How Ron Paul Wins the Nomination (full nomination schedule, delegate #'s, and analysis)

[da32130]

bump

Here is the turnout factor from 2008, and a results comparison with 2012 (all results from before Feb 10, when most candidates were still in, listed by date):

caucus:
Iowa 10% (21% in 2012)
Nevada 14%
Maine 18%
Alaska 17%
Colorado 9%
Minnesota 16%
Montana 25%
North Dakota 21%
Washington 22%
Kansas 11%

primary:
New Hampshire 8% (23% in 2012)
Michagan 6%
South Carolina 4% (13% in 2012)
Florida 3%
Alabama 3%
Tennessee 6%
Connecticut 4%
Arizona 4%
Georgia 3%
Delaware 4%
California 4%
Arkansas 5%
etc.

The lowest caucus was 9%, the highest primary was 8%.
The highest caucus was 25%, the lowest primary was 3%.

Turnout can make a huge difference in the poorly attended caucuses.

For example, in Nevada we got second place in 2008 with less than 0.25% of the population's vote. Our 4th place SC finish had 1.5% of the population's vote.

Looking percentage of actual voters (not population), we were getting 3-6% in primaries in 2008. We got 14% in nevada. Now we are getting 13% in SC (primary). What will Nevada be this time?

Phoning and donating is how we increase turnout.

bump

 

[mmadness]

bump

 

[1836]

...

 

[Dutch]

After only now seriously reading the OP, I hereby +rep you

 

[mmadness]

bump

 

[PolicyReader]

After last night's debate, I'm more confident than ever that we can collect a serious number of delegates.

^This

Also excellent OP +rep

 

[MrGoose]

Right now we're on track with OP's post, keep it up!

 

[PolicyReader]

How do you think this will/could effect the delegate situation?

Cathy Gitschlag
Please get this out, I know some of you have contacts in these territories: via Ron Paul Delegates:

Here is an EASY way to win 51 delegates for Ron!

Does ANYBODY have acquaintances in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Mariana Islands and/or Guam? In American Samoa only 9 people voted for McCain in 2008 and that was worth 9 delegates! In Puerto Rico only 208 people voted for McCain in 2008 and that was worth 24 delegates! In the Northern Mariana Islands only 105 people voted for McCain in 2008 and that was worth 9 delegates! In Guam, 2,934 votes casted for two candidates totaled 6 delegates.

This is an easy 51 delegates for Ron if we just get people voting for Ron in these FOUR territories. More information: http://ronpauldelegates.wordpress.com/state-specific-info/

 

[mmadness]

bump

 

[PolicyReader]

bump so Paul folks can stop fretting over Florida so much

 

[1836]

...

 

[ross11988]

All you negative nancies need to read this thread.

They won't they all too busy sign-waving IF THAT!

 

[mmadness]

bump

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How do you think this will/could effect the delegate situation?

Cathy Gitschlag
Please get this out, I know some of you have contacts in these territories: via Ron Paul Delegates:

Here is an EASY way to win 51 delegates for Ron!

Does ANYBODY have acquaintances in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Mariana Islands and/or Guam? In American Samoa only 9 people voted for McCain in 2008 and that was worth 9 delegates! In Puerto Rico only 208 people voted for McCain in 2008 and that was worth 24 delegates! In the Northern Mariana Islands only 105 people voted for McCain in 2008 and that was worth 9 delegates! In Guam, 2,934 votes casted for two candidates totaled 6 delegates.

This is an easy 51 delegates for Ron if we just get people voting for Ron in these FOUR territories. More information: http://ronpauldelegates.wordpress.com/state-specific-info/

Might be VERY productive places to send any remaining super brochures, because of the small voting population.

 

[mmadness]

Might be VERY productive places to send any remaining super brochures, because of the small voting population.

