It's the economy, stupid

[partypoker]

It's time to shift the message from war to economy. The americans are too stupid to care about the lives of others, too selfish to think of the consequences of war. What we need to focus on is what can potentially hurt them and this is the rapid collapse of the credit market and uncoupling of debt obligations into a spiral of economic disaster. The stock market has begun the collapse, has plowed through resistance levels and will only continue in the future. RP is the only candidate who talks about the economy and when people believe their prosperity is at stake, and not just the lives of iraqi children, they will do something about it.

It's the economy, stupid.

Change the message please someone tell RP as soon as possible.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE BORDER.
IT'S NOT ABOUT STUDENT VISAS.
IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY.

What will happen to your home when countrywide financial, the largest US lender, goes bankrupt?

US economy weighs heavily in White House race
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_economy_weighs_heavily_in_White__01112008.html

 

[hawkeyenick]

we can't gain much ground with the economy stance, it's all about teh anti-war stance according to the exit polls in NH

 

[partypoker]

we can't gain much ground with the economy stance, it's all about teh anti-war stance according to the exit polls in NH

We already have the antiwar crowd - we need to shift our message and capture the crowd that has a mortgage and is having trouble paying it off. RP has no chance to win if he doesn't change his message to the economy, period. This is imperative, it must be done.

 

[hawkeyenick]

We already have the antiwar crowd - we need to shift our message and capture the crowd that has a mortgage and is having trouble paying it off. RP has no chance to win if he doesn't change his message to the economy, period. This is imperative, it must be done.

If you actually read the exit polls, you would know that we don't have them, McCain actually got all of the anti-war crowd.

Care to guess wrong again?

All of the candidates have a conservative stance and similar points about the economy, we can make the most ground with the anti-war crowd, and that's all we need.

 

[partypoker]

If you actually read the exit polls, you would know that we don't have them, McCain actually got all of the anti-war crowd.

Care to guess wrong again?

All of the candidates have a conservative stance and similar points about the economy, we can make the most ground with the anti-war crowd, and that's all we need.

Your stance has no logical support. McCain is not against the war and wants to further promote the war so either they are so stupid they are voting for someone because they just like the name (which we won't get their vote anyway) or the antiwar message is not on their priority list. Period. Americans do not care what happens in Iraq because they do not see or hear the death cries of people. They might claim they are against the war but they have no logical reason for this and we will never get their support. On the other hand if we focus on the economy, something that could have a very large impact on them then have the ability to get their support because they see a direct consequence to supporting others in their 401k portfolio as it has dropped 10% in the last week.

So stop with the idiocy. I want a reason why changing the war message to the economy doesn't help us. The example you gave further illustrates my reasoning and demonstrates that your proposition is illogical.

 

[hawkeyenick]

Your stance has no logical support. McCain is not against the war and wants to further promote the war so either they are so stupid they are voting for someone because they just like the name (which we won't get their vote anyway) or the antiwar message is not on their priority list. Period. Americans do not care what happens in Iraq because they do not see or hear the death cries of people. They might claim they are against the war but they have no logical reason for this and we will never get their support. On the other hand if we focus on the economy, something that could have a very large impact on them then have the ability to get their support because they see a direct consequence to supporting others in their 401k portfolio as it has dropped 10% in the last week.

So stop with the idiocy. I want a reason why changing the war message to the economy doesn't help us. The example you gave further illustrates my reasoning and demonstrates that your proposition is illogical.

It doesn't matter what my stance is, it matters what the public perceives.

He won all of the anti-war crowd on the republican side, and even most of the voters that were leaning Paul.

All of this indicates that we should be hitting the anti-war crowd and upping name recognition by massive amounts.

You got it wrong, sorry to tell you.

 

[Antonius Stone]

is there a reason we can't do both? I mean were tougher on the Economy than any of the other candidates and we're anti-war. both are good selling points no matter which ends up being the top issue and the campaign has enough money to sell both.

and im sure we can make a flier that promotes both issues equally

 

[partypoker]

It doesn't matter what my stance is, it matters what the public perceives.

He won all of the anti-war crowd on the republican side, and even most of the voters that were leaning Paul.

All of this indicates that we should be hitting the anti-war crowd and upping name recognition by massive amounts.

You got it wrong, sorry to tell you.

The war message is not working, period. We already have the support of logical people that are against the war for a reason. I already stated my opinion and you have done nothing to refute it.

People who are against the war and voted for another candidate:
a) do not care much about the issue (which they will never switch)
b) care but are too stupid to vote for paul and supported what the media says (in which case the media blackout will never win their support)

And people who do support the war but are in trouble because their 401k is dwindling and they are late on mortgage/credit card payments do not even consider Ron Paul, in the most likelihood.

The consideration of the economic issue is that this is the one issue that has the biggest impact on every individual living in this country and RP clearly has the economic philosophy that would benefit this country and allow us most easily to survive this coming depression. I find it laughable that you suggest every republican candidate has the same economic stance when, aside from Paul, they all support the trillion dollar war budget. You clearly either do not understand economics or for some reason your just intentionally avoiding the obvious issue that is beginning to form.

It's the economy, stupid.

