Perception Was Paul Not Electable to SC Voters

[F3d]

The negative ads clearly did nothing here....

 

[rachmiel]

All the GOP voters seem to care about is "beating Barack Obama." They're so caught up with that agenda that they've disregarded character and principles by choosing Newt. These people don't even know what they believe, besides their "beating Barack Obama" mantra.

 

[WD-NY]

Ads. Ads. Ads. We need ads that address these issues and we need them ASAP. The campaign has been dropping the ball on these issues. I've been saying this since before Iowa. If we don't fix these issues the campaign is over IMO.

Screw ads. They don't matter as SC proved.

Website. Website. Website.

The ronpaul2012.com website hasn't been updated or improved upon since first being launched. Whats the point of spending $millions on ads when we lose the potential voter as soon as they visit the website?

 

[milo10]

Because they have a CNN poll to use showing it! That's what John McCain used and he got elected that way! He ran ads using the poll numbers showing people that he was the one who could keep Hillary out of the White House and GOPers were afraid she would be the nominee. And it worked. So don't tell me it won't. We have a freaking road map provided by John McFreakingCain. The RP campaign is ignoring it!

+rep. Exactly.

 

[mosquitobite]

All the GOP voters seem to care about is "beating Barack Obama." They're so caught up with that agenda that they've disregarded character and principles by choosing Newt. These people don't even know what they believe, besides their "beating Barack Obama" mantra.

A liberal website: Salon on Ron Paul (complete with videos linked!)
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).

 

[Danemicus]

It seems that so many people are oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul and Romney are the only ones who poll competitively vs Obama. The MSM encourages their following to visualize that Obama beats Ron by a landslide or something. Unless there's an electability ad to disprove this, people will believe that he's unelectable. It's as simple as that.

It's ironic that when people are overlooking Ron in order to make their vote count (in their minds), that they really are throwing their votes away when choosing either Gingrich or Santorum who really are unelectable. If only there was heightened awareness of this. Oh well.

 

[milo10]

Screw ads. They don't matter as SC proved.

Website. Website. Website.

The ronpaul2012.com website hasn't been updated or improved upon since first being launched. Whats the point of spending $millions on ads when we lose the potential voter as soon as they visit the website?

+rep to you as well.

That is a really good point. The website for donations should not be the Ron Paul site to convince people to vote for him!

If anyone goes to www.ronpaul2012.com, they see a huge moneybomb section with some news clips. They do not see a comprehensive website geared towards convincing undecideds to choose Ron Paul

There should be tabs on Foreign Policy, Electability, Economy, Environment, Social Issues, and so forth. It should be geared 100% towards undecideds, with video and so forth.

I can't believe this was the first time I noticed this. It seems really obvious now.

 

[wstrucke]

"Electability" is the stupidest term I've ever heard.

 

[kathy88]

Yep. The only reason they believe he's not electable is because that's what the media TELLS them.

Polls show only Romney & Paul poll well against Obama. If you guys aren't spreading that on your facebook, shame on you.

This. We have to push him against Obama.