Ron Paul was within a few thousand votes of 3rd place in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but, sadly, came in 5th in both states. If he had placed third in the first two primaries, he would have gained a lot of legitimacy as a real contender in the minds of voters in other states. Just getting a few thousand extra people to the polls would have done it, but it didn't happen.
In my opinion, the fault lies with the official campaign. The grassroots supporters have overdelivered beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Without question, Ron Paul grassroots supporters have invested more money, more volunteer hours, more energy, more enthusiasm, and more creativity than any other candidate's supporters. They have done more than the official campaign to drive recognition of Ron Paul and his platform.
The real problem is that the official Ron Paul campaign is not a professional enough organization. It is staffed with long-time supporters who originally expected to be running an "outsider" campaign that was more about sharing a message than about seeking victory. They have been pleasantly surprised by the momentum, by the grassroots support, and by the online fundraising success they've enjoyed, but they haven’t really adjusted their organization to take advantage of their new situation.
A truly professional campaign--fully staffed, experienced, and organized, would have been able to deliver a few thousand extra votes. Little things like busing people to the polls and having professional campaign staff in a state as much as possible really make a difference. Mitt Romney probably got thousands of people to vote for him in Iowa and New Hampshire who don't know anything about his platform and don't necessarily even like him that much, just due to the superior organization of his campaign.
When Mike Huckabee began attracting more attention in the polls, he immediately went out and hired an old pro--Ed Rollins, to become his new campaign manager. At the end of the day, you need some people who have been to the big show before on your campaign staff so you don't have to reinvent the wheel on everything. There's simply not enough time to learn on the job. There are people out there who have run winning Presidential campaigns before. The Ron Paul campaign should go talk to them.
The official Ron Paul campaign apparently has several unstated implicit goals that are interfering with its ability to run a tight ship and really prioritize victory. These goals include things like being frugal, rewarding loyal employees by not bringing in outsiders, catering to Ron Paul's distrust of professional handlers and public relations people, etc. I understand these preferences, but to Ron Paul's many donors, it will feel hollow indeed if the campaign says in the end, "We didn't maximize our impact, but what impact we had we achieved frugally and with our original team still in charge." The campaign is also very excited about the fact that the campaign itself represents a libertarian model with lots of grassroots activity and limited central control. I think that's cool too, but I don't think it's an excuse for the campaign abdicating responsibility for key campaign functions. If the campaign itself were more organized and had more and better-experienced staffers, it wouldn't hurt or muffle the grassroots activity at all. But it would help Ron Paul get more money, more media coverage, and more votes.
There are several key areas in which the Ron Paul campaign has suboptimized. One is fundraising. Every other campaign does certain basic things. They organize bundlers--donors who go out and collect other donations in their communities. They hold fundraising events for big donors. The Ron Paul campaign has done very little of these two basic building blocks of fundraising, primarily due to lack of organization, know-how, and sufficient man-power. The campaign will point to its Internet fundraising success, but the truth is that that success is something that happened to the campaign that was driven by the grassroots. It's a tribute to Ron Paul's platform and message and to the man himself, but it's not a tribute to the campain fundraising staff. The campaign may believe that the only people who give $2300 to the Obamas, Clintons, and Romneys of the world are trying to buy access, but that's actually not true. A lot of people with money actually care about politics and donate the maximum to their favorite candidate. And many others like to attend parties and fundraising events with their rich friends just for fun. But the Ron Paul campaign has made very little attempt to go get these people. Which is a shame because $2300 donors often become evangelists for candidates and they know other potential donors and opinion leaders. The head of the Ron Paul campaign fundraising staff is 24 years old. He is a patriot and I'm sure he's working hard, but by definition he doesn't have a rolodex full of wealthy baby boomers or decades of fundraising experience. If the campaign were a start-up company, the right move would be for this young man to go hire himself an experienced boss now that the campaign has grown to a bigger level. At the very least he should have hired some professional fundraising staff to work with him or for him. But that hasn't happened in any significant way.
Another area in which a lack of professionalism has haunted the campaign is in media relations. Ron Paul supporters constantly talk about the Mainstream Media blackout of Ron Paul, and frankly I sometimes worry about it myself. But what the campaign doesn't realize is that the media is more lazy than corrupt. Journalists working on deadline don't have time to go do a bunch of original research every single day. They sometimes rely on public relations professionals to pitch them stories. The average mainstream political reporter is getting 5 substantive press releases every single day from the Clinton campaign with personal follow-up calls from professional public relations people whom the journalists have personally known for years. Is it any wonder that she gets more coverage than Ron Paul? This may seem unfair and corporate, but it's the way the media works. Given this, the reluctance of the Ron Paul campaign to hire more media relations professionals with good rolodexes is a mistake. Here too I fear that the campaign's desire for some sort of purity is trumping its desire for success. Press releases need to be followed up with phone calls to every single media outlet to maximize the likelihood they'll be picked up. That's basic. And yet the Ron Paul campaign doesn't do it. In fact, for months their email address for press inquiries automatically replied with a message saying that the campaign staff couldn't keep up with the email so “please be patient.”
