45 years and older need reassurance....

[Kluge]

It is worth noting if the caucus were only among males between 17-29 y/o (based on entrance/exit polling), Paul would've likely had over 50% the vote. Of the 65+ crowd, just over 10% voted for Paul.

I'm not saying it's a young-vs-old thing, but Ron's message clearly isn't widely resonating with those who're 45+ y/o. Rich folk also don't seem very fond of Ron. I think it'd be reasonable to call Ron's message populist based only on who's voting for him.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

We don't have to call them anything, we just have to get them the information. We are calling them that in the context of vote demographic break down but we could say 'over X age' I suppose. I agree collectivism isn't our forte, but if we are trying to figure out if there is a commonality of interest we aren't addressing, we need to look at what is there in the commonality of interest linking people's interests together.

How do you think we should refer to this?

Just "people over 40" would be fine with me and I think most others.

This demographic could make all the difference. We worry about caring for parents as they age, whether their retirement incomes will be enough, whether they'll have adequate health care, etc., and we worry about our kids being deeply in debt and underemployed (if at all). And we don't expect anything other than to work till we drop dead trying to take care of both our parents and our kids, never mind ourselves.

Anything we can do to show this demographic how Dr. Paul's plans will ease their burden is worth doing.

 

[blazeKing]

Ron has to stress security and stability and that the others aren't safe for America. My older parents don't like that fact about Ron Paul, they say he doesn't make them feel safe and secure. They buy into the media rhetoric that Ron's change is dangerous and it threatens their daily lives. But the reality is, the status quo is what really threatens.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

i would need to see more detailed data as to why Ron is lagging in that demographic. It is a mistake to assume it has to do with issues of entitlement. It is more likely, IMO that this is a generation that lived through the cold war and is used to living with an enemy and cannot concieve otherwise.

Maybe it's just me, but being one of those that lived through the Cold War makes it all the easier for me to see how our own government has taken up where the Soviets left off. As for the lack of an enemy being inconceivable, that's just silly.

 

[sailingaway]

Go to page 2 of this pdf for a pew breakdown of percentage of age groups using internet. The use is exploding in older generations, but it is still about 45% according to this in those over 70. but this is a 2008 survey, it goes up every year. The newer surveys just say those over 60 have the lowest usage rate though, and I couldn't find a break down of it. The type of usage (for news etc) is lower yet, though.

http://www.slideshare.net/duckofdoom/internet-usage-behaviour-by-age-cathegory-from-pew-internet

 

[Travlyr]

It is worth noting if the caucus were only among males between 17-29 y/o (based on entrance/exit polling), Paul would've likely had over 50% the vote. Of the 65+ crowd, just over 10% voted for Paul.

I'm not saying it's a young-vs-old thing, but Ron's message clearly isn't widely resonating with those who're 45+ y/o. Rich folk also don't seem very fond of Ron. I think it'd be reasonable to call Ron's message populist based only on who's voting for him.

Keynesian propaganda.

The populist message is out of focus.

Focus on what matters like Ron Paul has done.

Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity. -- Ron Paul

Do you believe in freedom? Are you working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable? Is that what you are doing? Or are you focusing on getting Ron Paul elected?

 

[Bruehound]

I am just noticing anecdotally that the boomer generation is filled to the brim with warmongers.

 

[Travlyr]

I am just noticing anecdotally that the boomer generation is filled to the brim with warmongers.

Well then let's insult them until they come around.

 

[libertygrl]

It really really isn't about old vs. young. It really isn't.

Yeah, and we've got to stop pitting the two groups against one another. My parents are seniors. They are not wealthy. They cannot do without S.S. But they BOTH support Dr. Paul because at least they have an open mind and trust what I tell them about him. In fact, my dad was so excited to spread the word about him that he grabbed a bunch of brochures off my desk and was going to hand them out at the Senior Center today! But I agree, the campaign and perhaps we supporters need to do better. I'd like to personally see a brochure geared to seniors. I made up a really basic flyer 4 years ago geared toward seniors. I'll have to go digging for it. But the campaign needs to come up with a video. Especially in states like FL. As you know, the seniors are the most dedicated voters out there. Rain or shine, they will not miss the opportunity to vote.

 

[sailingaway]

i would need to see more detailed data as to why Ron is lagging in that demographic. It is a mistake to assume it has to do with issues of entitlement. It is more likely, IMO that this is a generation that lived through the cold war and is used to living with an enemy and cannot concieve otherwise.

This isn't entitlement like welfare, these people have been paying into a fund all their lives that was advertised as separate and there for them. You get a statement every year of how much to expect on your 'investment' when you retire for retirement planning purposes. People who have planned for this all or most of their working lives can't shift gears and make it up close to retirement. Particularly since most people's biggest asset they were counting on was the equity in their homes which has taken a big hit. The point is that maybe there will need to be changes, but Romney's budget only trims the amount of increase in spending but still cuts medicare, and Ron's puts the people over the corporatist subsidies which Romney's plan still funds. It is an issue of priorities. It also enlists people to actually look at the need for cutting expensive military spending because we can't afford both.

 

[jay_dub]

I'm 55 and I understand the issues quite well. I understand what RP is saying, too, but realize it could be said better. He's too vague on cutting departments and too cavalier on our foreign policy.

