10 Lessons from Rand, Amash, and Schiff

[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. :o 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