 

[partypoker]

is there a reason we can't do both? I mean were tougher on the Economy than any of the other candidates and we're anti-war. both are good selling points no matter which ends up being the top issue and the campaign has enough money to sell both.

and im sure we can make a flier that promotes both issues equally

Definitely do both, but what i'm saying is that RP should be pushing the economy more strongly. Talking about the collapse of stock market, housing, how the war is destroying the economy, the rise in food and energy. These all hurt the average american and if we highlight these points they may consider what he has to say. When he talks about the war and eliminating the dpt of education they can't relate. What they can relate to is spending 3$ on gas and 5$ on milk.

If we don't focus more on the economy we have no chance. We should get this message to the campaign anyway we can.

 

[Kingfisher]

Definitely do both, but what i'm saying is that RP should be pushing the economy more strongly. Talking about the collapse of stock market, housing, how the war is destroying the economy, the rise in food and energy. These all hurt the average american and if we highlight these points they may consider what he has to say. When he talks about the war and eliminating the dpt of education they can't relate. What they can relate to is spending 3$ on gas and 5$ on milk.

If we don't focus more on the economy we have no chance. We should get this message to the campaign anyway we can.

Right!

 

[hawkeyenick]

The war message is not working, period. We already have the support of logical people that are against the war for a reason. I already stated my opinion and you have done nothing to refute it.

People who are against the war and voted for another candidate:
a) do not care much about the issue (which they will never switch)
b) care but are too stupid to vote for paul and supported what the media says (in which case the media blackout will never win their support)

And people who do support the war but are in trouble because their 401k is dwindling and they are late on mortgage/credit card payments do not even consider Ron Paul, in the most likelihood.

The consideration of the economic issue is that this is the one issue that has the biggest impact on every individual living in this country and RP clearly has the economic philosophy that would benefit this country and allow us most easily to survive this coming depression. I find it laughable that you suggest every republican candidate has the same economic stance when, aside from Paul, they all support the trillion dollar war budget. You clearly either do not understand economics or for some reason your just intentionally avoiding the obvious issue that is beginning to form.

It's the economy, stupid.

I don't care what your opinion is, the data says that McCain won the anti-war crowd massively on the republican side. McCain also got more voters that were leaning Paul than Paul did.

That means we are weak in two areas, name recognition and "electability", both of which we can fix with a great marketing campaign.

Stop rambling on about useless hypothesis and actually look at the data. There is no ambiguity to it.

 

[webber53]

I believe the terms are mixed up with exit polling numbers.
I believe that McCain received anti-terrorists vote and it has
been misconstrued by the exit polling MSM to read anti-war.
There is no logical reason or explanation why people\voters
that are against the war in Iraq would vote for McCain! He is
a hawk, a warmonger. Remember his mantra? Bomb Bomb Bomb
Bomb Bomb Iran? What anti-war person would vote for him?

Most of the polling data I saw reflected voters concerned with
the economy.

 

[tsetsefly]

We already have the antiwar crowd - we need to shift our message and capture the crowd that has a mortgage and is having trouble paying it off. RP has no chance to win if he doesn't change his message to the economy, period. This is imperative, it must be done.

no we dont mccain got 40% of the anti war vote...

 

[Lars]

I agree that Ron should talk much more about the economy. His points are very different from other candidates and as the economy goes from bad to worse at least he has the proof that he was telling people about it early on.

When the sh*t hits the fan and people are losing their houses and jobs in droves THEN it will be the thing everybody is interested in. The question is, will it happen soon enough or will the Government and the Fed keep it going just long enough to get past the election.

 

[webber53]

Your are misreading the MSM exit poll definition. Please read this article by CNN
this morning!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/nh.issues/?iref=hpmostpop

"In Tuesday's primaries, both Democrats and Republicans rated the economy as the
most important issue in the primaries, and almost all voters said they were worried about it,
exit polls show."

 

[webber53]

From CNN this morning!

"Exit polls found 64 percent of Tuesday's Republican voters still support the conflict."

 

[webber53]

From CNN article,

"Ninety-eight percent of Democrats said they were worried about the economy. And 87 percent of Democrats rated the economy as not good or poor, according to exit polls. But they were more positive about their personal economic circumstances, with 59 percent saying they were holding steady and 14 percent saying they were getting ahead.

Among GOP voters, 79 percent said they were worried about the economy. And just 51 percent rated the nation's economy as excellent or good, but an overwhelming majority said their family was holding steady financially (58 percent) or getting ahead (21 percent)."

 

[partypoker]

From CNN this morning!

"Exit polls found 64 percent of Tuesday's Republican voters still support the conflict."

Indeed. This is the most important issue Ron should be discussing and is the only issue that can give us leverage and support as this campaign progresses and the economy falls apart.

Bombard the campaign with emails.

WE MUST MAKE THIS ISSUE #1.

 

[webber53]

It's time to shift the message from war to economy. The americans are too stupid to care about the lives of others, too selfish to think of the consequences of war. What we need to focus on is what can potentially hurt them and this is the rapid collapse of the credit market and uncoupling of debt obligations into a spiral of economic disaster. The stock market has begun the collapse, has plowed through resistance levels and will only continue in the future. RP is the only candidate who talks about the economy and when people believe their prosperity is at stake, and not just the lives of iraqi children, they will do something about it.

It's the economy, stupid.

Change the message please someone tell RP as soon as possible.

You are exactly right! I said it last night on the forums as well.

 

[shagywashere]

The guys worried about the Economy voted for Paul and the Anti-War vote went to McCain. Face it: New Hampshire chose to die in the Live Free or Die state.

that proves that we need to get the ANTI-WAR message out there! According to the data, people worried about the economy are for Ron.


But both would be great.