Gaps in the Ron Paul campaign?

[milo10]

I explained in more detail a few posts earlier. Never underestimate psychological manipulation and propaganda. Obama was elected partly due to this.

Your original post was something about having a psychologist on staff. The issue is way more complex than that, and it is not a matter of having a degree in psychology. I am familiar with the work of Kenrick Cleveland, Robert Dilts, Robert Cialdini, etc.. They are all experts on persuasion and changing minds, and the first two aren't psychologists. Dilts developed sleight of mouth by modeling Richard Bandler, who hates psychologists. LOL There are different theories of what works in marketing and psychology. Many people are good at this instinctively, and charisma can trump a lot of the various rules and techniques. I know that firsthand.

I partially agree but the media will not let this easily go. Even if they no longer talk about it in great detail, they keep throwing in a sentence or two referring to "Ron Paul's racist newsletters" so I think addressing it head-on is a better strategy.

And they will never let it go. Ever. Ever. Ever. LOL

Issue of race and political correctness in general is not a free market in ideas in this society. That is why we have Godwin's Law, because you can't have a rational discussion around these topics, so you have to bypass them.

If you think there is a free and open discussion of these ideas in today's culture, then nothing I can tell you will change your mind. Just observe.

I disagree strongly for reasons I have explained earlier. No one including you has answered my point that going after Romney later on just consolidates his lead and makes it harder to beat him, especially in Winner-Take-All states.

Well, yes, that's true. And if the campaign had a more popular candidate with better media support and more money, they could well have chosen a different path. But with the entire establishment against them and less than limitless funds, they chose what I think is a very wise approach.

Consider this possibility. If we had put together an anti-Romney campaign ad going into Iowa, and he had gotten just 100 less votes thanks to that ad, Rick Santorum would have won. Santorum would then have gotten sufficient funds and momentum to carry him through to Super Tuesday. That is scary! We would be hearing a lot more about Santorum going forward, and he'd be polling much better in South Carolina right now. The media would make it a Santorum vs Romney battle, and Ron would have been pushed to the side.

As it stands, we have the possibility of everyone dropping out after Florida except for Paul and Romney. Is that ideal? No! But we weren't given easy circumstances to begin with. IMHO, the campaign played this right. The actual number of delegates in the first four states are not high except for Florida, but those are the breaks. We are banking on the uniqueness of Ron as a candidate and the fact that his supporters will stick this out.

Btw, attacks are also a two-way street. Mitt and his PACs have more money than anyone else. We don't attack them, they don't attack us. That is a big help. We're fortunate that Mitt's campaign probably does not take us seriously, other than wanting to be our friends after the nomination is over so he can get our votes.

Frankly, if we had won Iowa, the campaign's approach would have been even more effective. Your electability ad would have been great in Iowa.

 

[floridasun1983]

For what its worth, I agree with the OP that the "electability" issue is about the biggest issue holding back a Ron Paul explosion in popularity. I hear it everytime, everytime I talk to somebody about him. "I sure like Dr. Paul, but he's just not electable." The media has convinced a lot of people that he just can't win, and nobody likes supporting a loser. That's why, IMHO, a first place finish in Iowa would have been so crucial, but, we did well there and we did even better in NH, so we need to do even better in SC and that narrative will start to collapse on its own.

 

[parocks]

BTW, I checked out the advert on electability by the Santa Rita SuperPac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_UfB9EzhKA) but in my view it is useless. It just rehashes Ron Paul's rather weak argument that he is electable because he has been elected 12 times to congress. The one-on-one head-to-head matchup polls pitting Obama against Paul and against Romney are the most convincing argument but the Paul campaign is not using them in any sort of effective, visible and vigorous way. Why???

The argument is that "they said the same thing about Reagan" in that ad.

In this ad, they directly use the poll.

 

[parocks]

Consider this possibility. If we had put together an anti-Romney campaign ad going into Iowa, and he had gotten just 100 less votes thanks to that ad, Rick Santorum would have won. Santorum would then have gotten sufficient funds and momentum to carry him through to Super Tuesday. That is scary! We would be hearing a lot more about Santorum going forward, and he'd be polling much better in South Carolina right now. The media would make it a Santorum vs Romney battle, and Ron would have been pushed to the side.

