are more of them, but we can build up our numbers over time. And then we can influence people locally.

Third parties have the problem of often ignoring lower races and running for president or senate and losing. Well we're doing the same mistake, just because we're trying to use the GOP doesn't mean we're going to be successful. So let us focus on the local.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> *State House Races Should Be Priority*
> 
> With the funding and organization of the modern liberty movement, we should be able to win at the very minimum 50 state house seats per election cycle, no if ands or buts about it.  If we play our cards right, and do some very basic risk/reward modeling, two years after big wins in state house seats we could have 50 Justin Amashs in Congress.  Tell me that won't give us a serious voting block, and a huge amount of pull in DC.  
> 
> The Widwest provides us the best opportunity to enact this plan.  We can, for less than $100,000 each, set ourselves up for huge victories that will provide us with residual representation in Congress.  Is this plan as fun as running 2-3 huge campaigns? No.  Does it provide the instant gratification we seem to long for?  No.  But for a movement who could probably write a $#@!ing book on time preference, why can't we understand that this movement will only work with a long term strategy?


I've always liked the State House takeover strategy. State house races don't cost much money compared to congressional races and are much easier to win. 

I had an idea that would focus on one state where we could get a full state house worth of candidates on the ballot and through the primaries. I would think that in some races many would win unopposed, and some states would have almost guaranteed victories in heavily conservative areas. It could be an extension to the Free State Project if we did it in New Hampshire.

----------


## jmdrake

Very good analysis!  Some things I'd like to add.  

* I think your point about state house races is *spot* on.  (Go Gunny!)

* We need to know the difference between "liberty movement" name recognition and "electoral" name recognition.  I'd never heard of Amash before he had won.  But obviously people in his state had.  This kind of goes with winning state house races first as you pointed out.  What we lack generally is a "farm team".  

* I do think there is some room for educational races.  But if it's going to be an educational race let it be that.  Rand tacking away from the Ron's foreign policy helped him win.  Peter doing the same thing wasn't enough to get him over the top, but it was enough to discourage some grassroots support.  Worst of both worlds.  The John Dennis campaign can have an impact even if he doesn't win if Nancy feels threatened enough to debate him.  (Admittedly that's a long shot).  But if his campaign helps educate some new SF voters that there are republicans who are actually antiwar that may help some in 2012.

* We need a systematic way to evaluate and support state house candidates.  Maybe that's through the local Meetups?  Glenn Bradley has been here from day 1 so people know to support him.  But how to tell early on which state house candidates are viable?

----------


## malkusm

> * We need a systematic way to evaluate and support state house candidates.  Maybe that's through the local Meetups?  Glenn Bradley has been here from day 1 so people know to support him.  But how to tell early on which state house candidates are viable?


Simple - we have to go back through the election results to see which districts are competitive, and how much we'll need to push that candidate to victory. It takes a lot of work, but I've gone through it for about 9 of the State House/Senate candidates so far....a lot more work left to be done, but it will get there.

----------


## Jordan

> * We need a systematic way to evaluate and support state house candidates.  Maybe that's through the local Meetups?  Glenn Bradley has been here from day 1 so people know to support him.  But how to tell early on which state house candidates are viable?


I completely agree. 

The chat punks, namely Matt, Casey, Jer (even if he was a negative nancy), and I were throwing around ideas on how we could organize to deliver a series of sizeable state candidate money bombs.

To these candidates, $10,000 would be like Christmas on steroids.  With Matt's ability to analyze political data and number crunch combined with the promotional abilities this forum has, I think we could most certainly fund a big round of liberty-loving state candidates.  

As for GOTV, national phonebanking efforts/local doorknocking for state candidates would probably be VERY effective considering so few people show up to the polls.   

At this point, we need to start putting points on the board.  Once we have the momentum, and the people in place locally, federal elections will come easily.  However, without a solid foundation, we'll just have to resort to taking complete stabs in the dark for high-risk low reward candidacies.

I want to win, damn it!

----------


## brenden.b

Localism, I like it. I've been on board for a while with this idea. It's pretty sad that voteres know more about their federal representation than their state representation. We need to change that, we need to make the state legislature significant once again. 

Targeting the local races will give us a bunch of small victories at lower costs, and eventually we can turn multiple states into little nullification factories.

@malkusm, $100,000 is probably the average cost for a state house race, so I wouldn't say he is missing the target by much.

----------


## paulitics

I'm on board and will certainly donate for local elections.   I think we have a pool of hundreds of potential viable candidates right here.   

But do we have enough time?

----------


## brenden.b

> I'm on board and will certainly donate for local elections.   I think we have a pool of hundreds of potential viable candidates right here.   
> 
> But do we have enough time?


We need to look around in our own states. A good resource to check is the list of candidates endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus. Once we start compiling a list of candidates in each state, those lists should be added to the local activism forums so that everyone knows the liberty candidates running in their states. We can all support them as we see fit by calling for money bombs via the General Politics forum.

Recruiting local candidates at this point is too late. Let's find the liberty candidates in our own states and support them the best we can.

