Fun poll! Should ads show RP with babies & little kids?

[Corydoras]

Please examine this thread first:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22716

 

[Delivered4000]

If an ad should show, it should target a family oriented audience, or parents, rather than the 18-24 age group. But this is not market research just a speculative opinion

 

[noxagol]

This will probably sway *ahem* stupid people *ahem* who think pictures like this are telling of a person's character.

 

[Patrick Henry]

The ad should be family oriented and detail his strong pro-life record. Maybe it should mention the Sanctity of life act and how all the so called pro-lifers haven't signed on to it.

 

[BW4Paul]

From a woman's perspective, yes, the ads certainly should! First, many women like pictures of babies, generally- not all, of course, but many. Second, the ads can say something like, "Dr. Ron Paul is an OB/Gyn who has cared tenderly for women and their babies for over 40 years (or whatever)." It makes him sound like the kind of man that women can trust.

 

[foofighter20x]

Just what we need: a campaign photo recaptioned/graphitied to read "Ron Paul wants to eat your baby!"

 

[quickmike]

Im sure it would attract some voters who vote based on their emotions instead of using critical thinking................ Now that I think of it, yeah, this should work great with the majority of americans!!!

 

[goRPaul]

I don't think this is a solution to the problem, but I voted that it would be effective anyways. I read somewhere that Ron's supporters are 75% male, but I attributed this to the fact that men are simply more interested and involved in the political process than women are.

I think that to get women (and most everybody for that matter) on our side is not to tell them about Ron, but to tell them about the problems we face, and get them interested in the presidential race. Once they're interested, it won't be very hard to get their support for Ron.

Keep in mind it's only October 2007, many people don't feel the need to even listen to presidential candidates until this time next year. We have to perk their interest before we can get them interested in the message of freedom.

 

[Hope]

So innovative! I wonder why no one's thought to put babies and children in ads before!




Seriously, though. This will not be what attracts more women to this campaign. We need to talk to women about the issues that affect them that Ron Paul supports, as stated in the other thread. This is so ridiculous. What next? "Should we put monster trucks in Ron Paul ads to attract more men?"

 

[Corydoras]

This will not be what attracts more women to this campaign. We need to talk to women about the issues that affect them that Ron Paul supports, as stated in the other thread. This is so ridiculous. What next? "Should we put monster trucks in Ron Paul ads to attract more men?"

The question was NOT whether it will attract more women. Just more voters. Women have no lock on liking babies-- as Ron Paul himself demonstrates.

The poll was designed, however, to see if there was a differential in which people thought it would work.

 

[Corydoras]

Is this y'all's final answer?
Poll ends tomorrow a.m.!

 

[Nathan Hale]

This will probably sway *ahem* stupid people *ahem* who think pictures like this are telling of a person's character.

As Winston Churchill said, "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". That's why we employ campaign strategy. Kids in pictures are a good thing.

 

[inibo]

I don't care if it attracts voters or not. I just like seeing pictures of Ron Paul with happy children. It brings out something very human in him. He has a great smile.

It's hard to tell who his having more fun in that picture, Ron Paul or that little girl.

 

[ksuguy]

Sure, I think it is good.

However, it can go the other way if executed poorly. Our previous attorney general here in Kansas had an ad about internet safety a couple years ago where his daughter was sitting on his lap. That would have been fine if she was five. Unfortunately she was probably 13 or 14 so it was just incredibly creepy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is a reason why politicians through the age of time have taken every opportunity to have their picture taken holding a baby.

 

[Corydoras]

A decisive majority seems to think that showing Ron Paul with babies and little kids will attract voters. This appears to show that the issues aren't everything when it comes to advertising Ron Paul.

Campaign HQ, are you listening?

 

[BuddyRey]

These pictures allow Ron's human side to radiate in WAVES. You can sense right away that he genuinely loves kids and isn't just posing with them for soccer mom brownie points like so many other politicians.

 

[eloquensanity]

These pictures allow Ron's human side to radiate in WAVES. You can sense right away that he genuinely loves kids and isn't just posing with them for soccer mom brownie points like so many other politicians.

Yes he's actually interacting with them and kids know when its genuine and respond, thats why they look happy.

 

[Corydoras]

Other candidates do seem to have a "please god don't let it pee on my suit" expression when they pose with babies.

 

[klamath]

I don't care if it attracts voters or not. I just like seeing pictures of Ron Paul with happy children. It brings out something very human in him. He has a great smile.

It's hard to tell who his having more fun in that picture, Ron Paul or that little girl.

This picture Is my all out favorite. All politics are gone in this picture and it is a very very emotional human bond image.