After much trial and error figured out the "He can't win".

[mavtek]

I think I've hit the nail on the head for the sympathetic supporter who seems to believe he's right, but he can't win.

Here is my script: I've memorized it to use when canvassing and I have it handy when if I call someone.

Response to he can't win if you feel genuine support in the voice or body language.

"Well to me it's not about winning, it's about the message to my fellow Americans. It's about showing the world that we the people can work hard, follow our hearts and minds and do something that inspires everyone to be a part of society and our government. In Michigan due to our hard work and our passion we got over 50,000 votes for Ron Paul, a candidate few have even heard of. This was more than Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani combined. It's my hope that you will be part of this message to our fellow Americans, to show them there is hope for all of those even without corporate backing or media manipulation. It's my hope that you will do like I have done along with 1000's of others and stand for this message by voting Ron Paul."

Deliver this with conviction and Passion, thus far it has worked for me.

 

[ihsv]

I've run into the same thing. At work, two guys and I were talking RP (they saw my RP hat), and both of them said they really liked him, but that he had no chance of winning. I countered by saying "Yes he does, if we vote for him."

I explained briefly that Americans have this notion that the primary race is like a horse race, and you have to bet on the one you think will win. This is nonsense. You have to vote for the one who is BEST for America.

They both completely agreed with me.

I never cease to be amazed at the power of the big corporate media. Every time they mention RP's name, they tag-line it with something like "He has no chance of winning." People hear that often enough, and act accordingly. Pathetic.

 

[AlexMerced]

good job, in order for other to believe you you must believe yourself, that's why it's always important to be positive and keep high hopes

 

[acptulsa]

Would you rather vote for the winner or would you rather cast a vote that allows you to look yourself in the eye when you shave (or put on makeup) in the morning?

 

[Jeremy]

It's not impossible to win.... so naive

 

[S3eker]

To say he can't win is stupid. The reality is the 'other' Republican candidates definitely can't win agains any of the Democrats.

 

[acptulsa]

To say he can't win is stupid. The reality is the 'other' Republican candidates definitely can't win agains any of the Democrats.

I've been making headway with that one, too.

 

[quickmike]

Just say "Oh ok, so if you were in prison and had a 75% chance of electricution, a 24% chance of going to the gas chamber, and a 1% chance of escaping, you would pick electricution just because it has the best chance of happening? Hmmmm, interesting."

 

[skolwulf]

In Michigan due to our hard work and our passion we got over 50,000 votes for Ron Paul, a candidate few have even heard of. This was more than Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani combined.

I know what your intention is, but i try to never ever lie.

Michigan:
Ron Paul 54,434 < Giuliana 32,135 + Thompson 24,706 (from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI)

You statement is biased and false. Perhaps you consider this splitting straws or a minor discrepency, but statement like this ruin credibility if checked into because you are exagerating to get your point across. This is the exact thing that members of this movement rail against when the media does it, yet for some reason since our cause is "righteous" it is ok for us to do this.

 

[sharpsteve2003]

Tell them "If everyone I hear that from votes for Ron Paul he will win."
If they will get 2 others to do the same we will win by a landslide.

 

[mavtek]

I know what your intention is, but i try to never ever lie.

Michigan:
Ron Paul 54,434 < Giuliana 32,135 + Thompson 24,706 (from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI)

You statement is biased and false. Perhaps you consider this splitting straws or a minor discrepency, but statement like this ruin credibility if checked into because you are exagerating to get your point across. This is the exact thing that members of this movement rail against when the media does it, yet for some reason since our cause is "righteous" it is ok for us to do this.

Think about it this way, if they got into that much research on it, then we are winning.

 

[sharpsteve2003]

I would not quibble over a couple thousand votes. just leave out "more than" and just say twice as many. Close enough.