An open letter: 10 ways for Ron Paul to get many more progressives on board

[showpan]

Two points about domestic/entitlement/humanitarian spending:

1) Even if RP doesn't technically increase domestic spending, he will ensure that the money to fund Social Security, Medicaid and unemployment benefits is kept safe and not spent overseas. He has already proposed legislation to make it illegal for the congress or President to snag Social Security funds for any other purpose. He is also likely to divert much of the current funding for bank/corporate welfare to actual welfare for poor people.

2) The federal money given to those in need might stay about the same, but the dollars themselves will be worth more. Balancing the budget and restoring sound currency means relief from inflation. It doesn't put more paper in the pockets of the needy, but it does put more value in their pockets.[/QUOTE]

If you listen closely to what Ron has to say, this is correct. The Democrat spin on cutting entitlement programs has been embellished to make it sound as if he is going to give SS and Medicare the ax, he didn't say it. He stated that they were in trouble and would soon be bankrupt because of the neocon policies. He also stated that he would basically follow what the PEOPLE desired. If they wanted to opt out, they could. If they wanted medicare, then so be it. He prefers to let the people provide for themselves since the government is robbing them blind. This should be made much clearer for those who don't understand this.

Another point about a post that was made on behalf of green energy. There is little market for solar energy because companies like Chevron buy patents and half of solar manufacturing in order to keep the prices high and stifle research for an efficient economical product. The technology is actually there now, the implementation has been blocked by energy companies who wish to block it.

 

[osan]

Damn. I didn't realize I was being such a little kid. I guess I should grow up and go smack the crap out of some Chinese homos.

How about addressing the points instead of responding with this nonsense? If you disagree with my opinions, then refute them. What you offered added nothing of value to this discourse. You chose to interpret my words as "hate". Jesus... give me a break, please. And arm, a leg, even a collarbone. I am pointing out that so-called progressivism is antithetical to liberty. If you disagree, please demonstrate how I am mistaken.

If progressives want something better than the hand puppets to which we have been treated since the reign of Reagan, they might wish to try something new, which would require a suspension of their delusional belief systems long enough to drop a vote for Ron and see whether there is anyone actually worth voting for or that they are indeed all the same. For pity's sake, people went on and on about how the great black Obama was the answer to all our woes. They got their shot not only by putting him in office, but by holding firm majorities in both houses. Yet for two full years Obama and his back-pocket Congress inexplicably screwed all of us into the ground up to our collective eyeballs so much so that even democrats and progressives are stopping just short of asking for his pea-brained head on a platter. HELLO.

We've had decades of ever increased progressivism. It has failed. Utterly. Profoundly. Embarrassingly. Dangerously. Time to buy a clue and try something else, would you not say? Demanding Ron take up the progressive agenda is utter, barking madness. What manner of rank and raving insanity would lead any progressive to think that a man with his head screwed on as well as Ron's appears to me to be would so much as waste his time laughing at such recommendations? We have run ourselves face first into a brick wall over and over. At this point it seems the best course of action would be to start by no longer doing this. Give the face some time to heal, then walk AROUND the wall so we can finally get on with more constructive and profitable endeavors.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

How about addressing the points instead of responding with this nonsense? If you disagree with my opinions, then refute them. What you offered added nothing of value to this discourse. You chose to interpret my words as "hate". Jesus... give me a break, please. And arm, a leg, even a collarbone. I am pointing out that so-called progressivism is antithetical to liberty. If you disagree, please demonstrate how I am mistaken.

If progressives want something better than the hand puppets to which we have been treated since the reign of Reagan, they might wish to try something new, which would require a suspension of their delusional belief systems long enough to drop a vote for Ron and see whether there is anyone actually worth voting for or that they are indeed all the same. For pity's sake, people went on and on about how the great black Obama was the answer to all our woes. They got their shot not only by putting him in office, but by holding firm majorities in both houses. Yet for two full years Obama and his back-pocket Congress inexplicably screwed all of us into the ground up to our collective eyeballs so much so that even democrats and progressives are stopping just short of asking for his pea-brained head on a platter. HELLO.