----------


## malkusm

Here is a list of the candidates endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus this year. A vast majority of these are state candidates, and I've done the work to figure out which ones won their primaries so far (62 in total):

http://www.rlc.org/endorsed-candidates-2010/

----------


## Maximus

Okay so let's say a State race in the Midwest costs about 30k

We should pick 5 candidates in different races and do a 150k money bomb for the five of them.  Contributing to five races doesn't dilute the average contribution, and it encourages participation from a more national audience.

I remember one time we had a money bomb for like 20 candidates at once, well what was the point of contributing 20 bucks if each candidate only got $1? 

Also, for me atleast, it's hard to send money to one person running for the State House of a different state, far across the country.  But I would be far more likely to support a "basket" of candidates that can really make a difference if we elect all of them.

----------


## Maximus

Next election cycle we should pick one Federal Senate candidate (ala Rand Paul), in hopefully a small media market state, this would be a big money commitment, but having a US Senator is huge and worth the investment.  I know having Rand Paul in the Senate will pay dividends for our movement for years on end.

We should select five House races, and commit 100k to each of them.  That is doable.

We should select two or three five person "baskets" of people running for State legislatures.  These would cost 150k per basket.

This would cost anywhere from 3-5million... but something I know we could commit too and succeed with

----------


## eOs

babababarumpski

----------


## malkusm

> Okay so let's say a State race in the Midwest costs about 30k
> 
> We should pick 5 candidates in different races and do a 150k money bomb for the five of them.  Contributing to five races doesn't dilute the average contribution, and it encourages participation from a more national audience.
> 
> I remember one time we had a money bomb for like 20 candidates at once, well what was the point of contributing 20 bucks if each candidate only got $1? 
> 
> Also, for me atleast, it's hard to send money to one person running for the State House of a different state, far across the country.  But I would be far more likely to support a "basket" of candidates that can really make a difference if we elect all of them.


I floated this exact idea out there last week, but very few people responded to it: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256280

Although I agree, maybe "less is more" in terms of the number of candidates....so we figure out the most viable candidates who are the most pure, pick 5 or 10 or whatever we get closest to agreeing on, and go from there.

----------


## brenden.b

> Okay so let's say a State race in the Midwest costs about 30k
> 
> We should pick 5 candidates in different races and do a 150k money bomb for the five of them.  Contributing to five races doesn't dilute the average contribution, and it encourages participation from a more national audience.
> 
> I remember one time we had a money bomb for like 20 candidates at once, well what was the point of contributing 20 bucks if each candidate only got $1? 
> 
> Also, for me atleast, it's hard to send money to one person running for the State House of a different state, far across the country.  But I would be far more likely to support a "basket" of candidates that can really make a difference if we elect all of them.


There is some serious low balling going on with the cost of state house races, especially in the Midwest. $30,000 would hardly get you anywhere in Michigan. Same story in most other Midwest states.

As for supporting a basket of candidates, why don't we focus more on localism and just work towards supporting candidates running in our OWN states? There are plenty of liberty candidates running in each state at the state level. Rather than turning this process into a CENTRALIZED basket, lets turn it into true grassroots local support of candidates. I find liberty candidates in Michigan, I support them and so on.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Next election cycle we should pick one Federal Senate candidate (ala Rand Paul), in hopefully a small media market state, this would be a big money commitment, but having a US Senator is huge and worth the investment.  I know having Rand Paul in the Senate will pay dividends for our movement for years on end.
> 
> We should select five House races, and commit 100k to each of them.  That is doable.
> 
> We should select two or three five person "baskets" of people running for State legislatures.  These would cost 150k per basket.
> 
> This would cost anywhere from 3-5million... but something I know we could commit too and succeed with


I agree for the most part. That is about what we have proven we can support. But other good candidates come out of the woodwork. Amash just kind of appeared. 

Here are some lessons I think we can take.

1. We can't win by challenging incumbents in the primary unless there is really good reason. Doesn't matter if they voted for the stimlus.

2. We really shouldn't be commiting large amounts of money to candidates in extreme democrat leaning districts. Basically 70% democrats and up. 60% to 70% democrat we should choose wisely. Example...BJ is a longshot but evidence seems to point that he has a legitimate yet extrememly long chance to win. Dennis, as much as I love him, has no shot in hell. 50% to 60% I say have at it.

3. Republican Districts without incumbents should be our #1 priority for Congressional Elections. 

4. Candidates we support must have some degree of local name recognition, and the ability to raise money outside of this movement.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## Maximus

> There is some serious low balling going on with the cost of state house races, especially in the Midwest. $30,000 would hardly get you anywhere in Michigan. Same story in most other Midwest states.
> 
> As for supporting a basket of candidates, why don't we focus more on localism and just work towards supporting candidates running in our OWN states? There are plenty of liberty candidates running in each state at the state level. Rather than turning this process into a CENTRALIZED basket, lets turn it into true grassroots local support of candidates. I find liberty candidates in Michigan, I support them and so on.


I know it's on the low end, but we wouldn't be funding the whole campaign.  Just enough to make it legitament.  The candidate would still have to "make the rounds" and raise money the old fashioned way to put them over the top

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Here's a better lesson:

Rand ran a brilliant campaign

Amash ran a great campaign

Schiff was a joke, and all he did was lecture people about Austrian economics and make stupid comments about 9/11.

