Ron Paul Needs to go for Romney's jugular

[colbyhowell]

We're gonna to do to Mitt what Ali did to Foreman, rope-a-dope his ass then drop the hammer

Looking at the 2 fight, they both look tired. George Foreman was the new guy in town- the younger, much stronger fighter. Ali, the greatest of all-time- a little older and slower, seems to be getting his ass beat; He looks looks old out there. As the fight wears on, Foreman wears down. His big, heavy punches are now small jabs. Foreman can barely move his feet he is so tired. That's when Ali makes his move. Ali knew what he was doing the whole time and so does Ron. After fighting the GOP, Gingrich and the evangelicals for four years, Romney is tired. But he keeps fighting because he has Wall Street in his corner. But than comes Ron with everything he's got. The bell for round 8 dings.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZIxV9KWgY

 

[spudea]

Romney had 90% of his skeletons aired out in the 2008 election. The real threat to Ron Paul has been the new candidates because the mass electorate of undecided voters who don't do their own research and due diligence only hear the media narrative and campaign talking points. Thus stealing votes from Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul had focused everything on romney from the beginning, sure people would leave romney, but you are incorrect to assume they would magically line up behind Ron Paul.

 

[aravoth]

I often feel a little frustrated at how much Mitt Romney is getting a free pass from the media and how weak the attacks on him by the Ron Paul campaign seem to be. Everyone knows Romney is a flip-flopper but his supporters excuse it, thinking he has changed, and that is his message to gullible voters on the fence. The Paul campaign needs to focus a laser-beam style attack on a few key points.

1. The Paul campaign should spend far more time showing that Romney's biggest financial donors are from the corrupt banks that got bailed out. Paul unfortunately hardly ever talks in detail about this issue and he seems to always stop short. He should not only name them (Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, etc) but should emphasize that they were secretly bailed out by $16trillion of money created out of thin air, loaned to them at nearly zero interest and they loaned it back to the Treasury at 3% and made a $13 billion profit. It is not enough to just say Goldman Sachs supports Romney, you have to precisely show that they are corrupt, got bailed out and finance both Obama and Romney. It should also be noted that they gave about $1million to Obama's campaign

2. There should be a huge emphasis that a vote for Romney is essentially the same as Obama. Paul needs to say clearly in interviews that voting for Romney on the basis that he will do a better job than Obama is FALSE. He MAY make some changes (eg tax code) but on the more critical issues like runaway federal spending (driven by the massive size of govt), the wars, auditing the Fed and the the national debt, he will not make any significant changes. Therefore, even if voters accept the premise that Romney is more electable or does better against Obama than any other GOP candidate, it is irrelevant because he is effectively the same as Obama and Bush.

3. Emphasis should be placed on the corruption in government in collusion with the corporations and Ron Paul is the only one that can clean it out. Romney cannot since he is financially backed by the big banking corporations.

4. More emphasis should be spent on the head-to-head matchup polls so that the myth that he is unelectable is debunked effectively.

I believe if these points are effectively communicated to the voters, they will eventually abandon Romney and Paul can win. The only way they can vote for Romney after hearing these arguments is if they become totally dishonest intellectually and most voters prefer honesty.

the campaign is doing everything correctly. Think about it for a minute.

No one left the race after NH. Huntsman, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich are too busy attacking the front runner hoping for a jump in the numbers. But no-one really wants to vote for them, they just don't want to vote for Romney. So they'll cut his support down by attacking him, and they'll all split the vote amoungst each other. Romney is on top, hence he has nowhere to go but down. But none of the other candidates have very much staying power, unlike ron paul, who can last until the end. One by one they will all drop off, until it's down to Romney and Paul. The difference between the two then, is that Romney by that time will be battered from all the attacks the other candidates laid on him, and Ron Paul will be seen as the only true conservative standing.

 

[dante]

There are many republican voters whose candidate rankings go something like this:
1. Not Romney, Not Ron Paul
2. Ron Paul
3. Mitt Romney

It's also highly unlikely that Ron Paul is the second choice of Romney supporters.

Hence the problem - if Paul attacks Romney and causes Romney to lose support - its very likely that Romney's lost support will go to Newt, Santorum, Perry, or Hunstman. As long as those candidates are still running their current base of support will not vote for Paul.

