Msg from Jonathan Bydlak -- willing to answer questions

[SteveMartin]

An Independent run would also be marked by massive voter fraud. Hopefully, measures we would have in place would PROVE, however, to any honest observer that it had occured and that the "democracy" is over.

Ultimately, yes, we would probably be sparking a violent "restoration."

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I don't think much of it, to tell you the truth. It was great that you listened to the numerous requests to put a real time fundraising widget on the campaign web site. That was very motivating, which was why it was requested for so long.

But, to be honest with you Jonathan, the emails you sent out right before our planned money bombs, cost the campaign a lot of money. Luckily, the one before the November 5th money bomb was largely ignored. But, the one you sent out before the Tea Party, went a long way towards completely derailing that effort. You were told that, but still persisted. There is no telling how many millions of dollars that action by you, cost the campaign. It was extremely disheartening and costly.

That is my comment. These are my questions.

Why on earth did the campaign not:
1. Hold a press conference (not an ignored press release) about Barry Goldwater, Jr.'s endorsement of Ron Paul?
2. Why was there absolutely ZERO airing of a radio ad or a TV ad, in at least Arizona, of this endorsement?

Barry Goldwater's name is well known in Arizona and with traditional conservatives. The fact that his son endorsed him, in my opinion, would have gone a long way towards making it clear that Dr. Paul was the true conservative in the race. I know from personal experience that when I told people of this endorsement, it took the wind out of their propagandized sails.

3. Why weren't ads run in New Hampshire establishing Ron as the candidate who would end the war and bring our troops home?
From what was reported, the anti-war voters voted for McCain, thinking HE was the anti-war candidate.

Well, LibertyEagle... I'll have to disagree with you on this one. But I do have a few additional comments.

For starters, the belief that the idea for fundraising widgets came from the grassroots is pretty crazy. I don't really care much about who gets credit for things I've done, or whatnot.. but I can tell you that that idea was kicked around for a LONG time, even before anyone in the grassroots was thinking about fundraising. In my opinion, most grassroots supporters were not thinking about fundraising, or really didn't understand just how vital it is to the campaign until towards the end of the third quarter (I believe looking back at posts in these forums will confirm that). So yes, people in the grassroots made the suggestion, but that had been on the table for quite a while before that. And in my opinion, Kent Snyder deserves a lot of credit for having the guts to go forward with being totally transparent at the start of the 4th quarter. Obviously there were arguments on both sides of it, but to actually go ahead and do it... well, sometimes we forget just how momentous of a decision that was.

There was an article on Lew Rockwell a little while back that someone interviewed me for that explained the history a bit more (though it got a couple crucial details wrong). Here's the link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/malone3.html.

As far as your criticisms of the emails... I understand your point, and god knows I've heard them a million times... but I don't believe they're correct. My reasoning is this: different donors respond to different stimuli. While you clearly care about the moneybombs, many people do not. In fact, most of our donors did not. We need to touch those donors in other ways to convince them to continue donating. One way to do that is through emails, another is throgh phone calls, yet another is direct mail. In my opinion, those emails had little, if no, effect on December 16th. That's people we knew that you guys were going to do whatever you wanted, regardless of what we said. As a matter of fact, I think you forget how many calls there were for HQ to take the lead in these events. We didn't for two reasons... first, it's questionable whether it would have been legal, but secondly (and more importantly), we didn't believe they would have been as successful. It was the ownership that you were empowered with that lef to the success of those events. And that's why I think there was much hostility to the emails, because you saw us as taking away a bit of that ownership.

But the fact is still that we needed money at that time. And so even if you're right that we "hurt the moneybomb"... well, to be honest, I don't really care. Because the goal of a campaign is not to raise as much money as you can ona particular date. It is to raise money so that you can do things with it. And at that time, we didn't have the money to do the things we needed to do to boost our poll numbers. Sometimes, I think some of our supporters saw the campaign so much as a game, that they were fine with losing, so long as they did things that were 'cool'. Well, I'm not OK right now saying "well, McCain may have most of the contests.. but remember how much money we raised?" I'd have rather raised less money and won more contests. So in the end, I just don't think you're right that "millions of money was lost." Whether it was or not is irrelevant. I believe that many people chose to bump up their donations, which is great, because we needed that to happen.