A third area in which a lack of professionalism hurt the campaign was basic time on the ground in Iowa. Ron Paul actually spent less time in Iowa than Giuliani, who supposedly wrote it off. I understand that the rigors of the campaign trail are tiring and that Ron Paul needs to conserve energy, but the campaign should be organized enough to have had other campaign spokespeople and organizers on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire. Just being there matters when the results are so close and early momentum is so crucial. His amazing wife could have been very effective. Other supporters and spokespeople could have been great. But it takes organization from the campaign to arrange campaign events.
Finally, the campaign needs to work harder to appeal to establishment types. I love the Ron Paul Revolution and I'm not recommending that Ron tone down his message in any way nor that the grassroots mute their enthusiasm in any way. But I think that the campaign needs to do more to proactively reach out to key influencers. Obviously Ron Paul won't get a good reception from lobbyists and corporate welfare recipients and defense contractors. But he should be reaching out to local organizers, to local politicians, to church leaders, to investors who like his economic ideas, to small business groups who want less government regulation, etc. People like this like to be asked for their support. Some will give it.
Also, the campaign should offer some canvassing training for volunteers--at the very least they need some canvassing advice on the website. Right now, canvassers for Ron Paul are all untrained volunteers and sometimes they manage to turn off potential voters rather than recruit them. There are certain methods that are proven to be more effective than others, and getting that information to the grassroots would help.
The Ron Paul campaign needs a major retooling as soon as possible. It can't afford to dishonor its huge donor base by bumbling and continuing to suboptimize everywhere. It needs to spend some money on experienced campaign staff. Even if the existing leadership insists on staying in charge and calling all the shots, it needs experienced and professional help and it needs it now.
Ron Paul has the best platform by far. Most Americans agree with him on the key points--less war, less government spending, lower taxes, less government interference, less inflation, etc. In addition to his appealing platform, he has an amazing and consistent track record to back it up and inspire confidence that he means what he says. On top of that he has tapped into a reservoir of enthusiasm in America. He has a lot of money and the ability to raise a lot more. He has one of the greatest bases of grassroots support ever. The ingredients are there for an impressive performance and a real impact. The question is, can the campaign rise to the occasion?
In my opinion, the fault lies with the official campaign. The grassroots supporters have overdelivered beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Without question, Ron Paul grassroots supporters have invested more money, more volunteer hours, more energy, more enthusiasm, and more creativity than any other candidate's supporters. They have done more than the official campaign to drive recognition of Ron Paul and his platform.
The real problem is that the official Ron Paul campaign is not a professional enough organization. It is staffed with long-time supporters who originally expected to be running an "outsider" campaign that was more about sharing a message than about seeking victory. They have been pleasantly surprised by the momentum, by the grassroots support, and by the online fundraising success they've enjoyed, but they haven’t really adjusted their organization to take advantage of their new situation.
A truly professional campaign--fully staffed, experienced, and organized, would have been able to deliver a few thousand extra votes. Little things like busing people to the polls and having professional campaign staff in a state as much as possible really make a difference. Mitt Romney probably got thousands of people to vote for him in Iowa and New Hampshire who don't know anything about his platform and don't necessarily even like him that much, just due to the superior organization of his campaign.
When Mike Huckabee began attracting more attention in the polls, he immediately went out and hired an old pro--Ed Rollins, to become his new campaign manager. At the end of the day, you need some people who have been to the big show before on your campaign staff so you don't have to reinvent the wheel on everything. There's simply not enough time to learn on the job. There are people out there who have run winning Presidential campaigns before. The Ron Paul campaign should go talk to them.
The official Ron Paul campaign apparently has several unstated implicit goals that are interfering with its ability to run a tight ship and really prioritize victory. These goals include things like being frugal, rewarding loyal employees by not bringing in outsiders, catering to Ron Paul's distrust of professional handlers and public relations people, etc. I understand these preferences, but to Ron Paul's many donors, it will feel hollow indeed if the campaign says in the end, "We didn't maximize our impact, but what impact we had we achieved frugally and with our original team still in charge." The campaign is also very excited about the fact that the campaign itself represents a libertarian model with lots of grassroots activity and limited central control. I think that's cool too, but I don't think it's an excuse for the campaign abdicating responsibility for key campaign functions. If the campaign itself were more organized and had more and better-experienced staffers, it wouldn't hurt or muffle the grassroots activity at all. But it would help Ron Paul get more money, more media coverage, and more votes.