Paul's best chance for winning is the other candidates to drop out. Paul attacking Romney only delays the other candidates dropping out - thus making it harder for Paul to win.

At the same time there is a legitimate risk that Romney will be considered unbeatable before Paul can coalesce the anti-Romney vote. But what alternative path to victory is there? Paul has done a good job of mitigating that risk by organizing early and well in the upcoming caucus states. All the while Paul is slowly and steadily building support.

 

[RPit]

THE ONLY THING The campaign and RevPac needs to do is.

Make a AD that shows that he is in a statistical tie with Romney vs Obama. In fact we beat Obama with INDEPENDENT, Independents just overtook both parties to be the 40% of the electorate.

Everyone knows we are the only true conservative. The only reason they wouldn't vote for us is because they think we are unelectable which is obviously wrong. We get rid of that and we get that anti-Romney vote, instead of it going to Newt or Santorum.!!!!

This is the single most PRO-Paul and Anti-Romney ad (even without attacking him)- because as the voters showed people voted Romney because 62% thought he was electable. You challenge that narrative and you get all those people that compromised in voting for him because he's electable to vote for Ron Paul because they now see he IS Electable AND he is a Conservative unlike Romney!!!

This I STRESS- Is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT AD that can make us win South Carolina. The other ad would be on Social Security.

 

[Lethalmiko]

spudea, my line of reasoning rests on an attack that paints Romney as a corrupt person for taking most of his campaign money from the bankers. If that sticks to the point of people deserting Romney, why would they support any of the others to any significant degree since they are also equally corrupt? So there would be a logical and not magical lining up behind Paul since he is incorruptible.

aravoth, a split vote taken from Romney still favours Paul because he has more money and better organization. He would get a bigger chunk of it. You say "One by one they will all drop off, until it's down to Romney and Paul" and you assume this is necessarily good but as I argued, it is very bad because of all the wins Romney will have racked up by then which will render whatever support Paul has built up redundant. You also say "Romney by that time will be battered from all the attacks the other candidates laid on him" but I already argued this is false because the attacks from the others are not credible since they are just as bad as Romney. Romney will neutralize them by showing how much worse than him they are.

dante, your arguments can only be true if the other candidates get a lot of money and good organization which is unlikely to to happen. Santorum and Hunstman have had their 15 minutes of fame. Gingrich does not have strong organization so he will lose supporters as the other states get to voting day.

 

[Lethalmiko]

RPit, you are definitely onto something. You have made more concrete the idea I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion in which I said:

"More emphasis should be spent on the head-to-head matchup polls so that the myth that he is unelectable is debunked effectively."

 

[RPit]

RPit, you are definitely onto something. You have made more concrete the idea I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion in which I said:

"More emphasis should be spent on the head-to-head matchup polls so that the myth that he is unelectable is debunked effectively."

And something WAY more effective than an ad would be if the question came up in a debate and Ron just humiliates the media and lays a smackdown as he SHOULD. He needs to be aggressive on this subject. If he does this, its gameover for the media AND the candidates. Something like this would be remembed as debate history- THE MOMENT. And I would stress that if Ron is serious about winning he must do something to this affect.

Something like this:

""Why do you keep asking me if I'm electable or not? Have you seen the recent national polls head to head with Obama. I do almost equally as good against Obama as Romney. In fact there is no other Republican candidate that comes even close to Obama. Why don't you ask Newt, Santorum, or Perry if they are electable or not because in all of these national polls they do worst against Obama than I do. In fact Romney and I do almost equally good. I think what you and the media establishment are doing is not only disrespectful to me but also the American people who are trying to make a decision about the future of this country. The only reason you ask me, and no one else, this question is because the very act of asking me this question puts doubt in the people mind that perhaps I'm not 'elecatable'. The liberal news networks, as well as Fox has constantly told the people that I'm unelectable. Based on what? When all national polls with me vs Obama show that I'm as good against Obama as Romney. So the only reason people think I'm unelectable is because you have been lying to them all along. But the American people have seen through this, and they have come our way, knowing full well that I am the true conservative. And I definitely am electable as all the national polls show that I am. Perhaps you should ask this question to other candidates who are losing to Obama badly in national poll instead of me who is doing very good against Obama. In fact, I'm sure people don't know this because you and all the other media outlets never tell them this, but I beat Obama with Independents, no other candidate, even Romney, does that. And do you know Independents now represent 40% of the electorate, more than Republicans or Democrats? So I am the most electable since I do so well with Independents and even beat Obama with them. So I have to challenge the premise of your question and also ask you to start telling the American people the truth. THE ONLY ELECTABLE TRUE CONSERVATIVE IN THIS RACE IS ME!!!"