To give one last comment on the moneybombs... I think what's lost on a lot of people is that the amount that was raised on those days was not what was important. I believe we had the means in place to get most donors who had already contributed before to do so again before the end of the quarter. But what you guys were able to do far more than we at HQ could was reach out and find new donors. The moneybombs created a sense of excitement that drew in new donors to the campaign who otherwise wouldn't have done so. I know, because I was one, and so were many of my friends. But don't let the headline numbers fool you. It didn't matter whether we brought in 6 or 7... what I was personally most interested in on December 15th was how much money was going to be raised from NEW donors the next day.

As to your questions...

1. I dont know where there wasn't a better press conference done. I remember a few people making similar comments at the time, and I wish more had been done with it. It's a fair criticism in my book, and I wish I had a better answer for you.

2. I'd imagine that the reason there was not as much advertising in Arizona was because, generally, Arizona was less important early on than Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. I agree that there should have been more done with the endorsements, though admittedly, we had more trouble getting endorsements that you might know. Many people were hesitant to endorse, again, because they didn't see Ron as electable. Spineless... it drove me bonkers.

3. As far as anti-war ads... I know many people have mentioned this for a long time. My personal feeling is that to have done this would have been a huge mistake. In the end, Ron was running in a Republican primary where many voters were still in favor of the war. And those who told pollsters that they were not, still probably were in favor of the war in the past. It takes a lot to vote for a candidate who is telling you that you were wrong from the beginning. People don't like having egg on their faces. I understand the feeling... I initially, back in my naive youth supported the war in Iraq. I think most people understand now that it was a terrible decision, but even still, costantly bringing up the war would not have been a good strategy. Plus, remember that everyone already knew where Ron stood on the war... god knows he was bringing it up multiple times every debate (in my opinion, much more than was politically wise). So we needed to establish Ron's other conservative credentials to voters... but in the end, I believe they went to McCain because he was perceived as more "moderate" and "electable" than anyone else on the Republican side.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

A previous poster mentioned the rudeness of HQ, I have personal experiance with that, but choose not to go into details in public; suffice it to say that KS completely lost my respect and I realized that the complaints I heard while pedeling had some validity. I was quite frankly shocked at the behavior I witnessed. Lame excuses attempting to shift blame and provide plausible deniability for friggin wimps in over their heads...



The way I found to answer that was to look the person right in the eye and say, "Lemme ask you a question, how much do you trust the media?" They would usually answer with a laugh, "not at all". Then I would immediately ask, "Where are you getting this info that he can't win?" At that point a light would go on in their head and they became much more receptive to entertaining the idea of supporting RP.

Finally, a note to Bro.Butch, it is interactions with people like you, in this campaign, that has convinced me to consider others for my throwaway votes which had, previous to this campaign, always gone to the LP. IMHO, the LP needs a serious attitude adjustment... Blaming RP for failings in the LP is exactly the same kind of problem I allude to in my first paragragh about the rudeness of HQ...

I can't really comment on the perceived "rudeness" of HQ, having been there myself But I will say that I think a lot of it is exaggerated (though not knowing the details of your particular grievance, I can't comment). Many times we would get phone calls from people who were upset, we would listen, tell them our thinking, and then they would be upset because we weren't going to change what we were doing because of their phone call. A lot of people, in my opinion, don't like hearing particular answers that disagree with their views... and then they interpret that as "rudeness" or "HQ not caring about the grassroots." And I'll say that I'm very much guilty of this too... we all have pride, and we all have to try hard to check it at the door. That doesn't mean that we're not entitled to our beliefs, but I don't think it's fair to characterize it as rudeness. I say all this because some of the stories that I've heard (like that guy in NJ from the press who complained about the Philly rally) were really offbase. I can share more regarding that particular tale if anyone is so inclined.

On your other point... I think your way of doing it is good, the problem of course is that you have to be able to do this on a massive scale. How do you convince members of the press of Ron's electability. How do you reach the people who might vote for Ron, but haven't been "touched" by a grassroots supporter in the way that you describe? It's very difficult to do something like this on a large scale.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Ron's PA organization asked him just recently to visit PA. They scheduled a series of speeches and dinners, some of them geared toward fundraising for purchase of sample ballots for the delegate and alternate delegate candidates. Lew Moore declined all but a nostalgia visit to Ron's uber-liberal alma mater, Gettysburg College, and possibly Penn State. These will be small affairs and they'll do nothing whatsoever to help elect delegates.