As it stands, we have the possibility of everyone dropping out after Florida except for Paul and Romney. Is that ideal? No! But we weren't given easy circumstances to begin with. IMHO, the campaign played this right. The actual number of delegates in the first four states are not high except for Florida, but those are the breaks. We are banking on the uniqueness of Ron as a candidate and the fact that his supporters will stick this out.

Btw, attacks are also a two-way street. Mitt and his PACs have more money than anyone else. We don't attack them, they don't attack us. That is a big help. We're fortunate that Mitt's campaign probably does not take us seriously, other than wanting to be our friends after the nomination is over so he can get our votes.

Frankly, if we had won Iowa, the campaign's approach would have been even more effective. Your electability ad would have been great in Iowa.

What we did in Iowa was attack Gingrich. And it worked. We took Gingrich down from the 20s - 30s in Iowa to the teens. If we didn't attack Gingrich, you might've seen no Santorum surge in Iowa, and Gingrich could've been in a much stronger position. Santorum beating Romney wouldn't have changed anything. There wasn't and isn't a realistic scenario for Santorum to win. Knocking down Gingrich was the point.

 

[Lethalmiko]

... with the entire establishment against them and less than limitless funds, they chose what I think is a very wise approach.... If we had put together an anti-Romney campaign ad going into Iowa, and he had gotten just 100 less votes thanks to that ad, Rick Santorum would have won. Santorum would then have gotten sufficient funds and momentum to carry him through to Super Tuesday. That is scary! We would be hearing a lot more about Santorum going forward, and he'd be polling much better in South Carolina right now. The media would make it a Santorum vs Romney battle, and Ron would have been pushed to the side.

As it stands, we have the possibility of everyone dropping out after Florida except for Paul and Romney. Is that ideal? No! But we weren't given easy circumstances to begin with. IMHO, the campaign played this right. The actual number of delegates in the first four states are not high except for Florida, but those are the breaks. We are banking on the uniqueness of Ron as a candidate and the fact that his supporters will stick this out.

Btw, attacks are also a two-way street. Mitt and his PACs have more money than anyone else. We don't attack them, they don't attack us. That is a big help. We're fortunate that Mitt's campaign probably does not take us seriously, other than wanting to be our friends after the nomination is over so he can get our votes.

Frankly, if we had won Iowa, the campaign's approach would have been even more effective. Your electability ad would have been great in Iowa.

You are the first person to give a substantive argument. My own view is that even if Santorum had won Iowa, he would still not have lasted. He does not have the full backing of the republican party leadership heavyweights who back Romney. Neither does the media particularly like him. Gays/Lesbians don't like him either and I do not see how his fundraising could have been as good as Paul or even Perry. He would have eventually fizzled out.

I accept your argument that the corrupt media would have made this a Romney/Santorum fistfight but I am not convinced that would have necessarily been bad for Paul. Paul would have quietly built support while they were slugging it out and I suspect the Romney PAC with its large war chest would have gone after and buried Santorum they way they went after Gingrich.

But in my ideal scenario, the Paul campaign should have first dealt with the electability issue before Iowa and on its heels an attack on Romney. If the first part of the strategy turned out to be effective, the Romney attack maybe could have been put on hold. But it all depends on how effective the anti-Romney attack is. If it works, no amount of retaliation from Romney would make a difference. Which is why I emphasize that an attack linking him to the corrupt bailed-out bankers is the most devastating because it effectively neutralizes any response he may have since voters would begin to see him as a corrupt politician. Am I being too presumptuous and naive?

Another important point to note is that the Paul campaign to some extent has attacked Romney as a flip-flopper and he has not retaliated. Romney attacking Paul is much harder than it seems because there is really no material against Paul except the newsletters and guilt by association. Attack ads like that are much easier to counter and show to be false.

