POLITICO: Ron Paul aides ponder ‘frustrating’ race

[klamath]

I wholeheartedly agree here.

Here's the truth some people will not like to hear. Ron's Campaign is a family-run business -- Jesse Benton is an in-law, and one of Ron's granddaughters is managing the Facebook/Twitter accounts, at least used to. Ron is too NICE to get tough and say "Ok, things aren't happening the way we need them to happen, we need to change some things around, and we need to get more snappy with how we execute the rest of this thing." I guess this also depends on whether Ron felt that his finish in Iowa WAS a good one and whether he genuinely thought that he IS doing well through the caucus states and Maine -- maybe he even thought he's doing better than expected.

Here's what it boils down to. Ron is running for the position of the nation's top executive. Managing a national campaign is sort of a test for the much bigger job of being a country's top executive. Ron will need to hold a lot of people accountable as President and select good cabinet members to surround him that he can trust to act on his behalf. This was the same issue that plagued the newsletter thing -- not so much that he wrote them but more that he didn't immediately find out and fire someone who did write them. This was the same issue with the tweet mocking Jon Huntsman after Iowa ("we found your 1 voter in Iowa" or something) -- there didn't seem to be any accountability. Accountability is a big deal, and being a boss who isn't afraid to re-shuffle the line-up when needed is very important.

interesting angle I hadn't thought about before. That would be a big deterrent to firing. You can't just fire someone and not have to deal with them again if they are family members. Every family function would be tainted from there on out.

 

[angelatc]

.

That said, with the support he has gotten, it should have shown up in the elections.

It did! We doubled and tripled our vote counts in a lot of states, and this despite overall turnout being down.

 

[Schiff_FTW]

It comes down to Ron and the way he presents the message. Even if they agree with him people don't really see him as very presidential. Too many grandiose statements not enough (or any) specifics. So you get a lot of soft supporters who 'like' him but don't think he seriously intends to be president so they're not going to go out of their way to vote for him. Does the campaign really not see this or are they just pretending not to because it's never going to change?

 

[wgadget]

It comes down to Ron and the way he presents the message. Even if they agree with him people don't really see him as very presidential. Too many grandiose statements not enough (or any) specifics. So you get a lot of soft supporters who 'like' him but don't think he seriously intends to be president so they're not going to go out of their way to vote for him. Does the campaign really not see this or are they just pretending not to because it's never going to change?

I disagree 100%. What Ron says comes from the heart and makes common sense. The others...just mumbo-jumbo meaningless tripe to collect votes from the sheep, which is then amplified through the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.

 

[FrancisMarion]

1. Our supporters will drive a 100 miles for a rally. The other candidate's supporters won't walk to one next door, BUT, they still vote. Rally attendance to vote totals is not a reasonable correlation because all other things are not equal. Ask me about my spreadsheets as proof.

2. We have been successfully marginalized by the media by repeating the meme that we are nothing but young people. Then the old folks say, "Those young kids with all of their idealistic views without any real world experience in realism". This combined with the lack of coverage by the MSM creates a situation that is quite effective in limiting the message to hearts and minds.

From there, after some disheartening results we look for excuses and look to the past to explain "Why" instead of looking to the future with "How". The truth of the matter is there are lots of other Americans that don't agree with us. This bears repeating, the truth of the matter is there are lots of Americans who don't agree with us.

So, will we continue to demoralize with all the bullshit speculation or we will look to the future with solutions? I'm getting quite tired of reading all of the remarks of people around here who perpetuate the former.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Honest question: what do you think the chances are of people coming out to vote for him as a third party candidate, keeping in mind that people know it's a longshot yet they'd have a chance to voice thieir opposition to the PTB? Would voting for a third-party Ron Paul to say FU, Establishment get these people off the couch?

Personally, at this point in history, I think the idea has a lot of merit. Of course, fraud is still an option, but it might be a little more transparent. Not sure...

It is getting more and more viable to be a third party candidate just because of the sheer ridiculousness of how obviously status quo everyone else is combined with the deteriorating situation in the country. Normally I would say it's not a very viable way to win, but lots of people would rather pick a third party candidate than chose between a giant douche and turd sandwich because if they actually do win, it's not just a preliminary step. Many people just won't vote in the primaries because it's only preliminary and the general election is viewed as more important. Many of these same people are the kinds that will vote third party just to send a message to the establishment. Now, if only you didn't have to be a billionaire to get in the debates or on the ballots, a third party candidate could really make waves. As it stands, though, I wouldn't encourage Ron Paul to do it, and I don't think he will. He didn't do it last time and people are kidding themselves if they think this is different for some secret reason.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What wild accusations are you talking about? If you have proof of vote fraud, send it to the campaign and Ben Swann...afterall, if the campaign isn't suing/pressing charges on this issue, there's a problem right there for you if the evidence is all solid.
When I made a legitimate suggestion on how to help ensure a brokered convention, it gets moved to "hot topics"...yet all I see from you is complaining about vote fraud, something that I can't do anything about...other than COMPLAIN about on an internet forum, to the campaign, and/or to my representatives/locals.