Lew gave up right after NH, didn't he?

Why did Lew and Kent not step down in Aug. or Sept. and replace themselves with more competent persons? They were way over their heads, having had no experience whatsoever running anything remotely this large.

Ahh... where do I even begin here? For starters, all events are approved by Ron, so rather than criticizing Lew for what events are on the schedule, are you also willing to tell Ron that he should not want to speak at his alma mater or Penn State or wherever else is on the schedule?

There was no giving up. Period.

But you know, I would like to address the criticism of inexperience... You know, in my opinion, experience is only valuable insomuch as it serves as an adequate proxy for ability and talent. There are many people in this world who have years and years of experience and yet they are incompetent at what they do. And on the flip side, I believe there are people with less experience who are able to raise issues and bring new ideas to the table that others with more experience cannot. So yes, experience can and often is valuable, but I believe what's more important is how good the people are at the jobs they are doing. You may believe certain people in the campaign (myself included) were not good at what they did. But this idea that because the campaign was "inexperienced" that it automatically would fail is absurd. And of course, what you're overlooking beyond that is that many people within the campaign had HUGE amounts of experience. So I don't even believe that this "inexperience" line is anything more than a canard.

Suppose Richard Viguerie had been brought in because he had lots of "experience". Suppose we had paid a fortune for his "services," no matter how expensive. I firmly do not believe the campaign would have been better off.

And you know, just think about all the "experienced" people that Rudy's campaign had. Those "experienced" people ran his campaign into the ground. And then think about Fred Thompson. And Romney. And Edwards. And Dodd. That list is endless.

So I guess my point is... criticize the campaign for its failings, but drop this "inexperience" nonsense.

 

[angelatc]

Glad you're back Jonathon. Just FYI, in case you're involved with future fundraising on a national level...

I really wish we could have obtained a lot more of the prepaid donation envelopes. I helped staff the IL campaign office, and I can't tell you how many people wanted to come in and make a donation, even after the 10 envelopes we got from HQ were gone.

When we had the envelopes, I could help them fill out the form and then drop the envelope in the mail that day. After we ran out, I tried to get people to donate online from the office PC, but the older Conservatives aren't really "into" sending money over the internet.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

FYI for all of you... as far as specific good news and things that you can continue to do, I think that this post from Matt Hawes today on the Daily Dose actually gives a lot of the guidance for which many of you are asking: http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/03/18/first-steps/

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Jonathan,

Thanks for making yourself available to help all of us in the grassroots to understand better what was going on in Arlington, where our money went, etc.

I'd like to add a couple of questions:

1. You were quite emphatic in your belief that RP would not seek an independent run under any circumstance. Do you have any inside knowledge in that regard, or were your assumptions all guided from RP's public statements on that matter.

2. Did you let anyone still with the paid staff know that you would be blogging with us? If so, were you encouraged to do so, or was it all of your own volition?

3. Whatever happened with the whole endorsement thing with regard to the Minuteman Project?

Thanks, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Hi Steve,

1. I'm basing it largely on what has been said publicly, but I don't have any "insider knowledge" that leads me to believe otherwise.

2. People on the staff know now that I've been blogging, but I didn't ask for permission or anything like that, if that's what you mean. As I said, these are all my thoughts, and do not necessary represent the views of anyone else in the campaign. I'm here answering your questions because I think it's helpful to everyone, and because it's something I wanted to do.

3. What do you mean regarding the endorsement of the Minuteman project? The immigration groups that endorsed Dr. Paul were put up on the website. As far as the "official" Minuteman group... I spoke with them a bit... and again, it's clear that there were political issues driving that decision. They did not see Ron, again, as being electable, and I think that's what led them to Romney. It's funny now, of course, seeing Romney sell out to McCain and because some of those groups were unprincipled, they're now stuck with a nominee who they don't support whatsoever.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Two questions:

1. Who came up with the idea to give live donation feedback to donors?

2. Did the company in charge of Ron's webpage become strong Ron Paul supporters?

1. Depends on what feedback you mean. The idea for posting the names of recent donors actually came from Ron's security director. The idea to go public really was a host of people's ideas, and parts of it came from Kent, me, Justine... our web team, Ron's scheduler... press people... you name it, many people were involved at different points in time. If you're asking for my main contribution, I believe it to be the idea of having a live $ widget for the final week of the 3rd quarter.

