A blimp is a BAD IDEA - here is why

[Occam's Banana]

How many votes did direct marketing get Ron? Please quantify that for me ...

(And we'll just set aside the unedifying possibility that the only actually quantifiable thing about your beloved direct marketing is how much money it brought in for Ron Paul Inc., rather than how many votes it brought in for Ron Paul ...)

Hundreds of thousands...

I don't have the exact numbers outside of Minnesota, but voter ID and contact is how elections are won. That is direct marketing.

And so the exact Minnesota numbers are.....?

Matt has no idea what the numbers are. There is no way to know. So he just pulled "hundreds of thousands" out of his ass.

Ballots aren't printed with fill-in-the-blank spaces for voters to identify "direct marketing" (or anything else) as the cause for their votes.

For exactly the same reason, Matt hasn't got any idea how many votes the blimp may have resulted in (if any).

Of course, none of this stops him from blathering about the "quantifiability" of his preferred tactics and the "unquantifiability" of efforts he doesn't like. Why should it? After all, anything is "quantifiable" when you can just make up numbers out of thin air - and anything else can be dismissed as "unquantifiable" just because you don't want to acknowledge the possibility that it could have been of any value ...

 

[acptulsa]

Matt has no idea what the number are. There is no way to know. So he just pulled "hundreds of thousands" out of his ass.

Ballots aren't printed with fill-in-the-blank spaces for voters to identify "direct marketing" (or anything else) as the cause for one's vote.

For exactly the same reason, Matt hasn't got any idea how many votes the blimp may have resulted in, if any.

Of course, none of this stops him from blathering about "quantifiability."

And why should it? After all, anything is "quantifiable" when you can just make up numbers out of thin air ...

Oh, yeah. I forgot.

Matt, I just remembered how many of Ron Paul's votes the blimp was responsible for. All of them. Well, I suppose I should try to be more believable than you do and say, 'All of them from 2008 forward...'

Well, o.k. All but one of them. Carol didn't vote for Ron because of the blimp.

But Ron did. He was going to vote for Thompson until we trailed that blimp over his head.

 

[cajuncocoa]

And so the exact Minnesota numbers are.....?

(stupid iPad)

 

[Natural Citizen]

Can't believe this thread is still going. Heh...

 

[cajuncocoa]

Can't believe this thread is still going. Heh...

Matt keeps insisting on getting schooled by bumping it. Like taking candy from a baby.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I LOVED THE BLIMP !!!

 

[acptulsa]

I LOVED THE BLIMP !!!

Damn it!

We almost had him over it, then you remind him all over again that there was a round gas bag more popular among us than he is!

 

[jjdoyle]

Did that guy vote for Ron?

How many votes did the blimp get Ron? Please quantify that for me...

Based on Ron Paul Forums, we can quantify how many donors Rand will lose in 2016 if he hires the likes of you and Jesse Benton. Nearly 90%, when you remove the duplicate sock-puppet accounts that voted in his favor.
90% of the 52,000+ members is more than 46,000 Ron Paul supporters Rand looks to lose as donors, activists, delegates, and potentially voters by hiring the likes of Jesse Benton, and someone like yourself.
Let's be generous to you though, and say 80%, that's still 40,000. Even if it's only 50%, that would be more than 25,000.

So, at this point, we could all safely assume it would be in Rand's best interest to use Jesse Benton's potential salary from 2016 and your own, and instead use those funds to rent an OFFICIAL campaign blimp. Marking another "first" for the movement.
While the Ron Paul Blimp was grassroots, Rand could listen to the grassroots and take it up himself.

 

[Matt Collins]

And so the exact Minnesota numbers are.....?

Can't give those out, I am under a NDA.

But I can tell you somewhere in the range of 10k likely caucus goers were identified as supporters.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt has no idea what the numbers are. There is no way to know. So he just pulled "hundreds of thousands" out of his ass.

Incorrect... and that's the thing about direct marketing, is that most of it is actually indeed quantifiable.

Ballots aren't printed with fill-in-the-blank spaces for voters to identify "direct marketing" (or anything else) as the cause for their votes.

