The point of a presidential campaign, is to win the nomination.
That may be your only goal, and it may be the goal of any individual donor. I donated without needing a win to feel satisfied, it is possible.
We are, and were, in a unique situation. Ron Paul was way behind. Our ideas were not popular, by a longshot. That makes the win less probable, and therefore less justification for being upset when it didn't happen. It also makes the part of the campaign that is educational more important, and a greater portion of the good that came of it.
So many people see this in black and white. Too many think that either you run to win, or you are wasting time. But the truth is that running to win is also educational. Platforms are revised, opinions changed, rules adapted, people inspired. The campaign said they were in it to win it. I too believe that's the only way to run, unless you're Bud Green of the Pot Party. It's so utterly pointless to think about whether a candidate will win. All that matters is doing what it takes to convince as many people as possible at all times. This is the goal of an educational campaign, and a winning campaign. It's the opposite of black and white - they are nearly one and the same.
When a candidate doesn't win, learn from mistakes. By all means heads should roll if there is corruption. But honest people exposing that corruption, if it exists, do a disservice when they don't show clear evidence. Look at whistleblowers who are credible.
When Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, it ceased being a presidential campaign.
I don't want to dispute the fact you are trying to get at here, but it's hard to keep an open mind with such claims. How does a presidential campaign cease to be one? Did Ron Paul 2012 agree not to attack Mitt Romney? What were the benefits or perceived benefits of doing so? Who made this decision?
AND, it didn't tell supporters of that information, until at/after the RNC.
Perhaps they would have attacked if only Romney was left. I have no idea. I'm trying to keep an open mind if you have evidence. But also, if true, why was that the strategy? What were the perceived benefits, and who made the decision? Perhaps there are not many people who are mad he didn't attack Romney, if he didn't?
So, from at least February 2012, Ron Paul 2012 wasted MILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of hours of supporters.
That's a stretch. Where was the money spent? If it changed minds it cannot possibly be 100% wasted. I can understand it would upset someone who thought the campaign should attack Romney. Seems to me they should attack everyone with a weak record, but I don't know anything about strategy on that level, but what I can verify with facts.
Did they produce one single good ad addressing foreign policy? In a way that could address the issue to the idiot brain-dead type voters in certain states? And air it repeatedly in those states to help Rand in 2016 on that issue? No.
Again, that's something that seems important to me too. But what do I know? Also seems like they did produce ads on foreign policy for the internet. Perhaps budget didn't allow? I just have no idea based on the facts.
Here's a video that attacks Romney.
What about ACTUALLY addressing the newsletters, and throwing the writer of them under the bus? No? It will be brought up against Rand in 2016, we already have proof of that, as it was used against a candidate in another state. As a matter of fact, the ad used against the other candidate, LOOKED like it was made for the 2012 election cycle, and redone with another candidate, as to not be wasted.
Seems like it was addressed to me. I think the perceived damage was way overblown. To me the amount of attention it deserves is about as much as I saw reasonable people give it.
And if you want to play the "media bias" card,
Excuse me, you can't reduce a fact to a card and make it go away. Hard to take this post seriously anymore.
do you expect ANY difference in 2016? It's to be expected, not used as an excuse for campaign incompetence and dishonesty.
Don't know what to expect. Rand hasn't even declared candidacy, much less chosen staff, much less have I seen reasonable debate as to incompetency or dishonesty to be concerned about.
To say the media bias is used as an excuse is one absurd claim. I am responding to your use of 'getting less votes than Santorum' being evidence of incompetence, as to believe that is proof of incompetency shows ignorance or downright ignoring the facts. The media bias is a fact. It is well documented. It was absurdly unbalanced coverage. It is a reason, not an excuse.
So, what part was wasted? The millions raised/spent after they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and instead, based on their own actions, helped him win the nomination.
That's an exaggerated claim. I've heard the opinion that he was the best candidate to go one on one against, based on demographics, and therefore weeding out the rest of the field was the best strategy. True or not, there are possibilities being ignored in the claim above. It is still possible, based upon the facts presented, that the campaign was trying to win, and not attacking Romney. Or that the campaign was trying to win, and was attacking Romney.
Name recognition doesn't mean crap, if you aren't winning.Which, is the point of politics. Winning. Unless, you have some ulterior motive for running, that does not actually mean winning. Like, furthering your own financial goals.
That's exaggerated too, but it is close to true for a candidate like Herman Cain. But for Ron Paul, name recognition was vital for getting votes. And every bit helps toward what appears to be happening in 2016.
Are you claiming Ron Paul ran to further his own financial goals?
Seems to me that you are obsessed with the power of the seat. Do you not see the value of winning hearts and minds?