We've had decades of ever increased progressivism. It has failed. Utterly. Profoundly. Embarrassingly. Dangerously. Time to buy a clue and try something else, would you not say? Demanding Ron take up the progressive agenda is utter, barking madness. What manner of rank and raving insanity would lead any progressive to think that a man with his head screwed on as well as Ron's appears to me to be would so much as waste his time laughing at such recommendations? We have run ourselves face first into a brick wall over and over. At this point it seems the best course of action would be to start by no longer doing this. Give the face some time to heal, then walk AROUND the wall so we can finally get on with more constructive and profitable endeavors.

You need to understand that I'm not arguing with your intellectual points but your manners. You come on basically telling PFP that he's stupid, and that you want to kick his stupid (and evil) ass all the way to China, or whatever. Bad form. Saying "think like me or get out of my country, you evil retard" is NOT a suitable or grownup means of argument. It hurts our movement to be so unkind and disrespectful to someone who wishes to help. PFP is voting for Ron Paul. He wants to help us win. Let's save the Archie Bunker stuff for people who will never vote for our guy and who want us to lose.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

You need to understand that I'm not arguing with your intellectual points but your manners. You come on basically telling PFP that he's stupid, and that you want to kick his stupid (and evil) ass all the way to China, or whatever. Bad form. Saying "think like me or get out of my country, you evil retard" is NOT a suitable or grownup means of argument. It hurts our movement to be so unkind and disrespectful to someone who wishes to help. PFP is voting for Ron Paul. He wants to help us win. Let's save the Archie Bunker stuff for people who will never vote for our guy and who want us to lose.

Kurt,
i think he was only trying to compete with the comments to my posts on the daily kos.

 

[Matt Collins]

In my mind, any disillusioned citizen who listens with an open mind becomes a "likely GOP primary voter,"

That's because you don't have any political experience apparently.

You may be applying the old unwritten rules of politics to a new phenomenon that defies them.

No, winning elections is a science which means it's math. Just like the fundamental rules of economics don't just magically disappear when a new product is brought to market, the fundamental rules of campaigning don't change just because one has an out-of-the-box candidate.

I'm going to Iowa to push the "Republican for a Day" movement among independents and social liberals. We'll see what happens. It can't hurt, and it feels more hopeful than praying for Palin/Huckabee/Romney voters to grow working brains.

Yeah, it's wasting time. Your efforts could be much more effective working on getting Republicans to vote for him.

 

[Matt Collins]

KY was a small state without an incumbent. That strategy cannot be duplicated nationally.

I don't necessarily agree. There's not going to be a contested Democrat primary so a lot of progressives/left leaning independents who can't stand the corporatist/war state we're in who may be intrigued by the idea of voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

Yall fail to understand inertia.

Any business 101 class knows that it's much easier to retain existing customers than to acquire new ones. It's cheaper and more efficient to do so.

Likewise, any political science major from the local community college knows that it's easier to get people within your own party to vote for your guy in a primary than it is to get outsiders to overcome the threshold of actually changing party registration and voting in another primary they wouldn't have normally voted in (especially in closed primary states).

Why take 3 steps to victory when we could just take 1 step instead?

 

[progressiveforpaul]

Yall fail to understand inertia.

Any business 101 class knows that it's much easier to retain existing customers than to acquire new ones. It's cheaper and more efficient to do so.

Likewise, any political science major from the local community college knows that it's easier to get people within your own party to vote for your guy in a primary than it is to get outsiders to overcome the threshold of actually changing party registration and voting in another primary they wouldn't have normally voted in (especially in closed primary states).

Why take 3 steps to victory when we could just take 1 step instead?

Matt, You, no doubt, are a politically savy guy and what you are saying makes sense under ordinary circumstances. We face huge debt and big choices that are rushing in at us. i think that most Americans across the political spectrum are totally distrustful of the two parties and the conventional candidates. many of us on the left were hopeful that Obama would make real changes when he got in office. You are right that every republican voter needs to be pursued but there is a rare opportunity in this election that also needs to be pursued: a real peace candidate and a growing number of disenchanted progressives who have nobody to vote for in the Democratic primary. I cannot remember in my life time a situation like this. I never thought i would ever vote in a Republican primary for a candidate whom i want to be president. And here is the realism that you do not seem to get: Ron Paul does not stand a chance of being nominated much less elected without a huge surge of progressives shifting his way. Tell me the scenario in which Paul gets the nomination without progressives. You mention Rand in KY. This is a different situation. Let's imagine for a second that progressives stay put and RP finishes 1st or 2nd in the Iowa caucus. Within minutes the Palins and Romeys and Huckabees will be on the phone with each other (their operatives actually) and they will make a deal to put a corporatist and a cultural populist ticket together and let everyone else drop out of the race with whatever political bribes they need to get that accomplished. And then huge sums of money that dwarf what Obama did last time will pour in overnight. In less than a week ads will go up all over NH and SC running on every network 5 to 10 times an hour making a demon from the pits of hell out of Ron Paul. Unbeleivable pressure will be mounted on the media to discredit Ron Paul. What sympathy he garners will be insignificant compared to the fear that these money monsters will engender everywhere. Now if you can't see that scenario as happening i question whether you have actually ever voted. I agree that inertia is ruthless but fear is unfathomable. His election is a long shot under my strategy but it is down right impossible under yours.