I still think clearing the field is the wrong strategy to follow because of the "Romney momentum" problem. A score of 4-0 after FL is almost insurmountable, even if the field is cleared by then because group-think sets in. Nate Silver's forecasts which are usually very accurate bears me out on this. In SC, Paul is still just under 20% after four separate polls between January 11 and 13 and in FL he is not even in the top three.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

The best strategy right now is to pour most of the resources into solving the electability problem because it shall have far greater impact in both arresting the Romney momentum and clearing the field. This is where the campaign has botched things terribly since Iowa. I have emailed them over this and I hope they act accordingly.

If you think there is a free and open discussion of these ideas in today's culture, then nothing I can tell you will change your mind. Just observe.

I know discussions of racism are mostly irrational. My argument is that if sufficient doubt can be cast on the narrative concerning the racist newsletters, it will be much harder for the media to keep using them as evidence that RP is racist. Obama settled the Jeremiah Wright issue with a press conference and it was harder to use it against him afterwards.

 

[milo10]

What we did in Iowa was attack Gingrich. And it worked. We took Gingrich down from the 20s - 30s in Iowa to the teens. If we didn't attack Gingrich, you might've seen no Santorum surge in Iowa, and Gingrich could've been in a much stronger position. Santorum beating Romney wouldn't have changed anything. There wasn't and isn't a realistic scenario for Santorum to win. Knocking down Gingrich was the point.

Thanks for your response, but I'm not sure if you understood the context, since this board limits the automatic embedding of past text. I was describing why it would have been more problematic if someone-other-than-Romney had won Iowa. My view is that we want to be the only perceived alternative to Romney, and that defines the campaign strategy.

I still think clearing the field is the wrong strategy to follow because of the "Romney momentum" problem. A score of 4-0 after FL is almost insurmountable, even if the field is cleared by then because group-think sets in. Nate Silver's forecasts which are usually very accurate bears me out on this. In SC, Paul is still just under 20% after four separate polls between January 11 and 13 and in FL he is not even in the top three.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

I aware that this is very problematic, and if Ron does stage a comeback after Romney takes 4 consecutive states then we have bucked conventional wisdom. I frankly think the campaign's hope was to win Iowa.

The best strategy right now is to pour most of the resources into solving the electability problem because it shall have far greater impact in both arresting the Romney momentum and clearing the field. This is where the campaign has botched things terribly since Iowa. I have emailed them over this and I hope they act accordingly.

If that is what you're arguing for, then I agree.

We could go back and forth on this, and frankly you are presenting some well-thought arguments for your position. I tend to think the campaign is better with strategy and handling issues as they arise (Gingrich, Trump, the Dana Bash interview, and so forth) then they are at having a sufficiently broad vision.

Here are some of my thoughts, presented in as brief a form as possible.

-The campaign should have solicited donations and looked for megadonors from investment & precious metals community. Schiff did this avidly, and basically all candidates look to sources other than the grassroots to fund a major campaign. This can be done responsibly, and without special promises.

-The campaign should have worked out a deal with travel expenses for authors like Tom Woods, Mary Ruwart, Robert Pape, and Michael Scheuer to give talks in early primary states at bookstores, cafes, and universities for 6 months before the election. We could have really helped along a libertarian culture in these states, and also helped supporters convince friends and family members by having an expert answer questions.

-We already mentioned TV ads for electability, seniors, and defense.

-Ron should have brought some new issues to the forefront and gained some easy activists. Just one quick example: If he made a public statement against the FDA forbidding the labeling of GMO foods, we would instantly make several hundred thousand new friends in the environmental/alternative health community who hate Monsanto and GMOs with a passion. Libertarianism is much bigger than monetary and foreign policy, which are the two issues that Ron likes to focus on. And that's fine, but the campaign can be a lot broader than that.

-Rand should have been a lot more involved, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. I'm not sure what the story is there.

I could write more, but you get the idea. There are a lot of directions to take this other than the strategy of who makes the best target.

I know discussions of racism are mostly irrational. My argument is that if sufficient doubt can be cast on the narrative concerning the racist newsletters, it will be much harder for the media to keep using them as evidence that RP is racist. Obama settled the Jeremiah Wright issue with a press conference and it was harder to use it against him afterwards.