But again, in my opinion, the biggest amount of credit should go to Kent, for having the gaul to make our 4th Q numbers totally transparent. You see, a lot of being a good manager, I believe, is not just coming up with the ideas, but sorting through all the ideas and prioritizing based on what brings you the biggest benefit at the lowest cost. Obviously, on any given decision made in the campaign, there were different degrees to which this was done well. But I believe that this was one important decision which the campaign got very, very right.

One final thing... I think there's a tendency to see one person as "responsible" for any given idea. But I personally believe that the creation of ideas themselves is a process that is driven by different forms of feedback. As an example, while I may have been mostly responsible for the idea of having the $500,000 graphic in the last week of September, would I have been as adament if our web team had not taken the initiative to create the Constitution Week "Fill the Quill" graphic? Probably not. So how is it fair for any one person to take the credit here? I see everyone... many members of HQ staff, and obviously many grassroots supporters, as all having contributed to the eventual success that was $20 million raised in the 4th Quarter.

2. Yes, Terra Eclipse were largely supporters, as far as I recall, from early on. They supported the cause, as best I know.

 

[SteveMartin]

I see everyone... many members of HQ staff, and obviously many grassroots supporters, as all having contributed to the eventual success that was $20 million raised in the 4th Quarter.

The last week of the third quarter was the impetus for the grassroots to call for a thermometer for the entire 4th quarter. Great team work, brilliant original idea, Jonathan! Documentation:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards/thread/3618574

 

[Aratus]

i'm a hunter thompson fan. i noticed your reference to his 1972 book on how
a small number of people around george mcgovern got him the nomination,
as they built up a classic grassroots organization! clearly uncle duke could
never have sensed the full potential of the internet, nor why the siren call of
media blitzing can vaporize campaign chests. i only wish he was here to cover
much of this, the unexpected ups and downs, or even the decision by mitt romney
to over-spend and then honor 42 million dollars worth of debts. was part of this
an inate frugality at work? huckabee has yet to break past 15 million as a ceiling
for his expendatures, yet his delegate count is equal to my former governor's!!!
right now we have two dems with almost equal money and equal delegates. as
they battle, karl rove just took his narrowcasting "yes man" brain to john mccain...
is the ultimate success story of the Ron Paul Revolution anything people can do in 2012?

 

[Aratus]

is the lesson we should learn from both mcGovern's run in 72
and Ron Paul's run now, is the basic institutional apathy that is
at the core of a major political party with all its time honored habits
and rituals? i've noticed quite a few of the people here who were
surprised when few people showed up at the local level, and due to
this lack of attendance, the grassroots people could go onto the next level...

 

[Aratus]

guiliani spent 60 million... romney almost twice that... obama's money comes
from more donors than ms. hillary's and in Feb. he pulled in 50 million to her 25 million.
the record breaking moneybombs are now political folklore, yet you seem to be
saying that the campaign needed a steadily increasing cash stream to pull even
to the more aggressively funded efforts. the pump-priming aspects of the press
core increasing a recognition factor as an ongoing campaign taps traditional and
untraditional funding avenues. maybe the story now is about how close this was
to becoming a letter perfect political season, even if mccain ultimately pulls things
out from his fall slump. [admittedly with the help of that loan] so should we now
focus on what we can do so as to be even more postioned and energized in 2012?

 

[Don]

2. As far as experiences at other debates... I actually (by request) didn't travel much, because after being on two trips, I realized that it was impossible for me to get all my other work done on the road. The two times I traveled, I just ended up sitting in the hotel room working like mad to keep all the stuff I needed to do humming. The best person to ask this question to is Don. I've heard some anecdotes here and there about a little hostility, but I don't really think it was at all as prevelant as many people think.

I get a lot of grief from other staff b/c I got to spend so much time on the road doing the debate advance. While there were certainly times that I was happy to be in south Florida in the middle of winter, this job was far more stressful and challenging than you can imagine.

