All the more reason campaigns need to get some ground laid before IA & NH and do well there. Why do you think Brownack, Tommy Thompson and the others dropped out so early? Paul, IMHO, deluded himself quite a bit by thinking his online support translated into much more real support.
Canvassing SC - 30% say "I would vote for RP if he could win"
- Thread starter GunnyFreedom
- Start date
Black Dude
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 136
I think...
maybe a new ad campaign slogan should be....
"VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE - RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT, 2008"
it would be a big help if he wins Nevada, or at least comes in third...
I think as long as giuliani and thompson stay below us, we are still in it. Our goal should be to grow support as much as possible during these primaries, so we have a least a decent shot at winning... and if we don't win, we have a legitimate claim as an electable 3rd party candidate.
maybe a new ad campaign slogan should be....
"VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE - RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT, 2008"
it would be a big help if he wins Nevada, or at least comes in third...
I think as long as giuliani and thompson stay below us, we are still in it. Our goal should be to grow support as much as possible during these primaries, so we have a least a decent shot at winning... and if we don't win, we have a legitimate claim as an electable 3rd party candidate.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
that's what I've been doing, the look at me like they don't believe me. Besides, telling them that others will not vote for him does not help, and so I do not go there.
If this word could get out generally, it may well make a huge impact.
all J's in IL for RP
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 439
Tell them the only time their vote doesn't count is when they throw it away on a candidate they don't believe in.
rexsolomon
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 319
New York Times Editorial (Indirect) - Ron Paul Electability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times
January 14, 2008, 6:43 pm
Anything but the ‘E’ Word
By Ron Klain
Monday’s New York Times poll, invokes the word I dread the most in any discussion of primary campaigns: “electability.”
Whether you are looking for the person you think would be the best president or the person with whom you agree on key issues; the person whose experience is best suited to the job or the person who is most likely to bring change to Washington, there are many good reasons to choose a particular candidate.
Character, personality, leadership skills, resume or accomplishments are also good things to consider. Almost any reason will do, just please don’t pick someone because you think that he or she is the most “electable” candidate that your party can nominate.
Why? Because choosing a candidate based on “electability” is almost always futile.
Electability is an elusive and amorphous quality. It requires getting inside the heads of other voters — particularly swing voters in a few states — who may be far away and very different from you. And even if you could do that, you would still need to project such conclusions into the future, to figure out what those “other voters” will be thinking 10 months from now, in November. Either one of these tasks is difficult; putting the two together is impossible.
And I say this without any suggestion that political experts can do this any better than individual voters. Voters are just as good at assessing electability as are the so-called experts, which is to say, both find it equally impossible. If any of us — pundits or voters — needed an exercise in “electability humility,” campaign 2008 has certainly provided it!
When you factor into the equation the incredible complexity that comes from intervening events, the yet-unknown facts that will come out in the months ahead, the vast breadth of the national electorate, the unpredictable acts that will be done by the candidates’ themselves, uncertainty over which states will be battlegrounds and just dumb luck, trying to pick a candidate based on who would be most likely to win is like trying to pick your lottery numbers based on “a system.”
For Democrats, 2004 is the classic example. Many Democrats rallied behind John Kerry in the early primaries because they thought he could win, and particularly because they thought that his service in Vietnam would place him beyond political assault on national security issues. But by mid-summer, attacks on that military service made him politically vulnerable, and Senator Kerry lost an election that many Democrats thought he should have won.
Did that mean that everyone who supported John Kerry made a mistake? No. But those who backed him in the primaries just because they thought he was the “most electable” — especially because they saw his military service as a political advantage — wound up sorely disappointed.
Aside from the dubious practical problems with picking candidates based on electability, there are other concerns too. When I was supporting Senator Joe Biden earlier this year, I often had people say to me, “I think Joe Biden would be a great president, but I won’t vote for him, because he can’t win.”
In this way, electability becomes a tautology: voters won’t support a candidate who isn’t electable, and he isn’t electable because voters won’t vote for him.
More philosophically, an excessive focus on electability diminishes the franchise. Taking something as sacred as your presidential preference and turning it into an act of political prognostication cheapens your choice: being a voter is a more important job in our system than being a pundit or a consultant. Why should you cast your vote based on how you think others will vote (even if you could guess that accurately)? Why should their choice matter more than your own?