I am guessing it is also a little more complex because Ron wants to protect the individuals involved, or at least not be complicit in pointing the finger. I don't know if a press conference would be a good idea or not, and you may be right that it would be, but my concern was changing anything about the nature of the story.

 

[parocks]

Thanks for your response, but I'm not sure if you understood the context, since this board limits the automatic embedding of past text. I was describing why it would have been more problematic if someone-other-than-Romney had won Iowa. My view is that we want to be the only perceived alternative to Romney, and that defines the campaign strategy.



http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

I aware that this is very problematic, and if Ron does stage a comeback after Romney takes 4 consecutive states then we have bucked conventional wisdom. I frankly think the campaign's hope was to win Iowa.



If that is what you're arguing for, then I agree.

We could go back and forth on this, and frankly you are presenting some well-thought arguments for your position. I tend to think the campaign is better with strategy and handling issues as they arise (Gingrich, Trump, the Dana Bash interview, and so forth) then they are at having a sufficiently broad vision.

Here are some of my thoughts, presented in as brief a form as possible.

-The campaign should have solicited donations and looked for megadonors from investment & precious metals community. Schiff did this avidly, and basically all candidates look to sources other than the grassroots to fund a major campaign. This can be done responsibly, and without special promises.

-The campaign should have worked out a deal with travel expenses for authors like Tom Woods, Mary Ruwart, Robert Pape, and Michael Scheuer to give talks in early primary states at bookstores, cafes, and universities for 6 months before the election. We could have really helped along a libertarian culture in these states, and also helped supporters convince friends and family members by having an expert answer questions.

-We already mentioned TV ads for electability, seniors, and defense.

-Ron should have brought some new issues to the forefront and gained some easy activists. Just one quick example: If he made a public statement against the FDA forbidding the labeling of GMO foods, we would instantly make several hundred thousand new friends in the environmental/alternative health community who hate Monsanto and GMOs with a passion. Libertarianism is much bigger than monetary and foreign policy, which are the two issues that Ron likes to focus on. And that's fine, but the campaign can be a lot broader than that.

-Rand should have been a lot more involved, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. I'm not sure what the story is there.

I could write more, but you get the idea. There are a lot of directions to take this other than the strategy of who makes the best target.



I am guessing it is also a little more complex because Ron wants to protect the individuals involved, or at least not be complicit in pointing the finger. I don't know if a press conference would be a good idea or not, and you may be right that it would be, but my concern was changing anything about the nature of the story.

I get what you're saying. I don't agree, or I'm not sure I agree. Santorum is simply not a threat to win. I'm not arguing they did the wrong thing (attack Gingrich), but
no matter what kind of hype the media would give Santorum after Iowa, he was not going to do great in New Hampshire. The media could've tried to make it a Santorum vs Romney race, and they could've. But they didn't even try. They pushed the Huntsman surge. I'm not saying we should've attacked Romney in Iowa, but I think it wouldn't have played out the way you said it might've if Santorum won Iowa 26%, Romney 24%. The media would still understand that NH is not full of Socons, and that Huntsman had the better shot in NH to put a dent in Ron Paul's numbers.

Off topic a bit, did you notice where Huntsman did well? Where Ron Paul did well. Why? I did not pay attention to where Huntsman was campaigning, but I suspect that he was campaigning where Ron Paul was strong, not where Huntsman's message would necessarily go over well, in order to hurt Paul, not to help Huntsman. Huntsman I would think would go over well not in the rural areas, but in Romney country, the Boston suburbs where Romney got 50%.

What is the official libertarian position, or Ron Paul's position on GMO? If Ron Paul was to win the nomination, I would think that GMO / Monsanto would be something that we would want to use to counter the arguments, that are already coming from the left that Ron Paul wants to shut down the government that wants to do so many good things. The left understands that Ron Paul is taking their people and is already attacking Ron Paul.

I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on GMOs and Monsanto specificially.

 

[hueylong]

All this second guessing from people who have never run a campaign in their lives... Dr. Paul's team is making all the right strategic and tactical choices.

 

[morely webb]

We have addresses of local media in South Carolina. Send them emails and letters with the information on Ron Paul's electability.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

All this second guessing from people who have never run a campaign in their lives... Dr. Paul's team is making all the right strategic and tactical choices.