I could write pages about Ron, the debates, and some of the great stories I picked up along the way, but the specific question is about the treatment from people outside of the campaign and other candidate's staffs specifically.

For the most part, candidate staff went about their business as if the other staffs didn't exist. Occasionally, there would be an issue of shared concern and we would form temporary alliances to push through our shared preference, but I tried to take a go along, get along approach as much as possible. I knew I represented Ron and the entire campaign so I wanted my actions and attitudes to positively reflect on both.

I had the best relations with the Romney people, who were all rich, plastic and glass-eyed, but not particularly hostile. We found common cause in our exasperation with Guiliani and Thompson's advance teams who were insufferable. They would often hold up conference calls for half an hour at a time while they argued about the wattage of the lights above the podium, how many staff would be allowed green room access, or what type of microphones the candidates would utilize.

As far as the candidates go, McCain was always friendly and took time to say hello. He is surprisingly short, Napoleon complex? I hate myself for liking Huckabee so much, but he's a neat guy, funny and warm. His wife is just as sweet. One of my favorite tasks was walking Carol Paul and her guests to their seats before each debate. All of the spouses would gather and we would proceed down together. As soon as Carol saw Janet Huckabee, they were off and chatting like old friends. Guiliani, Thompson, and Romney were aloof and arrogant, Duncan Hunter is a very nice guy, so is Tom Tancredo. Alan Keyes is batsh** crazy.

Before debates I mostly hung out with reporters. I think a lot of them saw us as a strange and inexplicable riddle. None of them ever thought we would win. After debates, I would go to the rallies and, once I got Ron out and back to the hotel, I would return and hang out with supporters. If you have any other questions relating to this stuff, I am following this thread with rapt attention.

 

[SteveMartin]

Did you ever hear any reactions from the other campaigns about us winning all those post-debate polls, Don?

(P.S. I assume you are Don Rassmussen. Am I right?)

 

[Don]

Did you ever hear any reactions from the other campaigns about us winning all those post-debate polls, Don?

(P.S. I assume you are Don Rassmussen. Am I right?)

Steve - You recently posted that I was less valuable to the campaign then the office door (You used less flattering language, of course). Once you either apologize for this ad hominem attack or provide some basis for this observation, then I will be happy to answer your questions.

Also, my last name is spelled Rasmussen.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Sorry I'm late to this thread and I haven't read all of your answers.

As an Iowan who has seen a number of presidential campaigns in our state I have a couple of observations. (***20/20 hindsight alert***)

1) The campaign underestimated the importance of the early primary states. (Yes, I know that Iowa got more than its "share" of money and personal appearances from Dr. Paul, but that is a fact of life in presidential politics.) Concentrating his efforts on two relatively small states could have reaped huge PR benefits early on. In the Iowa caucuses Ron Paul came within 3% of beating not only Guliani, but John McCain and Fred Thompson as well! Our supporters may have realized that as some type of moral victory, but it allowed the media to virtually ignore him going into New Hampshire.

2) The national media blackout (and, yes, there WAS one) meant that Ron Paul was going to need to punch through to the local media here in Iowa and New Hampshire and, whenever possible, actually meet the voters.
Again, those not familiar with Iowa caucus politics don't realize how spoiled Iowa voters are. They don't just read about candidates or see them on television; they expect to see and hear them in person and often get to shake their hands.
Fair? Of course not! But the fact is that our little town of 5,000 people had visits from Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, and others. McCain walked in a Labor Day parade in a little town five miles from here. Fred Thonmpson got in a big bus that traveled the whole state visiting every little whistle stop. He would get out walk down the main street, make a little speech, and shake hands. Sure this approach is corny and old fashioned. But that is the way candidates get support in Iowa.
In contrast, the closest Ron Paul came to us was fifty miles away during the ice storm of the century.
If Iowa seemed to ignore Ron Paul the feeling was mutual.

3) The poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire mortally wounded the campaign. The mainstream media was able to justify their snubbing of his candidacy and continued to ignore him up to and through Super Tuesday.
End of story.

Actually, not all of this came as hindsight. I was watching this unfold with great misgivings and would have advised the campaign to change their strategy as soon as I realized how little time Ron Paul had spent in Iowa.

My question is this, does Ron Paul, or anyone in the national campaign recognize this as a strategic blunder? Even in retrospect?