 

[Kaulana]

I often feel a little frustrated at how much Mitt Romney is getting a free pass from the media and how weak the attacks on him by the Ron Paul campaign seem to be. Everyone knows Romney is a flip-flopper but his supporters excuse it, thinking he has changed, and that is his message to gullible voters on the fence. The Paul campaign needs to focus a laser-beam style attack on a few key points.

1. The Paul campaign should spend far more time showing that Romney's biggest financial donors are from the corrupt banks that got bailed out. Paul unfortunately hardly ever talks in detail about this issue and he seems to always stop short. He should not only name them (Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, etc) but should emphasize that they were secretly bailed out by $16trillion of money created out of thin air, loaned to them at nearly zero interest and they loaned it back to the Treasury at 3% and made a $13 billion profit. It is not enough to just say Goldman Sachs supports Romney, you have to precisely show that they are corrupt, got bailed out and finance both Obama and Romney. It should also be noted that they gave about $1million to Obama's campaign

2. There should be a huge emphasis that a vote for Romney is essentially the same as Obama. Paul needs to say clearly in interviews that voting for Romney on the basis that he will do a better job than Obama is FALSE. He MAY make some changes (eg tax code) but on the more critical issues like runaway federal spending (driven by the massive size of govt), the wars, auditing the Fed and the the national debt, he will not make any significant changes. Therefore, even if voters accept the premise that Romney is more electable or does better against Obama than any other GOP candidate, it is irrelevant because he is effectively the same as Obama and Bush.

3. Emphasis should be placed on the corruption in government in collusion with the corporations and Ron Paul is the only one that can clean it out. Romney cannot since he is financially backed by the big banking corporations.

4. More emphasis should be spent on the head-to-head matchup polls so that the myth that he is unelectable is debunked effectively.

I believe if these points are effectively communicated to the voters, they will eventually abandon Romney and Paul can win. The only way they can vote for Romney after hearing these arguments is if they become totally dishonest intellectually and most voters prefer honesty.

I'm becoming more aware of the delicacy of public opinion as this election makes way. No doubt that timing is imperative. If the others attack Mitt, which they are and will continue to do, we don't have to pay for it. When it's time it's time but if we jump the gun I'm afraid it may be too difficult/expensive to counter his counter, esp since Mitt's money comes so easy to him.

 

[jersdream]

Look at Romney vs. Paul head to head in North Carolina. That tells us how asinine the one on one argument is.

 

[rich34]

In due time. Now is not the time. Let the other candidates attack him and force Romney to retaliate using up his resources. When the other candidates drop out we might just have enough money to compete with Romney head to head or at least given our grassroots support we may be on a level playing field. We have to win some of those caucus states and it would be nice to win something early to go ahead and get the "he can't win" meme out of the way. I do think that thought process is changing just based on the results so far, but a win would do wonders right now.

 

[spudea]

Ok this is my last try because you are just going in circles...

The only way Ron Paul positions himself as the only true conservative in the race is by exposing the other candidates. Remember Bachmann, Cain, Perry, and Gingrich calling themselves conservatives and the media happily going along with it too! He had to cannabalize the weaker candidates. You really expect RP to be able to make a dent in romney with romney's significantly larger fundraising and super pacs?

If Ron Paul had focused on Romney, he wouldn't have the coalition that he has now. And we wouldn't of finished top tier in Iowa and NH. It would of been 07-08 all over again...

 

[Lethalmiko]

Look at Romney vs. Paul head to head in North Carolina. That tells us how asinine the one on one argument is.

jersdream, I was referring to Obama versus Paul when I mentioned head-to-head matchups. Does anyone even poll head-to-head matchups between two candidates in the same party while the field is still crowded?