----------


## low preference guy

> Schiff was a joke, and all he did was lecture people about Austrian economics and make stupid comments about 9/11.


truther is a little hurt?

----------


## Maximus

Stop saying that Schiff's campaign was a joke.  It wasn't a joke.  He ran against someone who threw 20million into the race in order to buy it.

It wasn't a perfect campaign, but he learned his lessons and made deep inroads in the Conn political scene.

----------


## low preference guy

> Stop saying that Schiff's campaign was a joke.  It wasn't a joke.  He ran against someone who threw 20million into the race in order to buy it.
> 
> It wasn't a perfect campaign, but he learned his lessons and made deep inroads in the Conn political scene.


Don't worry. The opposition is mostly much from a few truthers who were hurt when Peter made fun of them.

----------


## Vessol

It's sad that Peter Schiff lost, but it was an uphill battle to begin with. His campaign could've been better managed, but he did well and got his name out there.

We don't need to beat him up ourselves, he's doing it enough to himself as well I imagine.

----------


## biles1234

This is definitely sticky-worthy.

Good post Jordan.

----------


## klamath

A lot of good points are brought out here.  It is one thing to suddenly turn on the man you were supporting when he loses and another to do an after action review. What was done right and what was done wrong what can we learn for the next time. 
I think Schiff is the right republican for CT if CT is ever going to go Republican. I think he did not have a competent campaign staff. I don't even know who his campaign manager was?How many times did we hear David Adams name versus _______? name. I don't care how you slice it Schiffs name should have been know by nearly all the republican voters in CT with the amount of money and time he had. The name recognition drive should have been done with the phonebanks and man on the street hand shaking last FALL! By the time the election rolled around he still had low name recognition, What is up with that? Sure it would have been a losing game to try and match Linda  attack ad for attack ad but no name recognition?.

A comment on other points. Even when I have the money I don't donate to candidates that are in horribly lobsided democratic districts. The only time I will is if they by pure bootstrap effectiveness start showing a great run in the polls. Debra Medina did this but then her inexperiance at politics got her in the Beck gotcha moment.

----------


## american.swan

I'm going to favorite this thread and tweet it regularly.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Great thread, Jordan.

----------


## Old Ducker

Nice analysis, Jordan.

----------


## cindy25

Peter Schiff should pick a competitive house seat, and set his sights on 2012.

----------


## AlexMerced

The OP is write on his analysis, although I don't think this should detract us from supporting people we believe in if there is belief that person continue on figurehead in the movement, a Kokesh and Schiff are worth the investment cause they'll continue to speak and work towards spreading the movement.

If someone loses and just goes back to daily life... then that's a bit of a waste.

Now I do understand that this year, all eyes are on us, the Liberty Movement to show our growth in these mid-term elections, and I understand the results can be the different of 4-5 national poll point if Ron Paul were to run again for POTUS.

Although we should operate with a longer time Horizon than 2012, and begin fostering figureheads all over the nation. Whether they win or lose, political races are a good way to build up these figureheads.

----------


## YumYum

There was a lot of effort and money that was contributed by C4L and members on this forum to these campaigns. I gave money to both Rand's campaign and to Peter's, and I don't live in either of their states.

When Rand gave his acceptance speech, he thanked whole-heartedly the Tea Party movement. He never mentioned C4L or Ron Paul forums. I was bothered by this. Is he ashamed of us, or do we give ourselves credit for being a bigger impact on the political scene than we really are? 

I'd like to think that all of our contributions had played a major part in helping the candidates that we supported. I would like to know the names of those candidates, whether they won or lost, that thanked publicly C4L and Ron Paul forums for the media and the world to see.

----------


## Koz

> I just want us to do some risk to reward analysis.  
> 
> Risk for John Dennis = a few certain wins in state house seats whereas John Dennis has probably .5% chance of victory.
> 
> Reward= Knocking out the Dem speaker of the house with a libertarian.
> 
> We can't afford to keep playing the lottery for big wins when we need to start putting points on the board.  If we keep playing the congressional lotto, we'll get a few candidates in who don't have the weight to make a difference.  If we REALLY want to make a difference, we need numbers, and our numbers so far have been mostly losers.


I think you are giving John Dennis too much of a chance for victory with .5% chance. 

This thread is right on. I think we even need to dig deeper and come up with a strategy to get the real history of the United States and the principles of the Constitution back into schools. 

Progressives didn't disable our Republic overnight, it has taken 100 years or better and they keep pushing and pushing down all roads. Liberty lovers for the most part want to be left alone, I liken it to herding cats. 

We need to keep pushing liberty down all roads, in government, in churches, in the classroom, social clubs, etc. just as the progressives have done for 100 years. This thread is a good start.

----------


## jmdrake

> A decent analysis. I disagree on the value of running underdogs. I think there are many side benefits (and then there is Alvin Greene...). 
> 
> I am still of the mind that we should be supportive of any liberty candidate that chooses to take the leap. That is not saying every individual needs to actively "help" every candidate, just that we should not "hurt" those who choose to get behind a candidate, for whatever reason moves them. For certain there are people who will help a local candidate and will not get involved in a distant race. These races provide a great vehicle for many people to get more involved in local politics and learn about the process. Additionally, by running hoards of candidates, we make our enemies spread themselves thin...
> 
> I am in complete agreement that we would do well to encourage more people to run on downticket (local) races.
> 
> GO GLEN BRADLEY!


