A blimp is a BAD IDEA - here is why

[Matt Collins]

The guy who ran our RPF office in 2007 would agree with you 100% on a lot of things, like the effectiveness of sign waves. But instead of relentlessly yammering about how ineffective they were, he unofficially encouraged them in front of the HQ, we made coffee and hot chocolate to entice them inside, and we staffed our phone banks with the information we got from the sign in sheets.

At no point did he belittle anybody or tell them they were wasting their time, or insist they should meekly listen to those with more experience.

That's how leaders lead.

In person, during a campaign, is a lot different than an Internet forum.

 

[Deborah K]

Your long term memory is shot.

A "traditional" campaign would not work, could not work, due to the fact that almost nobody knew who RP was in 2007, and of those who did, many had the wrong idea.

The government propaganda organs were offlimits to us, they would not cover RP until we started forcing them to.

And that was the whole reason for the moneybombs, sign waves, limos and blimps and all the rest.

This. Our passion is what got him noticed. Even Shillary admitted that.

 

[orenbus]

Something a few friends and I worked on in 07', wow almost 7 years to the day.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt, you are too quick to dismiss those efforts and the impact of appealing to people emotionally.

No not at all actually. I understand that almost all human decisions are based upon emotion, not logic, reasoning, or rationale. And that's what sales is 101: moving people out of their logical rational mindset and into the emotional realm. Sometimes people think they are being rational and logical, but it can be emotional logic too. Either way, I get it.


Voters vote based on emotion. Strategy should not be based on emotion.

At the very least, the blimp was a successful application of Ron Paul's message of free market ideas rising to the top. The market inside of the grassroots Ron Paul revolution wanted a blimp. The market got what it wanted. Whether or not it worked out for your purpose and your goal is irrelevant.

Cream rises to the top, but sometimes crap floats too.... My point being that just because lots of people wanted it doesn't make it a good idea or even a worthwhile project.

You have to let go of the idea that somehow getting the right people in positions of power is all that it will take to turn this country around. That idea fails so bad and its obvious why.

Everything the government does is political. Every law, rule, and regulation that comes in to being is the result of politics and someone having power to get it done. If we don't have any power, then we are not going to be able to get it undone. It's just that simple.


Granted, we don't have to have good elected officials in order to win, we just have to know how to manipulate the ones in office to do our bidding. That's much easier than most people think it is... I know because I've done it when I was broke and had almost no resources other than an e-mail list at my disposal.

As Ron Paul has said, this is a revolution of ideas. The battleground is in the hearts and minds of Americans. I will have no success in winning that battle by using the same establishment tactics, the same establishment ideas to get "MY GUY" elected, the same old methods of only caring about the every shrinking number of "likely voters".

Winning tactics are ideologically neutral. The tactics that the progressives have used so well for the last 100 years to implement their agenda will also work for us when we actually decide to try them.

Making freedom popular is my ultimate goal.

The goal is to get the government restrained by changing policy. That can only happen through the political, electoral, and legislative process.

You can try and trick those likely voters into giving you illegitimate political power in a corrupt system. But ultimately no matter who is in power, that power is going to be taken away from them by the people with the moral high ground.

Uh no... the world doesn't work like that.

First off, you can'd do anything without power. There is nothing wrong with having power, it is just like money. Nothing wrong with having money either. But how you acquire it and what you do with it is the key.

Power is of course defined as getting other people to do what you want them to do (government power, backed by force, can be illigitimate in some cases,)

And secondly, just because you have the moral high ground doesn't mean squat. Having the moral high ground will not win you anything. Yes, we should always have the moral high ground, but if we want to change the law, then we must have power.

Exchange the word "power" for "money" and you'll see what I'm talking about... here is an example:

"If we have the best cheeseburgers in the world, everyone will want to buy our cheeseburgers"..... that is absurd and a good way to have a failing business... the reality is this: "If we have the best cheese burgers in the world, we must let people who are in the market for a cheeseburger know that they need to try our cheeseburgers instead of our competition's cheeseburgers".


Just because you are right or have the best product doesn't mean you win anything. You have to bring the product to market otherwise it goes nowhere. And it is a VERY small market consisting of only a little % of society at large that determine elections.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah it isn't uncommon for supporters to do a post mortem on failed campaigns. Your observations weren't even all that harsh. It's really unusual to be called a traitor for it. Was Collins on the payroll?

No, but I think he has a personal, vested interest in connecting O'Neil into the Rothfeld universe. He is downplaying that failure out of concern that it may reflect on him, and therefore not receive the trust in 2016.

 

[phill4paul]

Cream rises to the top, but sometimes crap floats too....

How well we know. Which reminds me. You need a rep burn.

 

[Deborah K]

And what point was that, Matt? That you can't verify you're not an instructor or an advisor to candidates? If you don't want to verify it to me in PM because you think I'm not trustworthy, then pick someone else to verify it. Maybe Bryan? You trust him, don't you? Come on, Matt.....you claim you're an authority - prove it or stfu!! Otherwise we'll have to conclude that you're nothing but a fraud. If you want respect, then prove you are what you say you are.

As far as I'm concerned, liars and deceivers should be routed out.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Winning tactics are ideologically neutral. The tactics that the progressives have used so well for the last 100 years to implement their agenda will also work for us when we actually decide to try them.

To beat the enemy, become the enemy.

Yah, you know what?

You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

 

[Deborah K]

Waving signs on the side of the freeway is the only thing dumber than launching a highly explosive blimp.