Yes, ultimately, presidential campaigns are about winning: a candidate who does not win cannot achieve policy changes or make the country a better place. And being mindful of the consequences of our votes is important, as many people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 — only to put George Bush in the White House, instead of Al Gore — have painfully learned.
If you want to back a winner in 2008, focus on persuading your neighbor to come over to your choice, instead of guessing how he will vote.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Take away lesson from rexsolomon:
If you meet anyone who says, "I want to vote for Ron Paul but I won't because he can't win" - tell him or her:
"That was EXACTLY the line of thinking that got us into this mess. That's exactly how George Bush came to power. Are you happy now? I'm asking you not to make the same mistake again!".
Indirect Ron Paul NYTimes Editorial 'On Electability'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times
January 14, 2008, 6:43 pm
Anything but the ‘E’ Word
By Ron Klain
Monday’s New York Times poll, invokes the word I dread the most in any discussion of primary campaigns: “electability.”
Whether you are looking for the person you think would be the best president or the person with whom you agree on key issues; the person whose experience is best suited to the job or the person who is most likely to bring change to Washington, there are many good reasons to choose a particular candidate.
Character, personality, leadership skills, resume or accomplishments are also good things to consider. Almost any reason will do, just please don’t pick someone because you think that he or she is the most “electable” candidate that your party can nominate.
Why? Because choosing a candidate based on “electability” is almost always futile.
Electability is an elusive and amorphous quality. It requires getting inside the heads of other voters — particularly swing voters in a few states — who may be far away and very different from you. And even if you could do that, you would still need to project such conclusions into the future, to figure out what those “other voters” will be thinking 10 months from now, in November. Either one of these tasks is difficult; putting the two together is impossible.
And I say this without any suggestion that political experts can do this any better than individual voters. Voters are just as good at assessing electability as are the so-called experts, which is to say, both find it equally impossible. If any of us — pundits or voters — needed an exercise in “electability humility,” campaign 2008 has certainly provided it!
When you factor into the equation the incredible complexity that comes from intervening events, the yet-unknown facts that will come out in the months ahead, the vast breadth of the national electorate, the unpredictable acts that will be done by the candidates’ themselves, uncertainty over which states will be battlegrounds and just dumb luck, trying to pick a candidate based on who would be most likely to win is like trying to pick your lottery numbers based on “a system.”
For Democrats, 2004 is the classic example. Many Democrats rallied behind John Kerry in the early primaries because they thought he could win, and particularly because they thought that his service in Vietnam would place him beyond political assault on national security issues. But by mid-summer, attacks on that military service made him politically vulnerable, and Senator Kerry lost an election that many Democrats thought he should have won.
Did that mean that everyone who supported John Kerry made a mistake? No. But those who backed him in the primaries just because they thought he was the “most electable” — especially because they saw his military service as a political advantage — wound up sorely disappointed.
Aside from the dubious practical problems with picking candidates based on electability, there are other concerns too. When I was supporting Senator Joe Biden earlier this year, I often had people say to me, “I think Joe Biden would be a great president, but I won’t vote for him, because he can’t win.”
In this way, electability becomes a tautology: voters won’t support a candidate who isn’t electable, and he isn’t electable because voters won’t vote for him.
More philosophically, an excessive focus on electability diminishes the franchise. Taking something as sacred as your presidential preference and turning it into an act of political prognostication cheapens your choice: being a voter is a more important job in our system than being a pundit or a consultant. Why should you cast your vote based on how you think others will vote (even if you could guess that accurately)? Why should their choice matter more than your own?
Yes, ultimately, presidential campaigns are about winning: a candidate who does not win cannot achieve policy changes or make the country a better place. And being mindful of the consequences of our votes is important, as many people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 — only to put George Bush in the White House, instead of Al Gore — have painfully learned.
If you want to back a winner in 2008, focus on persuading your neighbor to come over to your choice, instead of guessing how he will vote.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Take away lesson from rexsolomon:
If you meet anyone who says, "I want to vote for Ron Paul but I won't because he can't win" - tell him or her:
"That was EXACTLY the line of thinking that got us into this mess. That's exactly how George Bush came to power. Are you happy now? I'm asking you not to make the same mistake again!".
slacker921
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,143
+1 .. I've heard "yeah, Paul is my favorite but he won't win so I'll vote for Huckabee" a bunch of times. Ugh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302304.html?sub=AR
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302304.html?sub=AR
DucoNihilum
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1
My dad was going to vote for Ron but he told me "it would be like throwing my vote away."