 

[osan]

You need to understand that I'm not arguing with your intellectual points but your manners.

You misread my words/tone. Easily done, given the limitations of the medium. I was not being ill mannered and NOWHERE did I say he was stupid. Merely typically delusional. The fail that the progressive worldview engenders has been demonstrated apodictically more times in my own experience than I could count on all my fingers, toes, and body hairs. The logic is almost a standard, is unbreakable, and demonstrates how utterly disconnected the ideology is from reality. The OP posted a litany of mostly ridiculous demands/suggestions and I called him on them on a point by point basis. I admit I got a little out there when I questioned the basis of the first point where I considered some sense to be showing, but that was not in the spirit of disrespect. It was based on 30 years of listening to the same broken record from their ilk and observing the goat-stubborn intransigence of such people. They simply refuse to accept reason, preferring to hang on to their wholly stilted notions of what is right no matter how forcefully or artfully their beliefs are demonstrated as unsound. After a while one gets sick of the SOS being spewed. So despite my perfectly reasonable basis for making my expression of doubt, I will apologize in the event the OP took offense.

Unlike so-called "progressives", I have listened to their positions with an open mind. I have seen that in some cases their formal arguments are cogent. But thus far, they have universally failed reason by way of the psychotic assumptions they employ as the basis for those otherwise formally valid arguments. Their failures lay almost entirely in the ridiculous assumptions they bring to the table. They refuse to let go of those idiotic beliefs, and so I must dismiss then as maliciously disingenuous, lacking the intellectual capacity to understand how they have gone off the rails, or are a bunch of kooks. Don't know which it is - don't much care. Experience has shown that up to this point they cannot be reasoned with, so I don't waste my time. If a given individual is willing to be shown just how it is that their basis for belief is stoned, I am happy to discuss the issues intelligently. I will not, however, waste time on those people who have no interest or capacity for truthful, capable reason.

You come on basically telling PFP that he's stupid,

You may want to go back and read a bit more carefully. I rarely indulge myself in ad hominem attacks, and only if I am having a particularly bad day and should otherwise be holding my tongue. Being human, I fuck up at times.

and that you want to kick his stupid (and evil) ass all the way to China, or whatever.

Not HIS. I was referring to the group in general. And as far as I am concerned, such malice/stupidity should be addressed with some force because it stands as a threat to my liberty and I don't cotton to that. Believe what nonsense you wish, but keep it to yourself. Put your hand in my pocket and you stand to lose it. I do not suffer robbery quietly. If others do, well then good for them if it makes them happy.

Saying "think like me or get out of my country, you evil retard"

Talk about bad form - you make incorrect use of quotes, directly implying that I wrote those words, which I believe I did not, nor did I imply them in any measure. I did, however, ask why all those people have not moved to China if progressivism is so virtuous and wonderful? China is far and away closer to their ideal than is the USA. I will tell you why: because at the bottom of it, the typical progressive knows just how horrible a place China really is in political terms and would not move there in a thousand years of Sundays. And therein lies another objection I hold for progressives - they tend to be rank hypocrites in the sense that they want their cake and eat it too. They want all the bright shiny bits of their ideal without any of the dark and evil reality that is part and parcel of the philosophy's very fabric. They want to believe that you can have at no cost this bunnies and light society where everyone is taken care of for free and we are all happy workers in the fields, hoeing and digging and shoveling shit all day, reading Mao's little red book on our 10 minute lunch break in lieu of eating. They believe it will all be doable without the gulags and reeducation camps and the 10 minute drumhead trials and swift executions. They believe in what can never be and in my experience universally, blindly, hatefully, and graspingly refuse to consider reality beyond their ill conceived fantasy world.