Matt, is that you? Is anyone else noticing that when Matt's off, this joke is on? And notice how there is no response when it's called out?

 

[Deborah K]

To beat the enemy, become the enemy.

Yah, you know what?

You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

He's referring to voter fraud and such, I'm sure. Where's ACORN when you need them? Soros anyone?

 

[AuH2O]

For the sake of argument, if the blimp was so successful, why stop there? Why not, say, a Ron Paul rocket? Surely something even more grand would have garnered that much more media attention and generated more name recognition.


Obviously, I'm not being serious -- the cost per vote gained there is impossibly high. But the argument of many of the blimp critics, myself included, is that the same can be said of the blimp when compared to other forms of voter contact. Now, I understand why so many people liked it. It was fun, and it made you feel a part of something special, something that had never done before in politics … and maybe we actually were really changing things. I like the sound of that. But it doesn't mean critics can't have a reasonable point when they call it a poor investment ... and since neither side can provide anything but anecdotes to bolster their point (and anecdotes -- fun though they may be to reminisce about -- don't prove anything), we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Danke]

Something a few friends and I worked on in 07', wow almost 7 years to the day.

My truck is bigger than yours and RP tagged it.

 

[phill4paul]

For the sake of argument, if the blimp was so successful, why stop there? Why not, say, a Ron Paul rocket? Surely something even more grand would have garnered that much more media attention and generated more name recognition.


Obviously, I'm not being serious -- the cost per vote gained there is impossibly high. But the argument of many of the blimp critics, myself included, is that the same can be said of the blimp when compared to other forms of voter contact. Now, I understand why so many people liked it. It was fun, and it made you feel a part of something special, something that had never done before in politics … and maybe we actually were really changing things. I like the sound of that. But it doesn't mean critics can't have a reasonable point when they call it a poor investment ... and since neither side can provide anything but anecdotes to bolster their point (and anecdotes -- fun though they may be to reminisce about -- don't prove anything), we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

It was, if nothing else a "foot in the door." That is salesmanship 101. That's what it did. What was done with that opportunity is something else entirely. It got newsplay on local and national stations. That's NOT anecdotal.

 

[phill4paul]

Matt, is that you? Is anyone else noticing that when Matt's off, this joke is on? And notice how there is no response when it's called out?

His sock puppets are Legion. I just rep burn them without explanation.

 

[Occam's Banana]

For the sake of argument, if the blimp was so successful, why stop there? Why not, say, a Ron Paul rocket? Surely something even more grand would have garnered that much more media attention and generated more name recognition.

Obviously, I'm not being serious -- the cost per vote gained there is impossibly high. But the argument of many of the blimp critics, myself included, is that the same can be said of the blimp when compared to other forms of voter contact. Now, I understand why so many people liked it. It was fun, and it made you feel a part of something special, something that had never done before in politics … and maybe we actually were really changing things. I like the sound of that. But it doesn't mean critics can't have a reasonable point when they call it a poor investment ... and since neither side can provide anything but anecdotes to bolster their point (and anecdotes -- fun though they may be to reminisce about -- don't prove anything), we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Exactly what was the ROI of the blimp in terms of votes? That is, exactly how many votes were gained per dollar spent on it - and how does that compare to the votes-per-dollar of other endeavors? Without this information, it is impossible to say objectively that the blimp was not "worth it" (at least, in terms of getting votes) - and as far as I know, no one has presented those critical pieces of data.

But even if it could be irrefutably shown that the "cost per vote" of the blimp was "too high" relative to other efforts - so what? When it suits his shifting purposes to do so, even Matt acknowledges that "winning" by getting the most votes in an election is NOT the only valid or important sense or means of "winning." It is a perfectly defensible and not at all unreasonable position to argue that the blimp was "worth it" in terms other than whatever votes it did or did not garner.

Even if the blimp in and of itself did not gain so much as a single voter, it could still be argued that the blimp was "worth it," if only as a means of "merely" "spreading the message of liberty" (which, in turn, could have contributed to greater success in other more traditional vote-getting endeavors).

Finally - and rather obviously - the blimp was "worth it" to those who supported it. Who the hell is anyone to say otherwise?
(Apart, of course, from those who presumptuously and hubristically claim that they are the arbiters of what is or is not "worth it" and why.)

 

[Anti Federalist]

His sock puppets are Legion. I just rep burn them without explanation.

"Exploding blimps" was worth a neg rep.

I've given out more neg rep in the last three days than I have in three years.

 

[orenbus]

My truck is bigger than yours and RP tagged it.

LOL, nice.

 

[jjdoyle]

My truck is bigger than yours and RP tagged it.

I should neg rep this, and report this post as a PRIME example of exactly what Matt Collins is talking about. Not only WASTING your time, but WASTING Ron Paul's time also.

For shame. Should have just donated more money to the campaign instead of spending it on paint, because clearly that's what would have solved the problem. More money, to the professionals. Did you ever think that selling the truck, and donating those funds to pay the salaries of the campaign staff would have achieved more for Ron Paul's name recognition, than this?

No? Well, it's a start. In 2016, I'm just going to sit at home, and call the same people 50 thousand times until I know they are committed to voting for the liberty candidate (can't say Rand, because another could appear).

 

[Matt Collins]

No, but I think he has a personal, vested interest in connecting O'Neil into the Rothfeld universe.

huh? this makes zero sense for several reasons

 

[phill4paul]

"Exploding blimps" was worth a neg rep.

I've given out more neg rep in the last three days than I have in three years.

It's past time. Even though sock puppets got the thread locked Operation Rep Burn lives on.