Because more than likely if someone tells you they are going to vote for someone, most likely, they will.
If you ask someone "can I have your vote" and they think for a second and say "yes" then there is a high probability they will uphold that commitment.
We don't need anything other than votes. RP can help spread the libertarian + constitutional philosophies from "the bully pulpit" once he gets into office. Also, to try to do that now will divide efforts and lose focus on winning the race.
It is much harder to convince someone to change their political ideology than it is to get their vote.
The Orlando Meetup leader Nick has this sig on his e-mail: "We are running a campaign, not a debate society".
Again, happy to attempt to give this post more attention because I
do think it's valuable. Marketing is, obviously, incredibly important to get people to try any product you want to sell. And Ron Paul is a product that will certainly appeal to many people.
The problem, however, is we don't have any real idea if the people it appeals to are all people that are willing to take the time and effort required to register as a Republican and vote in the primaries. I've talked to many people that like his message but would never register Republican. I've met others who don't even KNOW you can vote in the primaries. This doesn't even take into account the people that like Ron Paul but have deal breakers like abortion or immigration or the Department of Education that they don't agree with.
When we attempt to use marketing techniques to get people to vote for Ron Paul, all we can do is get them to SAMPLE his message. We cannot get a commitment because marketing works from the argument from effect... that is, it appeals to their interests. But if his message is OPPOSED to their interests... like they want social security to be "fixed"... they will take a sample and then toss the product, sure to never try it again.
A good example would be New Coke. It had a spectacular marketing campaign, something like 10 billion dollars, yet it failed because people just didn't "get" it. Of course, as die-hard Ron Paul supporters, it's sometimes hard to see how people just won't "get" him, yet it is sure to happen and possibly quite often! Yet, even if some people "get" it, they won't necessarily do something about it because the argument from effect is not that effective. If it were, the welfare state would have been dismantled when the Libertarian party started talking about its ills 40 years ago. The biggest failure of the libertarian movement is the fact that it sticks to its guns with the argument from effect while the statists are constantly arguing from morality.
The only truly effective argument is, and has always been, the
argument from morality (<---LINK!!). It's an easy argument to learn and once you understand it thoroughly, even easier to explain to others in a short period of time. It's not about changing their political ideologies over night, it's about showing them how Ron Paul's political ideologies are moral, and planting a seed that, if fed with enough of Ron Paul's message, will surely grow into a supporter that will be sure to vote in the primaries and general elections. Furthermore, it will ensure they will be lifelong supporters of freedom, rather than the subjectivist/post-modernist/relativists that our horrible public-school system has likely made them.
The marketing is absolutely necessary, but rather than trying to sell a product that gives people the opportunity to toss it aside just like another old "tickle-me elmo", let's create more of a propaganda-type message. I hate to use the word propaganda, because it is always used to support negative power-systems. However, for lack of a better term, I have no choice. And in reality, propaganda is so effective because it works from the argument from morality. Our history books didn't say "the New Deal was good" because it was in the peoples' best interests.... it says it was good because it was
right.
We need to use that approach with Ron Paul. His message is not good because it's in our best interests (although it is!), rather, it's good because it is
moral and right.