PFP is voting for Ron Paul. He wants to help us win.

Great. Note that Ron has made no announcements regarding his adoption of so much as a single progressive agenda element. Given this and the vote for, what was the point of the OP?

PS: if he is voting to Ron, his status as a "progressive" would seem to be in some question at this point.

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, it's wasting time. Your efforts could be much more effective working on getting Republicans to vote for him.

The thing is, Matt, we have people in the grassroots who want to reach out to liberals, and who are more comfortable doing that, and who will be more enthusiastic in doing that, than they would be doing things that would help win over traditional likely GOP voters. These folks are more likely to have families and circles of friends who are Democrats than a lot of the rest of us. They're more likely to be involved in liberal action groups of various kinds. And, in many cases, they are people who we don't really want anywhere near a likely Republican voter, because they'll only reinforce that voter's perception of RP as not a true conservative. If these folks want to reach out to liberals, I say we encourage them to do that. Rather than say that it shouldn't be done, we should say that it should be done in an intelligent way.

 

[osan]

Centralized power is generally corrupting.

A popular misconception. Power, centralized or otherwise, corrupts nothing. It is like saying electricity corrupts. Power is utterly neutral in character in this respect. All power does is enable that which wields it. PEOPLE are corrupt. People are honest. People are this or that because they choose to be.

Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth.

Please describe in detail how this is to. I am not sure I understand this properly.

This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics.

In an organically sound economy, the shifts in wealth are never affected through force and violence, but through commerce and competition. The two are not the same.

the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly democratic public sector investment.

Large statement. Please demonstrate how this is so, particularly that last part.

If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

Assuming I am reading you 5x5, this is utterly incorrect. The concentrations of power as they exist today came about PRECISELY because of governmental interference in the markets. That interference protected the stakes of the big players way back when and preserve them to this day. Removing all this regulatory bullshit and allowing organically sound free markets to be what they are is the best way to solve the problems we face.

you do have a strong negotiating position but so do we progressives. if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

More leftist tripe, pardon me. Nobody is talking about gutting anything. I would, however, phase all these programs out over the coming 30 years. I would remove all corporate protection schemes and let the players slug it out in the free markets. I would maintain a regulatory presence against collusion and other such wealth- and liberty-destroying activities and I would give those attempting to engage in such criminal acts very long stints of turning large rocks into small ones.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...

I think there are some win-win solutions. It is hard to get there when ideological pride and political tribalism have such a huge grip on us. It is a bit easier if we imagine that we could both get more of what we want working with each other than with the corporatists of our two parties. Even if we are convinced that in the end there is only one way to skin a cat, we ought to know that we are not getting to that destination instantaneously. If we just relax for a moment and allow for the possibility that the other might just have a thought or an idea that we have not considered and that might actually not harm our goals but get us closer to them, we might find our way forward. I have mentioned several ideas and certainly they need to be fleshed out. for example, the idea of a progressive consumption tax as advocated by Robert Frank. such an idea gets rid of the income tax and appeals to the libertarian idea of voluntarism (an idea I am dubious of) while it maintains the principle of progressivism, to whom much is given is much expected (actually that was Jesus' idea long before we progressives existed).

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Great. Note that Ron has made no announcements regarding his adoption of so much as a single progressive agenda element. Given this and the vote for, what was the point of the OP?

PS: if he is voting to Ron, his status as a "progressive" would seem to be in some question at this point.

This might sound weird, but in a way you're giving liberalism too much credit. Pop-progressive ideology is not a consistent, sound moral code or political blueprint the way that libertarianism is. This isn't meant as a subjective insult but an objective observation; liberals often willingly define themselves as hardcore pragmatists. For instance, it's a direct contradiction of principle to be anti-war and pro-heavy/involuntary taxation, or pro-civil liberties and anti-local education, or pro-central economic planning and anti-enforcement of immigration laws. Many in the art community (the biggest den of collectivists-statists) reject classical philosophy, so they don't feel a need to think soundly. To be blunt, most trendy liberals just read Critique of Pure Reason at age 18 and their brains subsequently fell out.