How do you know that they are making the right strategic and tactical choices? It isn't over yet, even Generals frequently realize that they made mistakes after the war has ended.

 

[Blue_Merle]

All this second guessing from people who have never run a campaign in their lives... Dr. Paul's team is making all the right strategic and tactical choices.

Ignoramus opinions like this will cause us to lose and later wonder why.

 

[hueylong]

Thank you for calling me an Ignoramus BM... the only problem is that mine is an informed opinion -- I've worked on political campaigns for 25 years. And I definitely trust Dr. Paul and his team more than a 47 post, 2 month wonder.

 

[milo10]

I get what you're saying. I don't agree, or I'm not sure I agree. Santorum is simply not a threat to win. I'm not arguing they did the wrong thing (attack Gingrich), but
no matter what kind of hype the media would give Santorum after Iowa, he was not going to do great in New Hampshire. The media could've tried to make it a Santorum vs Romney race, and they could've. But they didn't even try. They pushed the Huntsman surge. I'm not saying we should've attacked Romney in Iowa, but I think it wouldn't have played out the way you said it might've if Santorum won Iowa 26%, Romney 24%. The media would still understand that NH is not full of Socons, and that Huntsman had the better shot in NH to put a dent in Ron Paul's numbers.

My concern was more down the road into South Carolina. IMHO, the campaign did not do the best job in Iowa regarding Rick Santorum. Even though his surge was last minute, there was some speculation going back to mid-December that the media might push him unvetted to act as a spoiler in Iowa. You don't have to think it's definite to have a plan B in place. Even something like a high-quality internet video could have been effective.

You and Lethalmiko are making some very good responses. My position is more that if the campaign had handled Iowa a little better and either gotten a win or kept Rick out of second place, then the strategy they chose would have been more effective. And if they couldn't effectively pull off a campaign against the other perceived conservatives, I don't know if they would have done any better with one going after Mitt.

Off topic a bit, did you notice where Huntsman did well? Where Ron Paul did well. Why? I did not pay attention to where Huntsman was campaigning, but I suspect that he was campaigning where Ron Paul was strong, not where Huntsman's message would necessarily go over well, in order to hurt Paul, not to help Huntsman. Huntsman I would think would go over well not in the rural areas, but in Romney country, the Boston suburbs where Romney got 50%.

I'm not sure if I see this. Huntsman did almost all of his campaigning in New Hampshire.

What is the official libertarian position, or Ron Paul's position on GMO? If Ron Paul was to win the nomination, I would think that GMO / Monsanto would be something that we would want to use to counter the arguments, that are already coming from the left that Ron Paul wants to shut down the government that wants to do so many good things. The left understands that Ron Paul is taking their people and is already attacking Ron Paul.

I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on GMOs and Monsanto specificially.

I think the most basic Libertarian position would be that any food manufacturer would have the right to label and market their foods as non-GMO. This is so plainly obvious that any decent conservative or progressive would have to agree. Amazingly, companies can not clearly do this.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

You will sometimes see a mention on the food ingredients list as non-GMO, and I don't know if they risk FDA ire for that, but I do know that a clear No GMO labeling is not accepted. Jeffrey Smith, who is a well-spoken critic of GMOs, says his main goal is freedom in labeling foods as non-GMO, since nobody seeks out GMO foods. This extends not just to food in stores, but chain restaurants and so forth can advertise their foods as untampered, etc.. A few companies doing that basically sinks GMO.

I also would like to see Ron Paul discuss Monsanto. This is frankly the most hated corporation on the planet. A simple video where he used them as an example of crony capitalism and corporate bullying at its absolute worst, and describing the changes that he would make to prevent them from having power would be total win for him. Even most conservatives hate Monsanto, with its bullying of small farmers and its association with George Soros.

Ron should probably not have a position on GMOs themselves, other than to let the people decide, and encourage groups to do independent research so that everyone is better informed. Also, I hope that Ron is against the patenting of seeds and so forth, which would further undercut companies like Monsanto.