There are several key areas in which the Ron Paul campaign has suboptimized. One is fundraising. Every other campaign does certain basic things. They organize bundlers--donors who go out and collect other donations in their communities. They hold fundraising events for big donors. The Ron Paul campaign has done very little of these two basic building blocks of fundraising, primarily due to lack of organization, know-how, and sufficient man-power. The campaign will point to its Internet fundraising success, but the truth is that that success is something that happened to the campaign that was driven by the grassroots. It's a tribute to Ron Paul's platform and message and to the man himself, but it's not a tribute to the campain fundraising staff. The campaign may believe that the only people who give $2300 to the Obamas, Clintons, and Romneys of the world are trying to buy access, but that's actually not true. A lot of people with money actually care about politics and donate the maximum to their favorite candidate. And many others like to attend parties and fundraising events with their rich friends just for fun. But the Ron Paul campaign has made very little attempt to go get these people. Which is a shame because $2300 donors often become evangelists for candidates and they know other potential donors and opinion leaders. The head of the Ron Paul campaign fundraising staff is 24 years old. He is a patriot and I'm sure he's working hard, but by definition he doesn't have a rolodex full of wealthy baby boomers or decades of fundraising experience. If the campaign were a start-up company, the right move would be for this young man to go hire himself an experienced boss now that the campaign has grown to a bigger level. At the very least he should have hired some professional fundraising staff to work with him or for him. But that hasn't happened in any significant way.
Another area in which a lack of professionalism has haunted the campaign is in media relations. Ron Paul supporters constantly talk about the Mainstream Media blackout of Ron Paul, and frankly I sometimes worry about it myself. But what the campaign doesn't realize is that the media is more lazy than corrupt. Journalists working on deadline don't have time to go do a bunch of original research every single day. They sometimes rely on public relations professionals to pitch them stories. The average mainstream political reporter is getting 5 substantive press releases every single day from the Clinton campaign with personal follow-up calls from professional public relations people whom the journalists have personally known for years. Is it any wonder that she gets more coverage than Ron Paul? This may seem unfair and corporate, but it's the way the media works. Given this, the reluctance of the Ron Paul campaign to hire more media relations professionals with good rolodexes is a mistake. Here too I fear that the campaign's desire for some sort of purity is trumping its desire for success. Press releases need to be followed up with phone calls to every single media outlet to maximize the likelihood they'll be picked up. That's basic. And yet the Ron Paul campaign doesn't do it. In fact, for months their email address for press inquiries automatically replied with a message saying that the campaign staff couldn't keep up with the email so “please be patient.”
A third area in which a lack of professionalism hurt the campaign was basic time on the ground in Iowa. Ron Paul actually spent less time in Iowa than Giuliani, who supposedly wrote it off. I understand that the rigors of the campaign trail are tiring and that Ron Paul needs to conserve energy, but the campaign should be organized enough to have had other campaign spokespeople and organizers on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire. Just being there matters when the results are so close and early momentum is so crucial. His amazing wife could have been very effective. Other supporters and spokespeople could have been great. But it takes organization from the campaign to arrange campaign events.
Finally, the campaign needs to work harder to appeal to establishment types. I love the Ron Paul Revolution and I'm not recommending that Ron tone down his message in any way nor that the grassroots mute their enthusiasm in any way. But I think that the campaign needs to do more to proactively reach out to key influencers. Obviously Ron Paul won't get a good reception from lobbyists and corporate welfare recipients and defense contractors. But he should be reaching out to local organizers, to local politicians, to church leaders, to investors who like his economic ideas, to small business groups who want less government regulation, etc. People like this like to be asked for their support. Some will give it.
Also, the campaign should offer some canvassing training for volunteers--at the very least they need some canvassing advice on the website. Right now, canvassers for Ron Paul are all untrained volunteers and sometimes they manage to turn off potential voters rather than recruit them. There are certain methods that are proven to be more effective than others, and getting that information to the grassroots would help.
The Ron Paul campaign needs a major retooling as soon as possible. It can't afford to dishonor its huge donor base by bumbling and continuing to suboptimize everywhere. It needs to spend some money on experienced campaign staff. Even if the existing leadership insists on staying in charge and calling all the shots, it needs experienced and professional help and it needs it now.
Ron Paul has the best platform by far. Most Americans agree with him on the key points--less war, less government spending, lower taxes, less government interference, less inflation, etc. In addition to his appealing platform, he has an amazing and consistent track record to back it up and inspire confidence that he means what he says. On top of that he has tapped into a reservoir of enthusiasm in America. He has a lot of money and the ability to raise a lot more. He has one of the greatest bases of grassroots support ever. The ingredients are there for an impressive performance and a real impact. The question is, can the campaign rise to the occasion?