Therefore, the left-wing side of any issue is not necessarily in opposition to the libertarian's directly, or at all. It's not always two football teams driving for opposing goalposts. I'm not arguing that Ron came around to being a progressive or that he ever would! I'm saying that in many instances his agenda is the same as the far left's agenda. They won't always agree on basic principle, especially since one side doesn't always lead from principle. But it doesn't make you a liberal to agree with them, on war, or drugs, or civil rights, or torture. Ron does not need to adopt new positions to appeal to progressives, he already appeals to them with his established positions.

(I wasn't quoting you w/ "evil retard" but just paraphrasing and extrapolating to make a clearer point. I apologize for any misleading grammar. Thank you for taking such a long time responding, I read it all and agree with much of what you say. However, I still feel strongly that we don't ever help our cause by talking down to people.)

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

That's because you don't have any political experience apparently.

I really don't get your condescension. I could sit and talk about my political street cred, but it's not relevant. This is an unprecedented campaign. There has never been a candidate or a movement quite like this one. Besides, I know kids who helped Obama get elected who were in 8th grade during the 2004 cycle. A lack of experience obviously didn't hurt them too badly. Nor did Obama's focus on activating & Dem-registering college students turn out to be a waste of time.

No, winning elections is a science which means it's math. Just like the fundamental rules of economics don't just magically disappear when a new product is brought to market, the fundamental rules of campaigning don't change just because one has an out-of-the-box candidate.

The analogy fails because most of the population is actively involved in the economy. Most of the population have not been politically motivated enough to vote in primaries. There is tremendous untapped potential there. Why is "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" a popular slogan? Are the people who wear those T-shirts all converted Bush activists & hardcore primary voters from before Ron came along in 2007? If so, why don't they wear "Ron Paul Shaved My Bush" or something?

Also, don't confuse traditionally successful tactics with fundamental rules. The only fundamental rule here is that the winner will get more votes than the second place candidate.

Yeah, it's wasting time. Your efforts could be much more effective working on getting Republicans to vote for him.

Why can't I do both? So I have this project to sway independents and casual liberals. It doesn't mean I have to sit in Starbucks for a year. I will still donate as much money as I can to the general campaign. I will gladly go door-to-door. I'll be volunteering to help C4L in Iowa & NH in any way they ask. I am organizing a RP meetup at my house for campaigning in my county in MO, and it will be littered with Republicans. But I suppose you'd rather I have 20 Republicans and 20 empty chairs than 20 Republicans and 20 independent social liberals? Sometimes, you can add without subtracting, which I believe is taught in Math 101.

Yall fail to understand inertia.

Any business 101 class knows that it's much easier to retain existing customers than to acquire new ones. It's cheaper and more efficient to do so.

Likewise, any political science major from the local community college knows that it's easier to get people within your own party to vote for your guy in a primary than it is to get outsiders to overcome the threshold of actually changing party registration and voting in another primary they wouldn't have normally voted in (especially in closed primary states).

Why take 3 steps to victory when we could just take 1 step instead?

You're using an Argument from Authority. Aren't a lot of Economics 101 teachers Keynesians? Didn't a lot of political professors write libertarianism off completely a long time ago? Why should we listen to only traditional opinions now?

I disagree that day-of registering/voting for non-GOP folks involves "3 steps." I see two steps -- registering & voting, available in the same place, same day. And what if Paul and Romney end up a dead heat in polls of former GOP primary voters? You're saying if we got 5% of all non-GOP college kids to take 1-3 hours out of a year and vote for Ron, it won't help? What about the libertarians in YAL, are they 100% registered Republicans, even the ones who were < 18 in 2008? If not, why involve them?

There is no reason not to lay a groundwork for attracting non-Republicans well before the general election gets here, if we can do so in a way that does not hurt or subtract from the GOP-campaigning effort. By the logic you're using, we should wait until we score the tying TD before we think about finding a kicker & practicing the extra point for the win.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

The thing is, Matt, we have people in the grassroots who want to reach out to liberals, and who are more comfortable doing that, and who will be more enthusiastic in doing that, than they would be doing things that would help win over traditional likely GOP voters. These folks are more likely to have families and circles of friends who are Democrats than a lot of the rest of us. They're more likely to be involved in liberal action groups of various kinds. And, in many cases, they are people who we don't really want anywhere near a likely Republican voter, because they'll only reinforce that voter's perception of RP as not a true conservative. If these folks want to reach out to liberals, I say we encourage them to do that. Rather than say that it shouldn't be done, we should say that it should be done in an intelligent way.

