11.11.11 Moneybomb name poll

[Chainspell]

Well I'll go with whatever you guys decide. Just to me bring them home gives a stronger attachment/feeling to donate. I just think it's an easier sell to say bring them home cuz it's more direct.

I guess my viewpoint is biased towards creating videos about it. I just think it's a better sell to say BTH than support our troops... Coz really why do you need to donate to that? Everybody already supports the troops...

Edit:
You know what I think about when I hear support our troops? My head goes "support the troops? sure i support the troops! What? You want me to give money to support the troops?" lol who asks for money to support the troops? The US government takes care of them...

 

[Okie RP fan]

Well I'll go with whatever you guys decide. Just to me bring them home gives a stronger attachment/feeling to donate. I just think it's an easier sell to say bring them home cuz it's more direct.

I guess my viewpoint is biased towards creating videos about it. I just think it's a better sell to say BTH than support our troops... Coz really why do you need to donate to that? Everybody already supports the troops...

Right. And I personally think with the announcement today about Iraq, it may be more effective to add "ALL" or "all" to it to signify and send the broader message of ending the policeman of the world status.

But, whatever works.

 

[nbhadja]

The support 'em & bring 'em home bomb.

 

[Esoteric]

Bring Them ALL Home

 

[TexMac]

Just Come Home!

"We just marched in, we can just come home."

#win

 

[Justinjj1]

 

[Esoteric]

Have we ever thought that the campaign may not advise us having an anti-war message with the moneybomb? This is a political campaign after all, and we are trying to win a republic nomination.

 

[Justinjj1]

Has Ron Paul's entire campaign not had an anti-war message?

 

[lucent]

Have we ever thought that the campaign may not advise us having an anti-war message with the moneybomb? This is a political campaign after all, and we are trying to win a republic nomination.

Better inform the campaign that the anti-war message is poison because they are currently running an anti-war message in their $2 million ad buy.

 

[Sentinelrv]

Has Ron Paul's entire campaign not had an anti-war message?

Not really, no. Ron Paul isn't anti-war. He'll send the troops into war if it's declared and necessary. What we're doing right now is unnecessary and it's not declared.

 

[Justinjj1]

Not really, no. Ron Paul isn't anti-war. He'll send the troops into war if it's declared and necessary. What we're doing right now is the opposite.

Oh please. Can you imagine any instance in today's world where war would be necessary? What are we going to get invaded by another country? Are the British going to come back and try to conquor us? Is Iran going to nuke us with their imaginary nukes? Give me a break.

War is a racket and Ron Paul knows this.

 

[garyallen59]

Yea, we want people to hear Ron's message that have not yet heard it directly from his mouth.

We can bring in your average tv viewer with Support The Troops, but not as many with Bring Them Home.

Wouldn't putting "Bring Them Home" in the domain turn right leaning MSM viewers away?

We can educate them, but we need to get a hold of them.

Yes, please listen to this reasoning. This one build possibly broaden our base, hence more donations.

 

[spanos]

no more = negative
must be stated in the positive

 

[lucent]

Yea, we want people to hear Ron's message that have not yet heard it directly from his mouth.

We can bring in your average tv viewer with Support The Troops, but not as many with Bring Them Home.

Wouldn't putting "Bring Them Home" in the domain turn right leaning MSM viewers away?

We can educate them, but we need to get a hold of them.

The only way a money bomb is going to spread a message is from the money it earns that buys television ads. The media is not going to report on it outside of a few online websites and if they did, they aren't going to inform anyone on the theme. The object of a money bomb is to invigorate the base to donate and "Support the Troops" doesn't cut. Marketing wise, it's bad.

 

[garyallen59]

The only way a money bomb is going to spread a message is from the money it earns that buys television ads. The media is not going to report on it outside of a few online websites and if they did, they aren't going to inform anyone on the theme. The object of a money bomb is to invigorate the base to donate and "Support the Troops" doesn't cut. Marketing wise, it's bad.

No, IMHO, marketing wise it is good. I support the troops. Ron supports the troops. Many, many others support the troops. It makes me feel good to give money to this man who supports the troops and desires the best for them and their family and that's to bring our soldiers home. "Bring Them Home" doesn't excite me, even though that's what I desire. I also don't like referring to our soldiers as "them".

 

[Sentinelrv]

Yea, we want people to hear Ron's message that have not yet heard it directly from his mouth.

We can bring in your average tv viewer with Support The Troops, but not as many with Bring Them Home.

Wouldn't putting "Bring Them Home" in the domain turn right leaning MSM viewers away?

We can educate them, but we need to get a hold of them.

I was leaning more toward BTH, but Josh's reasoning here changed my mind. We need to be smarter about this. BTH could turn some Republicans away, because they might perceive it as Ron being weak on defense. If the theme is STT, it could help to draw a lot more Republicans to Ron Paul. People promoting this money bomb could add in their own reasons why they support it, for example videos showing the troops coming home. The main theme of STT though would help to hook a lot of Republicans and get them interested in Ron Paul. Like Josh said above, before we can educate them, we first need to hook them. We can do this by using a theme that would interest the majority of Republicans. STT would be perceived by Republicans as being strong on defense. It would help to draw in new voters. BTH in my opinion would turn many Republicans away because they'd perceive it as being weak on defense.

 

[Sentinelrv]

The only way a money bomb is going to spread a message is from the money it earns that buys television ads. The media is not going to report on it outside of a few online websites and if they did, they aren't going to inform anyone on the theme. The object of a money bomb is to invigorate the base to donate and "Support the Troops" doesn't cut. Marketing wise, it's bad.

So are you saying that while the STT theme may draw in some new Republicans due to our online promotion, it wouldn't be enough promotion to actually make a difference in recruiting new voters? And that the focus should instead be on energizing Ron Paul supporters to donate, something that STT would not accomplish while BTH would? This does make sense if this is what you're saying. I could see the STT theme hurting our fundraising because it's not motivating enough for Paul supporters. The advertising this money will buy will also definitely far eclipse the amount of Republicans we'd be able to reach due to online promotion alone. Maybe it would make better sense to go with BTH, as the main goal of a money bomb is to raise as much money as possible, not to convert Republicans.

 

[Chainspell]

K Im just gonna step away from this thread. I concede. Whatever you guys decide I will help communicate. But we have to decide in the next couple of days. Time is wasting...

 

[McDermit]

This is getting silly.

Bring Them Home is a huuugggeee part of RON's platform. It is the reason THE TROOPS support him! Just 2 weeks ago, my retired military "bomb them all" uncle began supporting Ron because of his military stance. My cousins, all 5 of my uncles sons, are in the army--all E6 and better. All of his sons have done at least 3 tours in OIF/OEF, 2 were injured. Two weeks ago, 3 of them found out they're being redeployed to the middle east. One just lost his son to leukemia and is trying to hold his family together. He and his wife donated $500 during bto. The day they got the orders, my uncle donated $2500 to Ron Paul.

Minimizing Ron's military stance in hopes of attracting neocons is ineffective at best, and it is at direct odds with HQ's efforts and Ron's debate performances, $1T Plan, etc. This is Ron's platform, and it will bring new donors. We won't win over neocons with "support the troops," because they are aware of Ron's foreign policy. We can't hide it, it's an integral part of the message and the platform. So use it our advantage. "Support the troops: Bring them home!" will incite Democrats, Independants, and a portion of the Republican base who realize the warmongering neocons are bankrupting our nation and needlessly endangering our troops. We have the military donation numbers on our side... that alone is enough to push a "support the troops; bring them home!" message.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

No one said anything about trying to attract neo-cons...we said attract GOP voters.