I agree.  I seriously had *NOT* heard of Justin until AFTER he had won.    And locally a "dark horse" congressional candidate out hustled two other candidates with big name backers (Palin and Huckabee) so you never know.

----------


## Golding

Indeed, the most salient points are regarding Amash's victory.  The state house is a relatively inexpensive road to victory that we should not ignore.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> I'd like to think that all of our contributions had played a major part in helping the candidates that we supported. I would like to know the names of those candidates, whether they won or lost, that thanked publicly C4L and Ron Paul forums for the media and the world to see.


Little needy aren't we? I am sure he will thank us, with his friggin voting record. 

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## thomas-in-ky

What I observed from Rand's campaign (and from my own campaign for county judge executive):

0.  The best way to get elected is to be a member of one of the major parties.

1.  Signs work.  Yard signs, road signs, barn signs... you name it, they work. 

2.  If you have enough grass roots support, you can win big even if 99% of the party establishment is against you.

3.  Negative campaigning usually can't revive a failing campaign.

4.  In a primary where 300,000 people are going to vote, scheduling 4 appearances per day, where only 20 to 80 people are going to show up, will pay off if you have the stamina. (Rand's case)

5.  It's good to have a platform.  Put it out there.  Don't hide from the issues.

6.  When the primary is over, be ready to accommodate those in the establishment who are willing to help you.

----------


## cindy25

Rand had fund raising advantage because of his dad.  and he had timing.

----------


## YumYum

> Little needy aren't we? I am sure he will thank us, with his friggin voting record. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


Your right. How they vote will tell it all. But, it still nice to be recognized for your noble efforts and hard work.

----------


## Michigan11

I think this thread is genius.

----------


## thomas-in-ky

> Rand had fund raising advantage because of his dad.  and he had timing.


Reminds me of the saying "luck is when preparation meets opportunity."  No doubt his father had quite a bit to do with both the preparation and the opportunity. But having a  father named Ron Paul is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for getting elected to the US Senate.

----------


## K466

Excellent post, I generally agree.

Fair criticism of the Schiff campaign; except, I would not agree all one term candidates are a bad investment; particularly for the Senate (6 years). And even more so for Schiff- who is such a good spokesman for our cause. At this point, we cannot afford to not have him in office.

If he runs again in 2012 (See his video blog, _Schiff for Senate Final Thoughts_), he will have several things to his advantage this next time around- 50% name recognition (Compared to <2%); the respect of CT republicans for pulling off an unexpected 23% (Instead of a fringe total of <10%); plenty of experience- with  hopefully a much better strategy, connecting with the voters and less with the RTC’s.

Of course in all likely hood there will be no McMahon ($50 million) and no highly popular Democrat (Blumenthal). In fact, it could be a three way race, with LIEberman running as an independent.

----------


## jmdrake

Great thread.  It should be a sticky.  And I wish there was more solid political analysis like this.

----------


## Krugerrand

> I just want us to do some* risk to reward analysis*.  
> 
> Risk for John Dennis = a few certain wins in state house seats whereas John Dennis has probably .5% chance of victory.
> 
> Reward= Knocking out the Dem speaker of the house with a libertarian.
> 
> We can't afford to keep playing the lottery for big wins when we need to start putting points on the board.  If we keep playing the congressional lotto, we'll get a few candidates in who don't have the weight to make a difference.  If we REALLY want to make a difference, we need numbers, and our numbers so far have been mostly losers.


Eventually in a risk-reward analysis, the reward can become so large that some risk is worthwhile.  While regular lotter play is unwise, when a lottery jackpot becomes exceptionally large, a few dollars becomes worth the risk.

I think Schiff and Dennis represent 'sweepstakes' wins that are worth some effort.  I won't try and argue that these races should be our main focus.  Much of politics is luck and timing.  For example, it's very possible that Madam Pelosi (may I call her "ma'am" ) can take some crazy stumble that would alienate her with voters shortly before an election.  It's important to have people positioned and ready in case that happens.

----------


## CaseyJones

bump

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> bump


+1

----------


## justinc.1089

> I've always liked the State House takeover strategy. State house races don't cost much money compared to congressional races and are much easier to win. 
> 
> I had an idea that would focus on one state where we could get a full state house worth of candidates on the ballot and through the primaries. I would think that in some races many would win unopposed, and some states would have almost guaranteed victories in heavily conservative areas. It could be an extension to the Free State Project if we did it in New Hampshire.


I was thinking the same thing!


Trying to win a good number of races in New Hampshire would have the added benefit of ALSO helping the Free State Project.

However...

I would suggest we keep it balanced, because on one side it would be helpful to have more influence over the state, and helpful to the FSP, but it would be more helpful over all to win races in SEVERAL different states.