 

[milo10]

Thank you for calling me an Ignoramus BM... the only problem is that mine is an informed opinion -- I've worked on political campaigns for 25 years. And I definitely trust Dr. Paul and his team more than a 47 post, 2 month wonder.

And your political savvy is revealed in your making an appeal to authority fallacy and insulting another board member in the space of two short posts.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

Thank you for calling me an Ignoramus BM... the only problem is that mine is an informed opinion -- I've worked on political campaigns for 25 years. And I definitely trust Dr. Paul and his team more than a 47 post, 2 month wonder.

Your personal ego trip doesn't help this forum at all.

 

[dante]

Romney and his surrogate super pacs are hammering Santorum and Gingrich.

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/14/romney-super-pac-pummels-santorum-and-gingrich-by-mail/

Hopefully those voters move to Paul. Could we see a strong second - nipping on Romney's heels? Or could we even get to first? Will the Tom Davis endorsement give us a 5% boost in SC?

 

[parocks]

My concern was more down the road into South Carolina. IMHO, the campaign did not do the best job in Iowa regarding Rick Santorum. Even though his surge was last minute, there was some speculation going back to mid-December that the media might push him unvetted to act as a spoiler in Iowa. You don't have to think it's definite to have a plan B in place. Even something like a high-quality internet video could have been effective.

You and Lethalmiko are making some very good responses. My position is more that if the campaign had handled Iowa a little better and either gotten a win or kept Rick out of second place, then the strategy they chose would have been more effective. And if they couldn't effectively pull off a campaign against the other perceived conservatives, I don't know if they would have done any better with one going after Mitt.



I'm not sure if I see this. Huntsman did almost all of his campaigning in New Hampshire.



I think the most basic Libertarian position would be that any food manufacturer would have the right to label and market their foods as non-GMO. This is so plainly obvious that any decent conservative or progressive would have to agree. Amazingly, companies can not clearly do this.

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php

You will sometimes see a mention on the food ingredients list as non-GMO, and I don't know if they risk FDA ire for that, but I do know that a clear No GMO labeling is not accepted. Jeffrey Smith, who is a well-spoken critic of GMOs, says his main goal is freedom in labeling foods as non-GMO, since nobody seeks out GMO foods. This extends not just to food in stores, but chain restaurants and so forth can advertise their foods as untampered, etc.. A few companies doing that basically sinks GMO.

I also would like to see Ron Paul discuss Monsanto. This is frankly the most hated corporation on the planet. A simple video where he used them as an example of crony capitalism and corporate bullying at its absolute worst, and describing the changes that he would make to prevent them from having power would be total win for him. Even most conservatives hate Monsanto, with its bullying of small farmers and its association with George Soros.

Ron should probably not have a position on GMOs themselves, other than to let the people decide, and encourage groups to do independent research so that everyone is better informed. Also, I hope that Ron is against the patenting of seeds and so forth, which would further undercut companies like Monsanto.

1) About Iowa - I'm not arguing that 1) we should've gone after Mitt or 2) we did anything wrong. What we did do was go after Gingrich, it was effective, and I think that was the way to go. If we had gone after Santorum, and had a result like 30 Romney 22 Paul 20 Santorum, I don't see how that helps us now, or how that would've helped us in NH. Romney can win. Gingrich can win. Santorum cannot. Cain could not. Bachmann could not. I simply don't want to see all that much money spent on attacking people who cannot win. If we look at intrade, and the chances that each candidate will win the R Nomination, it's hard to argue that Romney needs to be stronger than he is already with 87%.

2) Huntsman and NH. Right. We're talking about New Hampshire. I was talking about the parts of New Hampshire where Huntsman did well and the part of New Hampshire where he didn't. Based on looking at the New Hampshire map, it appears that he didn't campaign hard where Romney was picking up 50%. And Huntsman would've done pretty well in those areas, since he is similar to Romney. It appears that Huntsman targeted Ron Paul areas.

3) Thanks for the info on GMO, Monsanto, Ron Paul. I'll look at the information. Monsanto is the worst, and I would like to attack them, and I would like to do so without undercutting a liberty position. Big Pharma is also very bad.