NO to "Super" Brochures. Already debunked (please check thread in my sig or numerous threads in "Hot Topics"). These brochures actually hurt Dr. Paul (campaign has said this) and were direct-mailed to Iowa, SC, FL and NV. We under-surprised in Iowa, SC and FL. And are polling lower than 2008 in NV. In the state that we didn't direct-mail these lousy pieces of literature, we killed it by finishing a strong 2nd in NH.

 

[PolicyReader]

bump for validity

 

[Peace&Freedom]

NO to "Super" Brochures. Already debunked (please check thread in my sig or numerous threads in "Hot Topics"). These brochures actually hurt Dr. Paul (campaign has said this) and were direct-mailed to Iowa, SC, FL and NV. We under-surprised in Iowa, SC and FL. And are polling lower than 2008 in NV. In the state that we didn't direct-mail these lousy pieces of literature, we killed it by finishing a strong 2nd in NH.

Exactly what grassroots-initiated idea hasn't the campaign put down at one point or the other, from phoning states, to the money bomb itself? The content of the brochures could have been much improved, but the core concept was still valid. What other resource-effective way is there to reach those delegate-rich, but remote and population-poor island territories?

 

[mmadness]

Exactly what grassroots-initiated idea hasn't the campaign put down at one point or the other, from phoning states, to the money bomb itself? The content of the brochures could have been much improved, but the core concept was still valid. What other resource-effective way is there to reach those delegate-rich, but remote and population-poor island territories?

When the campaign comes out specifically against this project and so does RevPac, then you have something. Core concept of the brochures sucked - many people with marketing and direct-mailing experience said so in the threads. You don't put walls of text and Zeitgeist videos/coffins on the brochures.

Something like the comparison chart would have been more effective:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?357761-Initiative-Comparison-Fact-Sheet

It's also a terrible idea to not test the brochures and get feedback first, but to just go ahead and direct-mail indiscriminately to registered Republicans without knowing who your recipient is and what are his/her core issues. Depending on the recipient, you can actually lose support, which these brochures did.

Dr. Paul is the master of direct-mailing, he won 12 times with it. Do we not trust him if he's already doing direct mailing? The other issue with the brochures were that they were not resource-effective. In fact, quite the opposite. It was discovered that it was more expensive mailing "Super" Brochures because there was a sizeable profit for Ron Paul Products, and the campaign got a discounted rate when doing direct mailings.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

When the campaign comes out specifically against this project and so does RevPac, then you have something. Core concept of the brochures sucked - many people with marketing and direct-mailing experience said so in the threads. You don't put walls of text and Zeitgeist videos/coffins on the brochures.

Something like the comparison chart would have been more effective:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?357761-Initiative-Comparison-Fact-Sheet

It's also a terrible idea to not test the brochures and get feedback first, but to just go ahead and direct-mail indiscriminately to registered Republicans without knowing who your recipient is and what are his/her core issues. Depending on the recipient, you can actually lose support, which these brochures did.

Dr. Paul is the master of direct-mailing, he won 12 times with it. Do we not trust him if he's already doing direct mailing? The other issue with the brochures were that they were not resource-effective. In fact, quite the opposite. It was discovered that it was more expensive mailing "Super" Brochures because there was a sizeable profit for Ron Paul Products, and the campaign got a discounted rate when doing direct mailings.

The core concept of sending the brochures was valid---you're criticizing the content, which I already said was flawed. Do we not trust the grassroots also, who came up with most of the innovative ideas that have helped Paul over two campaigns? Both the grassroots and the campaign have made mistakes with direct mail (remembers the expensive mailers of 2008?), cut both sides a break. Sending whatever stock was leftover to the territories was just a suggestion for getting promotional material out the areas in lieu of doing nothing else. If there are more effective methods, please likewise, suggest something.

 

[floridasun1983]

The core concept of sending the brochures was valid---you're criticizing the content, which I already said was flawed.

I think most everybody is criticizing the methodology (or lack of it) as well as the content. It a pretty clear statement that a lot of the grassroots simply do not understand principles of marketing nor how to conduct a direct mail campaign.