If we won in several different states in 2012, then later we would have more options for more people to run for congress and maybe even senate. If they're all in the same state, they would end up with less options I think when trying to get elected to a federal level office.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> I was thinking the same thing!
> 
> 
> Trying to win a good number of races in New Hampshire would have the added benefit of ALSO helping the Free State Project.
> 
> However...
> 
> I would suggest we keep it balanced, because on one side it would be helpful to have more influence over the state, and helpful to the FSP, but it would be more helpful over all to win races in SEVERAL different states.
> 
> If we won in several different states in 2012, then later we would have more options for more people to run for congress and maybe even senate. If they're all in the same state, they would end up with less options I think when trying to get elected to a federal level office.


Yes, that is true. That would be the downside to the plan.

Winning seats in states across the US could prove more helpful when the time comes to fill federal seats with liberty candidates. However, if the FSP ever gains ground, they could put this strategy into play and probably see some results.

----------


## TCE

Talk about the debt, talk about the debt, and talk about the debt some more. That was Rand's biggest issue and it was one in which Grayson could not counter since the Republican establishment's official position is to avoid it. The Senate Race we should pick is Nebraska, since Ben Nelson's approval ratings are next to nothing and the hardest part will be the Primary. It is a very small media market and if we raise $3 or $4 million, it should be enough. Be on the lookout, though for other potential Senate seats.

In Illinois and other midwest states, we can't run as Republicans. Take the Republican model and flip it on its head. If you win a Democratic Primary out here, you have the seat most of the time in State House races. Keep pounding on the wars, the spending, and civil liberties and we should be able to win and outspend other Democrats. 

B.J. Lawson should try running for State House next time around when he (likely) loses against Price this time since his name recognition will be through the roof and it'll hardly cost any money. That way we have 2 Gunny's in the North Carolina State House. If we all pitch in and agree on a bunch of State House candidates, we can take over a couple of State Legislatures by 2016/2018. Either that or we can spend millions winning a few seats here and there at the federal level. Keep in mind, what will be the only things left after the Federal Government fails? The state governments. 

First priority right now should be making sure Gunny gets $20,000 or more and he should have that race sealed.

----------


## Adrock

This is a great thread.  At least in the Republican party there is a real sense of "it's his turn" type of politics going on with your average GOP voter.  If we can start off taking state House/Senate seats our future Federal candidates will have a much easier time in the GOP primary.  Name recognition goes a long way in those primaries.

----------


## Promontorium

I like this assessment for the most part. One  small conclusion you made I disagree with though;

 You suggest it is "worse" for us to win say 5/50 versus 3/4. I don't think this is true, and can actually be the opposite, _certainly_ costwise it is worse, but if you only support campaigns that seem certain to win, fringe is all this will ever be. Running in a extremely favored R district with a temporary "anti-establishment" mentality isn't as you say 'good strategy', it's just luck. If someone decides they want to run they *should not wait* a decade or more for such an event. Seeking out easy liberty win districts will also be fruitless, because people have this "hey, he's not even from here!" mentality in most places, we saw it come up
several times in the Kentucky primary, (remember "I've been a Kentuckian longer than he's been a Republican"?) hell, going to college out of state becomes an issue, and lots of people considered Kokesh an "outsider" BECAUSE HE SERVED IN IRAQ, people are morons.

 Oh yeah, my point, no one will tally our losses, and losses will still include enhanced name recognition, however if we only win when no one else was trying, the "revolution" will be a joke.

 On everything else I agree, just keep the focus on winning, on probable winner, on potential winners, don't fear loss, don't  cut off a candidate to keep a winning streak. As I said this is a very minor disagreement, I just like writing.

----------


## Promontorium

One reason I prefer the national candidates is _because_ I want smaller government. You see, a state representative can not, no matter how many times he's elected, change federal laws already in place. If I could get a Libertarian mayor in every city in California, guns will still be regulated to kingdom come, alcohol will still be controlled, taxes for huge welfare systems will still be huge. It takes top-down power to free us from this federal, and state-wide tyranny.

 However I do agree, for any individual candidate, time is much better served building up some credentials, even just 1 term in a lower office, to prove they can do the job.

----------


## thomas-in-ky

> One reason I prefer the national candidates is _because_ I want smaller government. You see, a state representative can not, no matter how many times he's elected, change federal laws already in place. If I could get a Libertarian mayor in every city in California, guns will still be regulated to kingdom come, alcohol will still be controlled, taxes for huge welfare systems will still be huge. It takes top-down power to free us from this federal, and state-wide tyranny.
> 
>  However I do agree, for any individual candidate, time is much better served building up some credentials, even just 1 term in a lower office, to prove they can do the job.


A compelling argument that local offices are important for a national movement:  The Dogcatcher Strategy  It's a short read, and possibly motivating for anyone considering whether to reach for one of the lower rungs on the ladder.

----------


## Promontorium

> A compelling argument that local offices are important for a national movement:  The Dogcatcher Strategy  It's a short read, and possibly motivating for anyone considering whether to reach for one of the lower rungs on the ladder.


Ayn Rand's main criticism and dismissal of the LP was that they kept running for president and had no lower level efforts, no "non election cycle" education. She thought they didn't actually want to win, so they shouldn't be supported. 30 years later no Libertarian has forgiven her. So, that's a funny article.

My point was the same as that article's. The author holds up Ron Paul as the good example. Ron never served as dog catcher, he never even ran for state or local offices. He went directly to federal office.