I come from a Republican family but I've gotten to know a lot of liberals in my life as a musician. I consider libertarians like myself to be outside the liberal/conservative dichotomy, but I know how to present myself to both sides. I don't talk about drugs to churchy conservatives, and I don't bring up abortion to liberal hippies. I do talk to the hippies about the Fed because the devaluation of currency hits poor people the hardest.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt, You, no doubt, are a politically savy guy and what you are saying makes sense under ordinary circumstances.

Electoral math (political science) doesn't change just because you have an unique candidate. The laws of physics don't change just because you are flying an airplane instead of a helicopter.

I never thought i would ever vote in a Republican primary for a candidate whom i want to be president.

The fact that you are even posting on this forum means that you are very unique and different from others. Your (our) passion is not replicated amongst the masses.

And here is the realism that you do not seem to get: Ron Paul does not stand a chance of being nominated much less elected without a huge surge of progressives shifting his way.

Incorrect.

Tell me the scenario in which Paul gets the nomination without progressives.

Real simple, appeal to the conservative base of the party just like Rand did.

What sympathy he garners will be insignificant compared to the fear that these money monsters will engender everywhere. Now if you can't see that scenario as happening i question whether you have actually ever voted. I agree that inertia is ruthless but fear is unfathomable. His election is a long shot under my strategy but it is down right impossible under yours.

What math do you have to back up your claim?

 

[Matt Collins]

The thing is, Matt, we have people in the grassroots who want to reach out to liberals, and who are more comfortable doing that, and who will be more enthusiastic in doing that, than they would be doing things that would help win over traditional likely GOP voters. These folks are more likely to have families and circles of friends who are Democrats than a lot of the rest of us. They're more likely to be involved in liberal action groups of various kinds. And, in many cases, they are people who we don't really want anywhere near a likely Republican voter, because they'll only reinforce that voter's perception of RP as not a true conservative. If these folks want to reach out to liberals, I say we encourage them to do that. Rather than say that it shouldn't be done, we should say that it should be done in an intelligent way.

If they want to spin their wheels, pound sand, walk the treadmil, etc, then that is what they want to do. I want to win the election.

 

[Matt Collins]

I really don't get your condescension. I could sit and talk about my political street cred, but it's not relevant. This is an unprecedented campaign.

Political science doesn't change just because we have an unique candidate.

The analogy fails because most of the population is actively involved in the economy. Most of the population have not been politically motivated enough to vote in primaries. There is tremendous untapped potential there. Why is "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" a popular slogan? Are the people who wear those T-shirts all converted Bush activists & hardcore primary voters from before Ron came along in 2007? If so, why don't they wear "Ron Paul Shaved My Bush" or something?

Also, don't confuse traditionally successful tactics with fundamental rules. The only fundamental rule here is that the winner will get more votes than the second place candidate.

You're still not understanding this and I'm honestly getting tired of talking to a brick wall.

Why can't I do both?

You can do whatever you want. But if you want Ron to win a Republican primary, then you will have to focus on Republicans.

So I have this project to sway independents and casual liberals. It doesn't mean I have to sit in Starbucks for a year. I will still donate as much money as I can to the general campaign. I will gladly go door-to-door. I'll be volunteering to help C4L in Iowa & NH in any way they ask. I am organizing a RP meetup at my house for campaigning in my county in MO, and it will be littered with Republicans. But I suppose you'd rather I have 20 Republicans and 20 empty chairs than 20 Republicans and 20 independent social liberals? Sometimes, you can add without subtracting, which I believe is taught in Math 101.

Inertia. Getting large amounts of liberals to vote in a Republican primary is harder than getting large amounts of Republicans to vote for a Republican candidate. I don't want to sound like Palin, but it IS common sense.

You're using an Argument from Authority. Aren't a lot of Economics 101 teachers Keynesians? Didn't a lot of political professors write libertarianism off completely a long time ago? Why should we listen to only traditional opinions now?

Because they are proven and they work. We tried "unconventional" back in 2008 and look where it got us electorally.

Maybe we should use tried and true methods this time around, eh?

I mean it worked for Rand.

There is no reason not to lay a groundwork for attracting non-Republicans well before the general election gets here, if we can do so in a way that does not hurt or subtract from the GOP-campaigning effort. By the logic you're using, we should wait until we score the tying TD before we think about finding a kicker & practicing the extra point for the win.