Clearly while you're concentrating on old votes, some of us have been saying to ADDRESS issues holding him back to win future voters...that hasn't really happened.
I showed how a simple adjustment to one ad they already had, would help change the message for the older audience, see:


2 weeks before that, I put together another one to give the campaign an idea:


You can say needing to address the foreign policy issue, newsletters, and targeting older voters (ones that have a HISTORY of actually showing up and voting) are "wild accusations" and that some of us don't know what we're talking about...but perhaps we are looking at history as well, and understand RP must win the GOP nomination.

According to you though, the campaign has spent millions of dollars on a system that guaranteed him not a win, because of vote fraud...not sure people should give a campaign, guaranteed to lose (according to you), more money, especially if they aren't pursuing this.

So again, "wild accusations" according to you are those of us that have said the campaign is not listening to the voters that tell you why they don't like/understand RP, and NOT fashioning its message so it's easier for them to understand? Instead we should concentrate all our efforts on voting machines that won't be changed, unless a major player is involved...and I don't see where the campaign is doing much on it. Am I wrong?

If you really know more than our campaign staff about winning elections and how to target ads, then we were fucked from the beginning.

Also, do you have a better idea for exposing the corruption in the system? If we don't try to win an election, then nobody will ever know. At least people can see it now. That's why I donate. It's because we have the chance to 1. let Ron Paul speak and win hearts and minds and 2. Expose the system. Both of those are very worthwhile. Hell, I even held on to the hope that there were so many of us that the establishment couldn't possibly cover it up. Just because the establishment won't let us win, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the sake of the future generations. Beside, as it has been noted, delegates are all that really matter, and the establishment has less control over that.

 

[coffeewithchess]

If you really know more than our campaign staff about winning elections and how to target ads, then we were fucked from the beginning.

Yea, pretty much...and according to you, it doesn't matter if they did target more properly, because the votes wouldn't have mattered anyway.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I wholeheartedly agree here.

Here's the truth some people will not like to hear. Ron's Campaign is a family-run business -- Jesse Benton is an in-law, and one of Ron's granddaughters is managing the Facebook/Twitter accounts, at least used to. Ron is too NICE to get tough and say "Ok, things aren't happening the way we need them to happen, we need to change some things around, and we need to get more snappy with how we execute the rest of this thing." I guess this also depends on whether Ron felt that his finish in Iowa WAS a good one and whether he genuinely thought that he IS doing well through the caucus states and Maine -- maybe he even thought he's doing better than expected.

Here's what it boils down to. Ron is running for the position of the nation's top executive. Managing a national campaign is sort of a test for the much bigger job of being a country's top executive. Ron will need to hold a lot of people accountable as President and select good cabinet members to surround him that he can trust to act on his behalf. This was the same issue that plagued the newsletter thing -- not so much that he wrote them but more that he didn't immediately find out and fire someone who did write them. This was the same issue with the tweet mocking Jon Huntsman after Iowa ("we found your 1 voter in Iowa" or something) -- there didn't seem to be any accountability. Accountability is a big deal, and being a boss who isn't afraid to re-shuffle the line-up when needed is very important.

If you don't think Ron is right for the job, then why are you here? Don't vote for him if that's what you believe.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yea, pretty much...and according to you, it doesn't matter if they did target more properly, because the votes wouldn't have mattered anyway.

That's true. Does that mean I should give up?

 

[DamianTV]

Want to win the election? Get the Delegates!

 

[sailingaway]

It comes down to Ron and the way he presents the message. Even if they agree with him people don't really see him as very presidential. Too many grandiose statements not enough (or any) specifics. So you get a lot of soft supporters who 'like' him but don't think he seriously intends to be president so they're not going to go out of their way to vote for him. Does the campaign really not see this or are they just pretending not to because it's never going to change?

but all those people that people try to sell us as more presidential aren't interesting because they don't have his principles and his record of standing up for them. It is true it would be nice to have both, but if I had to choose one, I'd choose substance every time.

Plus, Ron's 'everyman' way of discussing things is what brought many of us to him. The others sell better to those who are fine with the status quo, but then there are status quo candidates with more money. Ron is clearly something different, and when he DOES connect, there is nothing like it.

 

[sailingaway]

If you don't think Ron is right for the job, then why are you here? Don't vote for him if that's what you believe.

He likes having family he can trust and likes to be around do jobs. He pays them less, if anything, then most campaigns pay for these things, and would we really rather he got someone like Rollings who has no loyalty to him or to his principles?

 

[coffeewithchess]

That's true. Does that mean I should give up?

If you believe that it's all about the voting system, then there is no point in giving money to a campaign that isn't suing/trying to prosecute. If the problem is the system, the campaign/PACs should attack the system, run ads SHOWING the problems...
If a guy ran an odd ad for $1,200 and it was viewed by 1,200,000 people...is there a reason every single house with cable tv has not had a Ron Paul ad, and/or ad showing them problems with the voting system and the lies the media uses?