 I too believe a person should work their way up, and a movement as a whole needs to work its way up, but if you're trying to change the federal goverment, state office won't do anything. The ultimate goal has to be federal office. 

 Personally I have no interest supporting out of state ideological equals for out of state offices for the rest of my life. I want to see federal office efforts continue. I agree there should be a practicality involved, and a greater expectation of success prior to serious support, but abandoning federal efforts altogether seems to be the suggestion, and I don't like it.

----------


## Jordan

> My point was the same as that article's. The author holds up Ron Paul as the good example. Ron never served as dog catcher, he never even ran for state or local offices. He went directly to federal office.


You have to recognize that Ron Paul practically delivered his electorate, and the ones he didn't, well, he had his hands in at least some sensitive areas.

Speaking as a male, I'd probably be more willing to vote for a man who administered my "cough test" than your average joe.

----------


## Daamien

> Peter Schiff
> 
> *One Term Candidates are a Bad Investment*
> 
> Peter Schiff would have probably lasted just one term in the senate representing a state like Connecticut.   Compare that to Rand, who will have that seat for as long as he desires, and Amash, who won't lose a general election unless he murders someone in his heavily GOP district.
> 
> This movement will take time.  There is no sense in putting candidates in the senate representing states that go from dem to republican with each election cycle.  We need to focus our energy in places where, after winning the for the first time, we can just sit back and win each and every year without much energy.


I hate this strategy.  It is Karl Rove-esque in that it focuses purely on low-hanging fruit to win instead of building consensus.  This is a national battle, and we need to bring the fight to every corner if we want to truly adhere to our goals of spreading liberty.  Connecticut actually has a history of electing independent politicians, so it wouldn't be wasteful to try to run a anti-establishment campaign in the state.

Furthermore, I don't want any of our candidates to be in office for "as long as they desire".  I admired how Peter would prefer to work in the private sector but was making personal sacrifices for our country.  I am wary of creating more career politicians regardless of their leanings.  We need more liberty-minded candidates, not simply more terms for potential or existing ones.  Turnover should exist while the movement goes on by replenishes its ranks with new candidates each cycle and generation.  I may sound idealist, but I don't want a Senator Rand Paul still around in 2030.  I want a Senator John Doe who also follows the Constitution and seeks office to preserve our freedom.

Otherwise, great observations and analysis Jordan.

----------


## ninepointfive

> When Rand gave his acceptance speech, he thanked whole-heartedly the Tea Party movement. He never mentioned C4L or Ron Paul forums. I was bothered by this. Is he ashamed of us, or do we give ourselves credit for being a bigger impact on the political scene than we really are?


The C4L isn't all that effective... just yet. I hope they continue to build. So yes, we are a part of the Tea Party movement. We've just dropped the ball in the meantime.

----------


## LibertyMage

> There was a lot of effort and money that was contributed by C4L and members on this forum to these campaigns. I gave money to both Rand's campaign and to Peter's, and I don't live in either of their states.
> 
> When Rand gave his acceptance speech, he thanked whole-heartedly the Tea Party movement. He never mentioned C4L or Ron Paul forums. I was bothered by this. Is he ashamed of us, or do we give ourselves credit for being a bigger impact on the political scene than we really are? 
> 
> I'd like to think that all of our contributions had played a major part in helping the candidates that we supported. I would like to know the names of those candidates, whether they won or lost, that thanked publicly C4L and Ron Paul forums for the media and the world to see.


He specifically said "I would like to thank the liberty movement".  That is you.

While members may act individually, the Campaign for Liberty does not endorse or support candidates.  Having someone thank a non-partisan organization for electioneering assistance would be a bad thing.

----------


## LibertyMage

> The C4L isn't all that effective... just yet. I hope they continue to build. So yes, we are a part of the Tea Party movement. We've just dropped the ball in the meantime.


That is incorrect.  If C4L is not affective in your area, you need to help build it.  In some areas the Campaign for Liberty is super effective.

----------


## Daamien

> That is incorrect.  If C4L is not affective in your area, you need to help build it.  In some areas the Campaign for Liberty is super effective.


It's not always that easy.  With my experience the national leaders never got back to me after repeated attempts to contact them about leading events and setting up a local leadership structure.  My State Coordinator and County Coordinator were extremely inactive and the nominations for District Coordinator never were addressed after being repeatedly proposed for over a year.  They took my membership money and proceeded to waste it on crappy mailings asking for more money rather than helping me with my local efforts.  I decide I could be constructive locally without the C4L draining my resources.  I wish them well, but they don't live up to their mandate effectively.

----------


## LibertyMage

> It's not always that easy.  With my experience the national leaders never got back to me after repeated attempts to contact them about leading events and setting up a local leadership structure.  My State Coordinator and County Coordinator were extremely inactive and the nominations for District Coordinator never were addressed after being repeatedly proposed for over a year.  They took my membership money and proceeded to waste it on crappy mailings asking for more money rather than helping me with my local efforts.  I decide I could be constructive locally without the C4L draining my resources.  I wish them well, but they don't live up to their mandate effectively.


I never said it was easy.  I had to cut throats to knock down an inactive county coordinator and take his spot.  And then I did the same thing for the state coordinator in Maryland.  But it got done.  If you know someone who is interested in being the state coordinator in CT, please send me a message and I will talk to the national team personally.