During the Republican primary, the only people that matter are Republican primary voters. It's just that simple.

 

[erowe1]

If they want to spin their wheels, pound sand, walk the treadmil, etc, then that is what they want to do. I want to win the election.

John McCain beat Bush in the Michigan primary in 2000 because of Democrat crossover votes. Hillary undoubtedly won a lot of delegates against Obama in 2008 because of Republican crossover votes. I don't think that it's spinning wheels for certain people to work on getting crossover votes for RP, especially for people who are better positioned to do that than they are to canvass traditional Republicans, and especially in certain Democrat-heavy districts.

 

[VegasPatriot]

I really don't get your condescension. I could sit and talk about my political street cred, but it's not relevant. This is an unprecedented campaign. There has never been a candidate or a movement quite like this one. Besides, I know kids who helped Obama get elected who were in 8th grade during the 2004 cycle. A lack of experience obviously didn't hurt them too badly. Nor did Obama's focus on activating & Dem-registering college students turn out to be a waste of time.



The analogy fails because most of the population is actively involved in the economy. Most of the population have not been politically motivated enough to vote in primaries. There is tremendous untapped potential there. Why is "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" a popular slogan? Are the people who wear those T-shirts all converted Bush activists & hardcore primary voters from before Ron came along in 2007? If so, why don't they wear "Ron Paul Shaved My Bush" or something?

Also, don't confuse traditionally successful tactics with fundamental rules. The only fundamental rule here is that the winner will get more votes than the second place candidate.



Why can't I do both? So I have this project to sway independents and casual liberals. It doesn't mean I have to sit in Starbucks for a year. I will still donate as much money as I can to the general campaign. I will gladly go door-to-door. I'll be volunteering to help C4L in Iowa & NH in any way they ask. I am organizing a RP meetup at my house for campaigning in my county in MO, and it will be littered with Republicans. But I suppose you'd rather I have 20 Republicans and 20 empty chairs than 20 Republicans and 20 independent social liberals? Sometimes, you can add without subtracting, which I believe is taught in Math 101.



You're using an Argument from Authority. Aren't a lot of Economics 101 teachers Keynesians? Didn't a lot of political professors write libertarianism off completely a long time ago? Why should we listen to only traditional opinions now?

I disagree that day-of registering/voting for non-GOP folks involves "3 steps." I see two steps -- registering & voting, available in the same place, same day. And what if Paul and Romney end up a dead heat in polls of former GOP primary voters? You're saying if we got 5% of all non-GOP college kids to take 1-3 hours out of a year and vote for Ron, it won't help? What about the libertarians in YAL, are they 100% registered Republicans, even the ones who were < 18 in 2008? If not, why involve them?

There is no reason not to lay a groundwork for attracting non-Republicans well before the general election gets here, if we can do so in a way that does not hurt or subtract from the GOP-campaigning effort. By the logic you're using, we should wait until we score the tying TD before we think about finding a kicker & practicing the extra point for the win.

+ rep Points well made… all of which will be ignored by Matt.

If they want to spin their wheels, pound sand, walk the treadmil, etc, then that is what they want to do. I want to win the election.

You apparently consider yourself “The Legend” so it would be nice if you started acting like one on this subject. You obviously have a total logic fail with your ‘anything other than specifically targeting registered republicans is a waste of time’ shtick.

Do you fail to realize many RP supporters can multitask? You suggest we invest all efforts in targeting existing republicans only (that is the strategy to use only after the deadline to register republican). You must realize one could talk until they are blue in the face, and a significant percentage of republicans will never support RP as a delegate. So instead of wasting all our efforts on some people we will never convince… instead tap into a vast resource of potential RP republicans by encouraging non republicans to become Ron Paul Republicans up until the deadline to register republican (then go all out targeting republicans). It happened in a BIG way here in Nevada in 2008, I seen and was a part of it. We can do both. By limiting our resources now to “beating a dead horse” is the waste of time.

You obviously don’t and won’t agree with me on this and that’s fine… we can agree to disagree. But I get sick of seeing you insult people by telling them their ideas are a waste of time. You are being counterproductive. If you want to be the “Legend” you think you are… stop discouraging enthusiastic supporters just because they have a different strategy.

 

[smokemonsc]

Everyone has their opinion - here's mine

I will form coalitions with those who share a belief of mine if the goal is to realize that belief. I will not compromise my principles. Two different things.