This is the inherent danger of not putting much in to the early states. It looks like the danger is growing.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
Did you watch the video?
The Circular Problem of Voting Based on "Electability"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsGkTnQ_xtA
The Circular Problem of Voting Based on "Electability"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsGkTnQ_xtA
RSLudlum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,582
How bout ask them what they really like about Paul and then take their issue and prove to them why it really needs to be done bc. the others aren't gonna do it.
In other words take the 'main talking point' ie electability out of discussion and turn it on to something that will inspire them to vote Ron Paul!
In other words take the 'main talking point' ie electability out of discussion and turn it on to something that will inspire them to vote Ron Paul!
jdmyprez_deo_vindice
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 5,437
national advertising
I know it is expensive but this is why we need a nation wide T.V. ad to go out pronto. People are not seeing us featured in the media so they build this misconception that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. If we have a professional, national TV ad out there than name recognition will shoot through the roof and people will start looking at us as a potential front runer. Like I said, I know it is expensive but this has to be done. Even if the campaign does not do it than we should!
I know it is expensive but this is why we need a nation wide T.V. ad to go out pronto. People are not seeing us featured in the media so they build this misconception that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. If we have a professional, national TV ad out there than name recognition will shoot through the roof and people will start looking at us as a potential front runer. Like I said, I know it is expensive but this has to be done. Even if the campaign does not do it than we should!
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
iPhone posting today -- slow posting.
People need to vote for the candidate that is the best representative of their ideals, not who the media says "has a chance", but people want to out think the system. People say they don't waste their vote, and believe the "research" the candidates and in their research they are told so and so are the only ones that have a chance so anyone else is a waste, but people don't how much spins is put on such little information. The polls are such a small sample, even the states that have had their primaries are like mini polls or such a small sample they do not, and should not decide who is the winner, but the media spins who they want and say they are the only ones that have a chance. They hope that you abandon the one that is the right person for you, and pick between the "media approved" choices they give you. It's corruption of the system and abuse of the trust people put in the media to supply them with information, for those who want the clif notes to the book of life, because they are to lazy to research it themselves, but somehow it's good enough for them to vote on the next leader of the free world. It's freaking sad.
Last edited:
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
I did watch it and it is good. I agree with it in it's entirety. Problem is it would be awful hard to distill into a canvass stop. Canvass stops are barely beyond sound bite territory.
Lots of good ammunition in this thread.
Be thinking also on how to get this word out and broadcast.
& shout out to MauiBoy!
I feel the issue of electibility is one the official campaign needs to address. The people that like Ron Paul's message are not illogical and can think for themselves. Many of the points I have read in the thread could easily be addressed in a 30 second commercial time slot. Voting according to what you think someone else might vote is extremely illogical. I for one have in the past voted according to electibility and I feel extremely foolish. Voting according to electibity is the one true way to throw your vote away. Dr. Paul's campaign is as much about re-educating the American people how our country is supposed to run as it is to elect Dr. Paul as President. Perhaps we should educate the people about how voting according to electibility is the most foolish way one can vote. Just a thought.
If someone says I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM BUT..we already got them. Many ideas in this thread are excellent things to point out. I would also tell them "Listen, You like what he is saying right? (nod head, always nod your head yes when you ask them a question you want a yes to((selling Mary Kay cosmetics taught me that and it works every single time.))) We need to get back to a government that protects our rights and our Constitution, right? Bring troops home? Cancel the IRS and replace it with reduced spending? Well, if YOU vote for him, and help me get some more people to do it, he has as much or better chance than any of those other yahoos!!"
mathamagician
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 229
Unfortunately electability matters HUGELY in the primary. Look at how violently Huckabee and McCain jumped around in the polling! They aren't thinking about who would be best in the general election people are trying to vote strategically and they try to figure out who are the top 2 or possibly 3 people who could win in their state and then vote for them. This allows them to show preference among the people who will most likely win.
This is a fundamental flaw in our winner take all voting system and it why many libertarians and other 3rd party people want to move to approval voting.
Approval voting is the best practical voting method. Basically you vote Yes or No on all the candidates and whoever gets the most 'yes' votes wins.
This is a fundamental flaw in our winner take all voting system and it why many libertarians and other 3rd party people want to move to approval voting.
Approval voting is the best practical voting method. Basically you vote Yes or No on all the candidates and whoever gets the most 'yes' votes wins.
Similar threads