----------


## Tinnuhana

Here's an idea, acting as a clearing house for campaigns. There is a website (forget where) that puts up individual entrepreneurs around the world needing money to get their businesses going. They describe exactly what they need the money for (weaving loom, six goats, etc.) and people can go to this website to donate.
If we used the expanding list, we could build a data base of what each candidate needed and help out as individuals.
This doesn't mean we wouldn't have money bombs or anything, but it would give each of us a chance to look through and see if anyone outside our own districts/states struck us as someone we'd like to help out.
I know in NH, where the state people get $100/year, the main campaign costs are for posters, bumper stickers and gasoline. Most of them need to go door-to-door to get the votes. With the low voter turn-outs, and the small districts, 2000+ votes can equal a win in the primaries. 
So if you could come up with a short, open-ended questionnaire for "liberty candidates" as to what their expenses forecasts were, giving specifics, we could donate directly to the campaigns or even be in a postition to give them a good deal on say yard signs.
What do you think?

----------


## Promontorium

> bump


This is still stickied.

----------


## Koz

This thread should be mandatory reading for this forum.

----------


## Pericles

> Great thread, Jordan.


  +1

----------


## TheHumblePhysicist

I think that we shouldn't scheme or plan how to get our people in office. Let the natural groundswell happen when it happens. If there are a lot of on the spot volunteers and a lot of natural spontaneity to the movement, then it will grow and blossom. I think the minute the political game starts, you have sold your soul the miserable machine that has consumed the Democratic and Republican parties.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> I think that we shouldn't scheme or plan how to get our people in office. Let the natural groundswell happen when it happens. If there are a lot of on the spot volunteers and a lot of natural spontaneity to the movement, then it will grow and blossom. I think the minute the political game starts, you have sold your soul the miserable machine that has consumed the Democratic and Republican parties.


I don't know how to take this. Seems a bit idealistic...

The way I see it, everyone has a different line in the sand where they judge "selling ones soul" and some will argue that since no-one is perfect, than everyone has "sold their soul"... but the idea that we should just stop everything we have been doing for the last few years? It seems like a strategy of hoping that victory will come riding in on a unicorn beneath an arbor of rainbows...

----------


## TheHumblePhysicist

Oh, and I think the reason Peter Schiff didn't win is because he didn't have The Picture. I capitalized that because it is the holy grail of politics.

Rand Paul had The Picture. Him, his wife, and three polite young boys, a happy family.

Peter Schiff didn't have The Picture. He had no wife, and his son, who he obviously only had part time custody of. Not a happy family.

I am sorry, but this is what people look for in politics, especially older people and ESPECIALLY conservatives. They might not know they are doing it, but they are. The subconscious at work.

----------


## DeadheadForPaul

I think the OP hit on some uncomfortable truths that need to be examined

BTW, why the hell did I not hear about Amash until post-election?

I know I was focused on Rand, but I heard about almost every other liberty candidate (including ones running for local dog-catcher).  Congrats to him

----------


## danda

Jordan -- great stuff.  You've inspired me to post an idea for a concrete and practical implementation of your requested "systematic way to evaluate and support state house candidates".

I'm still working on a name, but it could perhaps be called a money cannon.  Because it is more effectively aimed than a money bomb.  Or perhaps a printing press for liberty.

I started a new thread to present the concept.  I encourage everyone here to please have a read and contribute your thoughts, if not your energies.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2980601

----------


## Keith and stuff

> *10 Lessons from Rand, Amash, and Schiff*
> 
> *Advertising*
> 
> Rand benefited in that he raised as much or more than Trey Grayson in virtually every single quarter.  This allowed him to go toe to toe with Trey and attack him on being a Washington insider.  
> 
> However, if Rand didn't already have a strong position in Western Kentucky, Rand would have been at a severe disadvantage.  The Western Kentucky DMAs  are largely made up of populations living in Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee.  Having to run TV ads in these areas would have dried up his funds faster than ever, and would have forced his campaign to spend huge amounts of donated dollars just to reach a very small Kentucky population.  In my own DMA that includes some of Western Kentucky, there are more than 1 million people, but the vast majority reside in Indiana and Illinois and cannot vote for a KY politician.  Those are wasted dollars.


Interesting points but TV is the last place to advertise.  It's where money should go last.  Door to door and phone banking are best,  Direct mail is also better than TV.  Of course, for a state-wide campaign, all should be done.




> *State House Races Should Be Priority*
> 
> With the funding and organization of the modern liberty movement, we should be able to win at the very minimum 50 state house seats per election cycle, no if ands or buts about it.  If we play our cards right, and do some very basic risk/reward modeling, two years after big wins in state house seats we could have 50 Justin Amashs in Congress.  Tell me that won't give us a serious voting block, and a huge amount of pull in DC.  
> 
> The Midwest provides us the best opportunity to enact this plan.  We can, for less than $100,000 each, set ourselves up for huge victories that will provide us with residual representation in Congress.  Is this plan as fun as running 2-3 huge campaigns? No.  Does it provide the instant gratification we seem to long for?  No.  But for a movement who could probably write a $#@!ing book on time preference, why can't we understand that this movement will only work with a long term strategy?
> 
> The biggest idea behind libertarianism is decentralization and localized control.  This should be a piece of our electoral strategy, as well.


