LittleLightShining
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 6,531
A lot has changed in a year.
Doesn't look like it to me.
A lot has changed in a year.
Yeah candidates are important but so are organizations. If you have a choice, go with candidates though because they will accomplish more if elected; or at least they have the potential to do so.I support candidates. PERIOD. with donations and time. That's what I did for Ron Paul, that's what I do for the C4L and the GOP.
As I've said before, we need to win over their hearts and minds in the off-cycle, so that when election season gets here it's much easier to win their votes.Mike Rothfeld's training is excellent.
He's there to teach us how politics works, and it is true that "educating the masses" does not win elections.
Why?As I've said before, we need to win over their hearts and minds in the off-cycle, so that when election season gets here it's much easier to win their votes.![]()
Why?
Ron's success was not a fluke. He won his district because he was well known and well liked, plus his political philosophy was close to those in his district (Texas). Once an incumbent it's almost impossible to be voted out.No... his success was just a fluke![]()
Ron's success was not a fluke. He won his district because he was well known and well liked, plus his political philosophy was close to those in his district (Texas). Once an incumbent it's almost impossible to be voted out.
Well some do just like to be proud of their accomplishments. There are many humble people that work behind the scenes. I dont know Mr Rothfield or not, but jumping to conclusions is not always the best approach. Perhaps you know him better than I do?What allegation am I making. Most political strategists are interested in 1 or more of 3 things-- money, influence and/or power.
Effectiveness of what? Success of what?
I went to the conference in Valley Forge. It was WELL worth it.
You have to do both.I'm not disputing that his training may be nonpartisan and universally acceptable. What I am disputing is the value of teaching attendees to focus their efforts on a very small percentage of voters as opposed to educating as many as possible. While this strategy may be effective in electoral politics it does not a movement make-- or nurture. For those unfamiliar with the training I encourage you to read what he has to say. My biggest issue with the training is the absolute disdain he has for education. Period. Which C4L, in its infancy, was supposed to do.
You have to do both.
Winning elections is not about education, it's about getting votes. Elections are short term victories in most instances. However over the long term, the education arm definitely needs to exist. If you win their hearts and minds in the off-season then when it comes time for an election it's much easier to win over their vote.
Im not talking in circles at allWhatever, Matt. Talk in circles some more.
I went to the St Louis event last March and I must say the same thing. I met some now very good friendsI went to the conference in Valley Forge. It was WELL worth it.
Winning elections is not about education, it's about getting votes. Elections are short term victories in most instances. However over the long term, the education arm definitely needs to exist. If you win their hearts and minds in the off-season then when it comes time for an election it's much easier to win over their vote.
If you are trying to feed the people broccoli you sometimes must put sugar or salt or cheese on it - it has to be dressed and flavored so that people are willing to try it.But now we are trying to get Rand elected, and we have 4 months... that's not enough time to educate enough voters to win. That's why, when running for office, you have to craft a message that's appealing to the voters. You don't have time to educate all of them.