Here's my perspective:

By election day, we'll be $16 trillion in debt.

We paid $400+ Billion in interest alone on the debt last year. By 2020, that figure is projected to be $1 Trillion annually. Just think of what that money could do. All the other candidates are talking about reducing the debt, but also on expanding our military. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

The debt and our expansionist foreign policy are completely linked.

Everything is going down the crapper unless we get a handle on our debt.

Those are the issues. Everything else comes in a distant second. Ron Paul wins on these issues, but he isn't making it crystal clear. Make that clear and he wins over a lot of folks.

 

[Maximus]

Paul needs a social security commercial:

have him sit in front of the camera and say, "The debt is out of control, we need to rein it it, my plan cuts one trillion dollars. I do it though without touching social security and medicare! It's all foreign spending, we need to take care of our citizens before we go and spend hundreds of billions overseas."

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

i would need to see more detailed data as to why Ron is lagging in that demographic. It is a mistake to assume it has to do with issues of entitlement. It is more likely, IMO that this is a generation that lived through the cold war and is used to living with an enemy and cannot concieve otherwise.

Well, I can only speak for my personal experience, but I felt guilty about my intent to deprive my mother of her entitlements that she contributed to all her life. Once I became a Ron Paul newbie, I had my ears open, and still heard little on his details behind the plan. So I can honestly say it's not in the forefront by any means. As a matter of fact, it's seldom addressed.

When I informed my mother I was voting for Ron Paul, I knew she would listen without criticism, but secretively doubt my choice. The very next words out of her mouth were "He plans to do away with Social Security." Fortunately I had already become aware of the details behind the plan, and sent her some links to info on the topic. Now she it open to discussion, rather than avoiding the conversation when she doesn't approve.

 

[libertygrl]

I am just noticing anecdotally that the boomer generation is filled to the brim with warmongers.

EXACTLY! I was thinking about this the other day. The Peace Generation became part of the establishment:

 

[bobbyw24]

Yep-the Internet generation supporters of Ron Paul are great at winning online polls like yesterday's Drudge online caucus but not very good at winning real elections so far.

 

[sailingaway]

Keynesian propaganda.

The populist message is out of focus.

Focus on what matters like Ron Paul has done.


Do you believe in freedom? Are you working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable? Is that what you are doing? Or are you focusing on getting Ron Paul elected?

'sound money' does not resonate with the general population which has to have the whole idea of 'unsound money' taught to them.

 

[Travlyr]

EXACTLY! I was thinking about this the other day. The Peace Generation became part of the establishment:

Here is why,

“People fight the gold standard,” said Ludwig von Mises, “because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty.” It is no coincidence that the nineteenth century, a time of gold coin standards for the most part, was an era of peace. Nor is it a coincidence that the twentieth century combines wars with paper money. -- Ron Paul

 

[Kluge]

Keynesian propaganda.

The populist message is out of focus.

Focus on what matters like Ron Paul has done.

Do you believe in freedom? Are you working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable? Is that what you are doing? Or are you focusing on getting Ron Paul elected?

Err -- I was just saying Ron's message is appearing to resonate best among people who're young & poor, not the older & rich (who could be called the establishment). I don't have anything against running an education campaign, but this is Ron's last campaign, and I'd imagine getting people interested in Ron, who pours out ideology every time he speaks, is itself an education campaign. So, my short-term goal is getting Ron as many votes as possible. I'll get on with preaching ideology once campaign season ends. As for sound money - I have no problem with fiat currency, even if it's elastic, so long as it isn't government-controlled. It's a nice perk to have a currency redeemable for something, and having competing currencies legalized would allow people to use representative currencies if they wanted, but I disagree everyone needs to use that particular kind of currency for peace and prosperity. So... if the choice is whether I'm focused on legislating representative currency specifically or getting Ron elected, I'd much rather have Ron elected.

edit: fwiw, I meant to write "currencies with a gov't-given monopoly," not "gov't-controlled." Who says a government needs their own "official" currency? The very simple solution is to get US citizens off the USD and using competing currencies, whether they're sound or not - it's the citizens' choice to make.

 

[Travlyr]

'sound money' does not resonate with the general population which has to have the whole idea of 'unsound money' taught to them.

No it doesn't. It doesn't resonate with the young people either, yet. Nonetheless, it is key.

 

[sailingaway]

Well, I can only speak for my personal experience, but I felt guilty about my intent to deprive my mother of her entitlements that she contributed to all her life. Once I became a Ron Paul newbie, I had my ears open, and still heard little on his details behind the plan. So I can honestly say it's not in the forefront by any means. As a matter of fact, it's seldom addressed.

When I informed my mother I was voting for Ron Paul, I knew she would listen without criticism, but secretively doubt my choice. The very next words out of her mouth were "He plans to do away with Social Security." Fortunately I had already become aware of the details behind the plan, and sent her some links to info on the topic. Now she it open to discussion, rather than avoiding the conversation when she doesn't approve.

It is worse than seldom addressed, AARP ran an article (at least on the web) about a month ago saying Ron thought social security and medicare were unconstitutional. Papers say it all the time, and the implication is that he would do away with it.