This is a must.  Follow the NH model.  Until the liberty movement starts following the NH way of doing things, the liberty movement in the rest of the nation will continue to fall more and more behind.  Of course, the state government system is set-up better in NH than anywhere else so the model cannot be followed to a T but still... State House races are the most important.  State Senate races are 2nd.  Most US House races and the vast majority of US Senate races are very hard to win for pro-liberty folks and not as good of an investment of time or funds.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Oh, and I think the reason Peter Schiff didn't win is because he didn't have The Picture. I capitalized that because it is the holy grail of politics.


Schiff didn't win because his views are far outside of the mainstream and he ran in CT.  I'm not sure he could have won with those views anywhere (in a US Senate race).  However, CT was certainly not the place to run.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I'm talking about John Dennis.  We will never have a better opportunity to sound the power of the Constitutionalists/Libertarians than taking out Nancy Pelosi.  The prize is so big.  The message would be so loud.  
> ...
> Yes, Nancy is in a solid DEM district.  She also is not liked running in an election year that already has the true DEM supporters dismayed and less likely to go to the polls.


Yep, it's good to have a Liberty candidate in all races.




> 2. We really shouldn't be commiting large amounts of money to candidates in extreme democrat leaning districts. Basically 70% democrats and up. 60% to 70% democrat we should choose wisely. Example...BJ is a longshot but evidence seems to point that he has a legitimate yet extrememly long chance to win. Dennis, as much as I love him, has no shot in hell. 50% to 60% I say have at it.


Or maybe there is something else we can do in Democrat Districts...




> For example, it's very possible that Madam Pelosi (may I call her "ma'am" ) can take some crazy stumble that would alienate her with voters shortly before an election.  It's important to have people positioned and ready in case that happens.


You never know what might happen to suddenly open the race up, so it's good to be positioned and prepared.

*Lessons from the John Dennis Race:*

As much as we talk about the false left/right paradigm, and how the Republicans and Democrats are almost identical, we haven't taken it to heart and planned accordingly. In *heavily* Democrat Districts, we need to have liberty candidates run as Democrats! We have always had "Ron Paul" Democrats and social libertarians in our ranks. They need to step up and run in the Democrat Primaries. That is the primary lesson from the John Dennis race. We need to challenge incumbent Democrats in the Primaries.

----------


## kah13176

> *Education Campaigns No Longer Provide a Good ROI*
> 
> Education campaigns are no longer a good investment for the liberty movement.  We simply don't have the time or resources to educate people with candidacies that aren't meant to win.  Sure, we're all here because of Ron Paul's 2008 run, but should he run again in 2012, he'll be blasting his message to the very same people that heard him the first time.  Those who would be in our camp, for the most part, are already in our camp.


I disagree.  In 2008, though I wasn't as politically motivated or yet introduced to libertarian philosophy, I had just never heard of Ron Paul.  The few debates I watched were those that RP was banned from.  I, like many other people, got my news primarily from cable - the same networks who blacklisted RP.  It wasn't until 2009/early 2010 did I learn about RP purely on chance.

I think if the liberty movement focused on educating people close to them - friends and family - then we could be much more successfull.  Talk to your folks about libertarian philosophy.  Post anything and everything relating to libertarianism on your FaceBook, YouTube, or whatever you use.  Doing so, I've converted my father as well as a few friends Ron Paul's side.

----------


## TCE

> I disagree.  In 2008, though I wasn't as politically motivated or yet introduced to libertarian philosophy, I had just never heard of Ron Paul.  The few debates I watched were those that RP was banned from.  I, like many other people, got my news primarily from cable - the same networks who blacklisted RP.  It wasn't until 2009/early 2010 did I learn about RP purely on chance.
> 
> I think if the liberty movement focused on educating people close to them - friends and family - then we could be much more successfull.  Talk to your folks about libertarian philosophy.  Post anything and everything relating to libertarianism on your FaceBook, YouTube, or whatever you use.  Doing so, I've converted my father as well as a few friends Ron Paul's side.


His point is there are much better uses of funds than "Education Campaigns." Education is for the classroom and lectures. We already have great people doing that and allowing people to see the light, but the political arena is not an avenue for that. That money would be better used for State races and maybe even a Federal race or two. If I have a choice between getting elected representatives who are pro-liberty and having an entire population believe themselves to be libertarian, I'm taking the former. As we've seen, the will of the people means absolutely nothing, it is the elected officials who matter.

----------


## Slobodan

I think what new pro-liberty candidates like me need to figure out is how to build a war chest, talking points are not an issue we are principled and it makes it easy for us to talk and debate, the problem most of us have is how to get money to pay for our campaigns.

----------


## Brendan Wenzel

Great analysis. Enjoyed reading through your take on the elections that took and what we need to learn from them. It really is important that people take the time to get some local recognition by winning local races and then doing a really good job at it! People want to know what exactly they are voting for and it's tough when the candidate doesn't have a record to show. We need a better system for keeping track of all these candidates though. It's like looking for needles in a haystack.

----------