 

[Lethalmiko]

The media has convinced a lot of people that he just can't win, and nobody likes supporting a loser.... so we need to do even better in SC and that narrative will start to collapse on its own.

The narrative will not collapse because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media tells voters Ron Paul is unelectable based on nothing. The Paul campaign fails to respond properly. People continue believing it in SC and they vote accordingly. Paul loses, and it reinforces the original false premise since the media uses the result as proof of their great predictive wisdom, and the cycle continues unabated.

Therefore, the Paul campaign must IMMEDIATELY attack and vigorously CHALLENGE the premise with REAL EVIDENCE from the polls. They should focus almost entirely with single-minded consciousness on this one issue. Then voters will give Paul a chance as the message filters through. At this stage, I doubt that the substance of Ron Paul's positions on the issues will sway many voters in actual real-world voting. Even when they are convinced that he is right on some of the critical issues, they weigh that against voting for a person (Paul) whom they see as a loser versus Obama and they stick to Romney. This is the simple, basic, Occam Razor reason Paul lost IA and NH.

What we did in Iowa was attack Gingrich... If we didn't attack Gingrich, you might've seen no Santorum surge in Iowa, and Gingrich could've been in a much stronger position.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think Gingrich is actually the easiest person to take down. Even if he had emerged stronger from Iowa, the "Serial Hypocrisy" (and similar) adverts would have buried him later on. No voter likes a known corrupt hypocrite, even if he is backed by big money.

Something that most Ron Paul supporters have not thought about is this. Even if Paul wins, Romney will have a lot of delegates and most likely will have enough to prevent Paul getting an outright majority. This will force Paul to pick Romney as his VP which is a less-than-ideal situation because it means Romney takes over automatically after RP retires and largely prevents Rand from running. That will reopen the door to corruption in govt and make Republicans weaker in future, further hindering Rand.

Therefore I cannot stress strongly enough that Ron Paul MUST arrest Romney's momentum RIGHT NOW and defeat him with a clear majority. The Paul campaign cannot afford to make bad slip-ups like the one on electability. As someone else pointed out, they should also address the seniors over SS plus foreign policy. These three points of attack are sufficient for Paul to win convincingly without going after anybody in particular.

 

[parocks]

^^^

Some of the candidates could win. Romney, Gingrich, Paul.

Some of the candidates can't win. Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman.

If Gingrich is removed, all that's left is Romney. Gingrich isn't removed yet. Still in the race. Bachmann and Cain, who couldn't have won, are out.

Ron Paul, or the Ron Paul campaign is having trouble just making all of his competition magically disappear, I suppose.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/13/rel1a.pdf

Look at that poll. If that's anywhere near true, it's a stunning reality check.

See: Romney v Paul head to head.

We really aren't in a position to worry about a terrible scenario where a candidate other than Ron Paul gets votes and delegates. That will happen.

 

[Lethalmiko]

We could go back and forth on this, and frankly you are presenting some well-thought arguments for your position. I tend to think the campaign is better with strategy and handling issues as they arise (Gingrich, Trump, the Dana Bash interview, and so forth) then they are at having a sufficiently broad vision.

I have to agree with you. Ron Paul has been criticized for having a campaign that is not as polished/professional as Romney and other previous winners. This was very true in 2008. This time round the campaign is massively better but I feel disappointed with all the gaps this discussion has highlighted. Maybe there is something they know that we don't to explain their inaction on the electability issue but it seems to me like not noticing a huge elephant in a room. It is not enough to preach "the perfect message" and expect to win. You have to go into the nuts and bolts, find out and be honest about all your weaknesses that are hindering you, fix them and move on. Paul should package his message better and prove he is electable.

Here are some of my thoughts, presented in as brief a form as possible.

-The campaign should have solicited donations and looked for megadonors from investment & precious metals community. Schiff did this avidly, and basically all candidates look to sources other than the grassroots to fund a major campaign. This can be done responsibly, and without special promises.

-The campaign should have worked out a deal with travel expenses for authors like Tom Woods, Mary Ruwart, Robert Pape, and Michael Scheuer to give talks in early primary states at bookstores, cafes, and universities for 6 months before the election. We could have really helped along a libertarian culture in these states, and also helped supporters convince friends and family members by having an expert answer questions.