You seem to think that anybody that criticizes the campaign has no idea what they're talking about, when boots on the ground around the country have repeated the issues that are holding RP back. Foreign policy being the main issue.

Again, if you KNOW the issue holding you back, and you aren't addressing it in a meaningful way, you can't move forward. Again though, if there is 100% of vote flipping to keep a candidate from winning, show it to Ben Swann...from what I have read/seen though, the vote flipping that supposedly happened in South Carolina would not have allowed RP to win 1st anyway...and there is NO proof of that from what I have seen...far from it. I have friends that are in South Carolina who know the sheeple there, and the MSM's influence is very strong.

 

[D.A.S.]

If you don't think Ron is right for the job, then why are you here? Don't vote for him if that's what you believe.

If I didn't think Ron wasn't the right person for the job, I wouldn't be donating money, I wouldn't be voting for him, I wouldn't be putting my life on hold to help in any way I can, I wouldn't be going door-to-door collecting signatures for him. But I do.

Yet, I'm allowed to point out certain shortcomings, which we need to do in order to grow better and stronger. And you will see that the same questions I raise do come up in intelligent articles written about Ron Paul and his campaign. Monitoring public perception is very important because, afterall, getting elected is all about public perception.

Dismissing any and all criticism of the way Ron's campaign has been run isn't going to get you further in this process. I desperately want to win, but that also depends on how the campaign is ready and willing to adapt to challenges and less-than-expected performance.

I believe they are looking into this now and are brainstorming on what to do from here and how to do things better -- they do also need to listen to some of the things people say in these forums! I don't profess to know all the answers or to have great ideas necessarily, but there are a lot of great ideas floating around here and very good advices they could benefit from.

 

[coffeewithchess]

If I didn't think Ron wasn't the right person for the job, I wouldn't be donating money, I wouldn't be voting for him, I wouldn't be putting my life on hold to help in any way I can, I wouldn't be going door-to-door collecting signatures for him. But I do.

Yet, I'm allowed to point out certain shortcomings, which we need to do in order to grow better and stronger. You will see that the same questions I've raising do come up in intelligent articles concerning Ron Paul and his campaign. Dismissing any and all criticism of the way Ron's campaign has been run isn't going to get your farther in this process. I desperately want to win, but that also depends on how the campaign is ready and willing to adapt to challenges and less-than-expected performance.

Yea, I liked how your entire post was summarized as, "You don't like RP, why are you here!?" I find it amazing any criticism of the Ron Paul campaign is seen as not liking RP, or that we just don't understand the odds...the votes being stolen, etc, by some.

 

[socal]

How do you expect Ron Paul to get his point across on foreign policy when the media spends 99% of their Ron Paul coverage stating that he's unelectable because of his foreign policy? Even if he had Romney money, he wouldn't be able to compete with the media who completely ignores/bashes Ron Paul.

That said, he's still generated tons of support. He's getting the best crowds at his speaking events. Common sense would tell you he should be winning. I think the fix is in.

The audience reach of Dr Paul at rallies delivering speeches or answering questions is dwarfed by the reach of the O'Reilleys and Limbaughs criticizing his policies. So the way to have combated it would have been to professionally stream all of his rallies live, and then make them easily accessible in a central, easily searchable format on the campaign website. Granted that wouldn't have helped the older crowd with no internet savvy, but it would have helped with all the others. That would also take away the objection of some that Ron shouldn't be targeting the youth, because believe it or not if the rallies and town halls were broadcast over the internet, anybody with an internet connection could watch them. Shots of large, enthusiastic, cheering crowds at the events could have been interspersed with video of Ron talking that would have given a positive reinforcing attitude towards his ideas.

As far as the cost objection, the campaign could have cut back on some of the attack ads against the other opponents to fund this. Once spent, that money is gone and goes into the pockets of the media which is one of RP's enemies. Plus with 4 viable candidates still in the race, the other 3 would still be attacking each other so it's not like they would get off scot-free.

And also this platform could have been used as the convention got closer for Ron to promote his candidacy and/or shoot down the other candidates. Members of the campaign could could have been used to interview Ron instead of having a Candy Crowley or Wolf Blitzer doing the interview. And private town halls in a Q&A format could have been set-up and streamed live and archived.

Major campaign fail imo.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Someone should ask us what we did in Vermont If we had 1 visit we would have won.

 

[D.A.S.]

Someone should ask us what we did in Vermont If we had 1 visit we would have won.

I know you guys have been incredibly active in VT, going door-to-door and canvassing... So what worked best?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Why 20 pages? It's simple

There has been massive fraud that has cost us several states. If you are not willing to acknowledge this reality, please refrain from spreading your nutjob conspiracy theories on this forum. We want the lurkers and new members to know the truth. Have a nice day.