I would really appreciate some feedback about this, especially since it seems that they continue to underestimate the importance of personal appearances to his campaign and, ultimately, this movement.

This post is a really interesting one, and comes close to nailing my view on the head. I'll probably never forget the disappointment I felt -- the disappointment that we all felt -- the night of the Iowa results. We were so close to all those guys, as you mention, and yet still so far away.

I agree that Ron Paul did not spend as much time in Iowa as would have been optimal. But it's a mistake to think that this was a strategic mistake. As I mentioned earlier, we had limitations as to how much time of Ron's we had -- unlike a Barack Obama, Clinton or McCain, Ron was not just letting his congressional obligations fall by the wayside. So while these other candidates were missing vote after vote, Ron was not. This is why you got to see all the other candidates but Ron did not get closer than 50 miles.

I believe the same thing happened in New Hampshire. As you point out, both of these states require retail politics to win the election, and having limited time already, and then having Ron make trips to both of these states made it impossible to spend as much time in either of them as did, say, Mitt Romney. I mean, geez, Mike Huckabee was living in Iowa!

Your third point is spot on in my opinion... once we didn't meet the MSM's "expectations" in New Hampshire, the battle became massively uphill at that point.

But again, rest asured that you're not the only one was was acutely aware of what happened in Iowa.

 

[The Lantern]

Don,

Are you still with the campaign?

 

[yongrel]

Alan Keyes is batsh** crazy.

Tell me something I don't know

 

[Don]

Don,

Are you still with the campaign?

I am. I put in my two-week notice and will be leaving the campaign at the end of the month to return to Seattle. I have a resume in with the Dino Rossi campaign for Washington governor and I hope to work for Dino until the fall when I am expatriating to Costa Rica to work in real estate development. I will continue to blog at http://freemansburden.blogspot.com/ and work within the freedom movement here and in C.R. in the coming years.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

I visited New Hampshire and thought not enough was being done there. I visited the Obama office, Clinton office, Romney office and Edwards office in New Hampshire.

I compared their offices to the Ron Paul office in Concord New Hampshire.

The other campaigns had much bigger organizations. Romney and Clinton had two large offices in Manchester. Romney had very sophisticated computerized phone lists and walk lists with lots of volunteers.

While you can spend money on TV in Iowa or New Hampshire but the ground game is where it is at for the most part. You had better have your ground game in order and then worry about TV or debate performances etc.

The Ron Paul HQ stopped calling voters a half hour before the polls closed. They had called "everyone" on their lists.

Running TV ads in states where most voters don't go to the polls such as an Iowa caucus is a problem.

The youth campaign was underfunded and not big enough. Considering youth was a strength, it was a resource that needed to be used more.

There are many ways to run a campaign. Having been inside the national HQ in Arlington from early august when they moved out of their one room HQ to being at the New Hampshire HQ, I could tell things were not going as well as they should.

I think you have a couple of good points, but some things, from my perspective anyway, are just incorrect.

For starters, I don't think much more could have been done in NH. We had a great state coordinator and a great team in place, and if they couldn't win the state, I don't believe anyone else could have either. While you sight "more offices" for the other campaigns, you neglect to remember all of the volunteer support that has been the backbone of this campaign everywhere. And you talk about "sophisticated walk lists"... well, again, it was a bit late in coming, but have you looked at the precinct leader tools? https://voters.grassroots.com In all honesty, I know that our people in NH (and in most states) worked very hard to "have the ground game in order." I think that if you believe more needed to be done, then that is more of a criticism of the grassroots than it is of official campaign staff. And I can tell you that, at least in New Hampshire, the grassroots supporters were EXTREMELY well organized. I really think we just didn't have the votes (for reasons I've touched on in other posts).

I agree with your assessment of TV ads in caucus states, and there definitely is a line of political thinking that says what you say. But at the same time, we also saw our poll numbers rally in Iowa as a result of the ads we were running. So who knows.

As far as the youth campaign, I think you're dead wrong. There was a good deal of funding to the youth, and certainly more than most other campaigns. And remember, while I like to think that the youth can make a huge difference, as we know, the fact is simply that they don't vote in as large numbers as older age groups. So knowing all the other things that needed funding, I don't believe the youth was one that needed significantly more.