You can test by marketing to certain areas in certain ways, tied to polls, and see what the results are. Statewide races do usually require some level of mass marketing simply for legitimacy purposes (and for attacks), but elections are won on direct voter contact.

 

[acptulsa]

You can test by marketing to certain areas in certain ways, tied to polls, and see what the results are.

You already rejected that in another thread based on the fact that no two counties, no matter how similar, are never identical.

Think you can come up with an excuse without contradicting yourself?

 

[Matt Collins]

You already rejected that in another thread based on the fact that no two counties, no matter how similar, are never identical.

Think you can come up with an excuse without contradicting yourself?

The areas must be similar enough for it to work.... variables accounted for.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Incorrect... and that's the thing about direct marketing, is that most of it is actually indeed quantifiable.

Yes, I know "it is actually indeed quantifiable" - in terms of the amount of money a campaign rakes in from it (that is, after all, the "unedifying possibility" to which I explicitly referred in post #948).

You can test by marketing to certain areas in certain ways, tied to polls, and see what the results are. Statewide races do usually require some level of mass marketing simply for legitimacy purposes (and for attacks), but elections are won on direct voter contact.

And this is just more question-begging and goalpost-moving - not to mention the fact that you have now leavened the assertion at issue with qualifications that essentially render the assertion unfalsifiable ...

ETA:

The areas must be similar enough for it to work.... variables accounted for.

And there! You see? Another perfect example of what I'm talking about: "This statement is true ... unless it isn't."

 

[cajuncocoa]

Can't give those out, I am under a NDA.

But I can tell you somewhere in the range of 10k likely caucus goers were identified as supporters.

Basically you're saying you spent $$ on people who were going to vote for Ron anyway.

 

[phill4paul]

The areas must be similar enough for it to work.... variables accounted for....Trajectory and bellcurves charted...complex calculations using letters..not numbers....letters. You wouldn't know about these things, so I'll forgive your ignorance. If you took classes like me you could learn to calculate using letters instead of numbers.

Sounds legit.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You already rejected that in another thread based on the fact that no two counties, no matter how similar, are never identical.

Think you can come up with an excuse without contradicting yourself?

Speaking of Collinz Contradictions, aren't we overdue for a "correlation is not causation [except when it supports Matt's position]" ... ?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Speaking of Collinz Contradictions, aren't we overdue for a "correlation is not causation [except when it supports Matt's position]" ... ?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

The cause of your argument is Matt's wrongness, and Matt is never wrong. Therefore your logical fallacy is False Cause.

 

[Matt Collins]

Basically you're saying you spent $$ on people who were going to vote for Ron anyway.

Here is the formula for winning an election:

1- make a list of everyone who is likely to vote
2- contact them to see who they plan on voting for
3- have a 3rd person talk to the undecideds and convince them to vote for you
4- get your people out to vote on election day


or in marketing terms:

- identify
- segment
- target

 

[cajuncocoa]

Here is the formula for winning an election:

1- make a list of everyone who is likely to vote
2- contact them to see who they plan on voting for
3- have a 3rd person talk to the undecideds and convince them to vote for you
4- get your people out to vote on election day


or in marketing terms:

- identify
- segment
- target

Since I already have an undergraduate degree in Marketing, I wonder if this lesson will qualify towards a Masters program.

 

[jjdoyle]

Here is the formula for winning an election:

1- make a list of everyone who is likely to vote
2- contact them to see who they plan on voting for
3- have a 3rd person talk to the undecideds and convince them to vote for you
4- get your people out to vote on election day


or in marketing terms:

- identify
- segment
- target

You freaking forgot the DELEGATES! THE DELEGATES. NEED MORE MONEY FOR THE DELEGATES. STOP ROMNEY with the delegates. We will win, with the delegates. Delegates = winning. Delegates = real strategy.

Some campaign expert you are. Not mentioning the delegates.

Jesse Benton said:
"The money that we're raising, we're spending very, very aggressively to win delegates."
"This time it's about real political victory."
"Dr. Paul is going to stay in this race either until he's the nominee or another candidate has 1,144 bound delegates. We see a brokered convention situation as very likely. There's a real possibility we can block any other candidate from winning 1,144 delegates."