-We already mentioned TV ads for electability, seniors, and defense.

-Ron should have brought some new issues to the forefront and gained some easy activists. Just one quick example: If he made a public statement against the FDA forbidding the labeling of GMO foods, we would instantly make several hundred thousand new friends in the environmental/alternative health community who hate Monsanto and GMOs with a passion. Libertarianism is much bigger than monetary and foreign policy, which are the two issues that Ron likes to focus on. And that's fine, but the campaign can be a lot broader than that.

-Rand should have been a lot more involved, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. I'm not sure what the story is there.

I could write more, but you get the idea. There are a lot of directions to take this other than the strategy of who makes the best target.

Agreed. There is still a bit of time to do all this. Email the campaign like I did either through their website or via Doug Wead / Jack Hunter.

What is the official libertarian position, or Ron Paul's position on GMO? I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on GMOs and Monsanto specificially.

I think the most basic Libertarian position would be that any food manufacturer would have the right to label and market their foods as non-GMO. I also would like to see Ron Paul discuss Monsanto. This is frankly the most hated corporation on the planet. A simple video where he used them as an example of crony capitalism and corporate bullying at its absolute worst, and describing the changes that he would make to prevent them from having power would be total win for him. Even most conservatives hate Monsanto, with its bullying of small farmers and its association with George Soros.

Ron should probably not have a position on GMOs themselves, other than to let the people decide, and encourage groups to do independent research so that everyone is better informed. Also, I hope that Ron is against the patenting of seeds and so forth, which would further undercut companies like Monsanto.

I am not very well versed with all the controversy surrounding Monsanto other than hearing about a case where they sued a farmer after their genetically engineered seed was blown by the wind into his farm where it mixed with his normal plants and produced a cross breed. I think that is nonsense. Cronysim is also a no-no. My only point of disagreement is over patenting genetically engineered seed. It is a product of research & development and should be covered under intellectual property the same way everything else is.

My concern was more down the road into South Carolina. IMHO, the campaign did not do the best job in Iowa regarding Rick Santorum. Even though his surge was last minute, there was some speculation going back to mid-December that the media might push him unvetted to act as a spoiler in Iowa. You don't have to think it's definite to have a plan B in place.... if the campaign had handled Iowa a little better and either gotten a win or kept Rick out of second place, then the strategy they chose would have been more effective. And if they couldn't effectively pull off a campaign against the other perceived conservatives, I don't know if they would have done any better with one going after Mitt.

Good point.

Romney and his surrogate super pacs are hammering Santorum and Gingrich. Hopefully those voters move to Paul. Could we see a strong second - nipping on Romney's heels? Or could we even get to first? Will the Tom Davis endorsement give us a 5% boost in SC?

My prediction is most will move to Romney because of the electability issue as discussed at length in many previous posts.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/13/rel1a.pdf

Look at that poll. If that's anywhere near true, it's a stunning reality check.

See: Romney v Paul head to head. We really aren't in a position to worry about a terrible scenario where a candidate other than Ron Paul gets votes and delegates. That will happen.

A massive REALITY CHECK indeed. Excerpts:

----
Jan. 11-12 2012

Which Republican candidate do you think has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in the general election next November?

Romney 55%
Gingrich 13%
Santorum 9%
Paul 9%

***

Jan. 11-12 2012

Suppose the only Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Which of those two would you support?

Romney 59%
Paul 31%
Neither 2%
No opinion 0%

***

Suppose the only Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Which of those two would you support?

Romney 60%
Santorum 37%
Neither 2%
No opinion 2%

***

Suppose the only Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Which of those two would you support?

Romney 59%
Gingrich 37%
Neither 2%
No opinion 2%

*******************************

All this just proves my point about the poor handling of the electability issue even more. Nate Silver's latest forecasts for SC and FL are not encouraging either. After updating with new polls, Paul has actually dropped in SC from 18% the other day to 16.7%. In FL he is at 10%.

Maybe we should start petitioning the Paul campaign to deal with the electability issue.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida