All of you that think I need to have a professional website, need to pull out your check books and send in the money to get it done. If you direct your contributions to "website" development, I will make sure it gets spent on the website.
That's the problem. A good web site is what drives donations. I don't want to donate until I'm sure that your campaign is capable of winning. Having a professional web site is part of what it takes to present that to me. It is sort of a Catch 22, but not really, if you budget correctly, because you can use your web site to attract the many internet donations that a "Ron Paul candidate" will receive. So spend the money you have to get your web site going, then expect yuor donations to shoot through the roof.
Jim Fortsythe had to pull out because he didn't raise enough money to win his primary. I spent under $5000 total to win my primary. Jim F. spent $3000 on his web site. That was over 2/3rds my entire budget primary budget.
There are HUGE differences between your primary and Forsythe's primary.
First, your primary was months before Forsythe's which means he'd have to spend more money than you strictly because he'd need to campaign a longer time to reach the primary election.
Second, Forsythe's district is different - he was running in a district that is traditionally GOP and thus receives more donation dollars than your district, where the Republican is usually a sacrificial lamb.
Third, before he dropped out, Forsythe was running against not just the former Congressman, but also the state's former HHS Commissioner (who was also the state's former asst AG).
I respect that you beat four candidates for the primary win, but make no mistake, Forsythe's primary and your primary had nothing in common but the word "primary".
I would bet less than 10% of the people who voted for me ever saw my website.
I don't doubt it, but the same won't be true in the general election.
Ron Paul dominated the web, but this did not translate into votes.
The lesson to take from this isn't "the web means nothing". Ron Paul got a lot of support because he had a huge web presence. His failure to turn this into votes has nothing to do with the fact that he spent money and developed himself on the web. I would dare say that he did as well as he did in large part because of the internet. Think of it this way: in order to win, you're going to have to convert a huge number of Democrats. Just look at the numbers from the Dem primary in your district - there are more Dems voting by orders of magnitude. Getting Dems to visit a web site might be the only chance you get to really show them that you're not a typical elephant.
I spent virtually all my money on target marketed direct mail and one robo call blast because that was by far the wisest use of my limited campaign funds.
It was, because you didn't have a very competitive primary field. So all you needed to do to win was beat the other guys on name recognition. But in the general, the method of acquiring votes changes. You need to shore up all the Republicans, no doubt, but you also need to win over a lot of Democrats. The web works!
I won a 4 way race with 39% of the vote. One opponent was running 6 months longer than I and outspent me by almost 3 times who got 26%. He and another Ron Paul candidate had hundreds if not thousands of signs all over the district. I had one 4x8 in one a well respected member of the most Republican community and half a dozen large tybec banners strategicly place around the district aand 200 6 1/2 by 11 paper sign at the polls total cost $50.
As I hope your opponent learned, the length of the campaign doesn't matter. One candidate blitzing the district in the last month can upend a campaign that's been slowly working for 6 months. You did right with the direct mail and phone blast - I'll bet your opponent wasn't quite as strategic in his vote-getting.
I am not here to win a beauty contest. I am here to win an election. Oh yeah that's right I did.
First off, an election IS a beauty contest. Second, don't get cocky because you won the right to be sacrificed at the Democrat altar.
As a matter of fact it might be a good idea to take down the web site completely for the general elections. Popular wisdom is an oxymoron. I can't tell you how many people told me that I had a crummy website. I asked them then why they did they vot for me and they said they like what I said better than the other candidates.
If people voted for you because they liked what you said, then a web site is a great tool for you, because it allows you to catalog what you have to say so that voters can easily peruse it at their leisure. This is why you need a professional web site - because voters, like any consumers, don't just want substance, they need style to bring them in and keep them interested. It's sad, but true.
Moshe Starkman the Republican party nominee from 2006 is a professional website designer and spent $5000 on his web site. $5000 that could have been used to direct mail 20,000 voters that we frequent primary voters.
And as such it was smart of you to spend the money on direct mail - because of the context in which you had your primary. But that doesn't mean it's dumb to spend money on a web site.
If all those thousands of Ron Paul supporters put down those signs they were waving and sent campaign material to Repuiblican voters that voted in the last several primaries, he would have faired much better. I was and assistant organizer and it was like talking to a brick wall to get anyone to do anything effective. Any mailer that they did send out were a big waste because the sent 3/4 of them to people that didn't go out to vote.
I second this. Ron Paul activists have a lot of shortcomings, but this doesn't address the power of a good, professional web site.
I know how to win this campaign and it is not on the web, its not with signs and it is not trying to get press or endorsements. You can't effectively target market on the web, a sign doesn't tell people what you stand for, the press won't print what you really said, and who cares what someone else says unless its Opra.
I think you're putting on blinders. A campaign is a mix of many different strategies. Signs are not enough. A web site is not enough. Press and endorsements are not enough. But all of these things are necessary.
The special election I have coming up, will be a low turn out election. So I need to again target market. As a matter of fact there are many Democrats that I don't want to communicate with because I don't want them to head to the polls.
You're not going to "sneak" a win here. In order to increase your popularity you need to grow your campaign and "go public". You need press and interviews. The Dems will be on to you the moment you gain an energized GOP base, so don't think that you can get them to think this is a nothing election. If you stand a chance of winning, everybody will know, and react accordingly.
If you send me money I will spend it wisely on the campaign. Just as I will spend your money wisely in Congress. Each dollar you send will be equal to $10 my opponet squanders.
You'll need to be a lot more convincing before you get me to believe that you'll spend your general election money wisely.
