Ron Paul effectively tied in 1st is better than leading with 1st

[dusman]

I think Bachmann just doesn't make it. If a Bachmann supporter does like the Patriot Act, and Bachmann falls out of the race for any number of reasons, we don't necessarily want to have reminded the Bachmann supporter that Ron Paul disagrees with them. Right now, it's almost better for us to say "we like Bachmann". It's a calculated risk. We assume that 1) she'll fall apart by herself. The media might really closely examine her record. SNL is still on hiatus. 2) Somebody else might try to take her down. Romney, Perry, Pawlenty attacked her at the debate.

It's better to tell Bachmann supporters how similar Bachmann and Paul are, not where they differ.

^This.. observing the present situation.. we need to stay very close to Bachmann at this point. It's important to moreso show that the "Tea Party" is taking over, with Bachmann and Paul operating kind of as allies. Tea party vs. Establishment. Bachmann, will simply start to crack at the base.. as there is no strong foundation for her. If we make this transition smoothly, we can make it very natural for Bachmann's support to convert over.

 

[djruden]

Most people I talked to at the thursday night debate and the straw poll on saturday that weren't voting for Paul were merely republicans thru and thru. If Paul got the nomination most of them would vote for him anyway because they will vote for anyone over President Obama. Pauls supporters, like me, are very different. We see more of the same with the rest of the candidates. Romney and Perry offer no real change. The republican party needs to nominate Paul to grow the party and ensure they get his large number of followers to vote republican.

This is going to be a very interesting race.

 

[harikaried]

The republican party needs to nominate Paul to grow the party and ensure they get his large number of followers to vote republican.

Indeed. The large number of independent voters like what they hear from Ron Paul, and they're unlikely to switch over to pro-war republicans. We just need to get them actively supporting Ron Paul.

 

[rich34]

Ron needs to start picking fights with Perry, and Romney over intellectual positions that they differ on. I'm tired of watching debates where he only gets questions on what they know hurts him to the average republican voter. The media loves a fight and I say Paul should go on the attack and start poking holes in all their positions. Paul can't be complacent and just hope the conservative media will start covering him honestly.

 

[BUSHLIED]

Ron needs to start picking fights with Perry, and Romney over intellectual positions that they differ on. I'm tired of watching debates where he only gets questions on what they know hurts him to the average republican voter. The media loves a fight and I say Paul should go on the attack and start poking holes in all their positions. Paul can't be complacent and just hope the conservative media will start covering him honestly.

Ron has to show more strength, rather than being a punching bag where he has to counter-attack and risk looking angry etc...while he tends to answer the questions well, his tone changes visibly. He starts out good by saying for example the Senator has his history wrong or what John just said was distorted...then goes into a history lesson...

 

[hueylong]

Ron needs to keep doing what he's doing. And the campaign needs to keep doing what they're doing. Hopefully, at some point, they'll start telling his personal story so voters can start thinking of him as a man and a leader, and not just a 'libertarian ideologue'. His personal story is so powerful -- we shouldn't shy away from it.

 

[harikaried]

Hopefully, at some point, they'll start telling his personal story so voters can start thinking of him as a man and a leader, and not just a 'libertarian ideologue'

Indeed. One common concern I find people having is the general libertarian positions and free markets, but how much power would a President Paul have on those issues? The thing for sure is that a commander-in-chief Ron Paul would indeed have the final say in troop deployments. Most other things, you know that he'll vote against bills such as those that create/extend the Patriot Act.

 

[trey4sports]

Indeed. One common concern I find people having is the general libertarian positions and free markets, but how much power would a President Paul have on those issues? The thing for sure is that a commander-in-chief Ron Paul would indeed have the final say in troop deployments. Most other things, you know that he'll vote againstveto bills such as those that create/extend the Patriot Act.

fixed it

 

[mport1]

If Ron Paul came in first he would have been ignored and the media would have discredited the poll and/or focused on Michele. Coming in 2nd also leads him to be almost completely marginalized.