 

[spudea]

Look at Romney vs. Paul head to head in North Carolina. That tells us how asinine the one on one argument is.

The NC primary is MAY 8th. Any poll 4 months out is irrelevant. Get your head out of your ass. Plenty of time to winnow the field and then unload on romney.

Super Tuesday is March 6th. February will be destroy romney month, trust me.

 

[dude58677]

Mini-Me, you have made some very valid observations. However:

1. Attacks on Romney from the others are not as effective as from RP because they are also tainted. For example, Gingrich and Santorum cannot attack Romney on the corrupting money he is getting from Goldman Sachs because they have also accepted lobbyist money before. Their attacks will thus have little effect since they have already been discredited and as you may know, the only thing they have on Romney is the Bain Capital issue. But imagine a TV ad from Mr Squeaky Clean attacking Romney over his links to corrupt banks. It would be more devastating than the "Serial Hypocrisy" advert that started the sharp decline of Gingrich and the media would not be able to stop it and they would be forced to discuss it just as they discussed the other one. I don't agree that their strategy is to drown out Paul using minor candidates. I think they just want to bury him, regardless of who else is there.

2. Everyone forgives a former candidate who officially endorses their preferred candidate since they figure he brings his supporters to the fold and any previous bitterness is soon forgotten.

3. Romney not going after Paul actually sends a message to everyone that he thinks RP is insignificant. Hitting him and forcing him to respond changes that narrative instantly.

4. Another important point you overlook is that when you engage Romney directly, it gives Paul some free publicity since the media is covering Romney so much. If an ad similar to "Serial Hypocrisy" is aired, it will be factual and Romney will be forced to state his positions more clearly which will expose him. He will alse be forced to address his cosy relationship with the bankers and create an ongoing narrative against him that he won't be able to contain.

5. A unified attack between Romney and the media will be blunted because if people are now seeing him as corrupt, they will not trust what he says.

6. There cannot be a Gingrich resurgence because he has already been discredited and he has no money.

7. I doubt that RP can win without actively poaching Romney voters and those leaning towards him (Romney).

8. Election history says that the guy who takes off with several victories in the early states ends up winning because he looks more unstoppable with each win.

This!

 

[opinionatedfool]

I agree with the comments others have made about the campaign attacking Romney. I think we can make some attacks to keep his numbers down, but the campaign is doing exactly what's in there strategy.

Let Newt hammer Romney for awhile. He has it out for him and is going to dump millions into attacking him in SC. That should knock Romney down a few points. We may actually have to worry about Newt/Santorum doing to well there in comparison to Romney. If they keep doing well it's not good for us.

 

[Lethalmiko]

I am yet to hear a rational argument against my points. It seems people are just repeating the same arguments I have already refuted. Some supporters think it is impossible for the Paul campaign to make any mistakes so they make weak points about how the campaign has great people, as if no candidate with professional people has ever lost. This kind of complacency is dangerous and can cause people to make less effort when the future of the nation is at stake.

 

[Mini-Me]

I agree that nobody can attack Romney from the same place Paul can, and I agree that the attack needs to come soon. It also needs to be preemptive, so counterattacks from Romney are coming from a much weaker position.

However, I think the mistake you make is completely discounting a [perceived] Gingrich resurgence: South Carolina and especially Florida (check out this awful poll) are states where we are extremely vulnerable, and Gingrich (and the others) are practically committing suicide there. They're posturing as "real conservatives" and treating the state like their final stand, and Gingrich at least is likely to do MUCH better than he did in Iowa and New Hampshire, relative to us. If he places above Paul in South Carolina, it doesn't really matter if he's broke; the media will be able to pretend to have a "real" non-Paul contender for second place, and ordinary people will fall back into, "Maybe he's a fringe candidate after all" routine. We HAVE to control the narrative, and I still see completely marginalizing and eliminating Gingrich as a top priority. If we don't, I think we'll quickly lose momentum.

Look at how much the current strategy is making Bill Kristol freak out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?349750-Bill-Kristol-is-losing-his-mind-on-Fox-News
He's pleading to keep the other candidates in the race as long as possible, and I don't think it's just an act, either. He knows that actual support for Romney is weak, and he knows that we're gaining control of the narrative with the calls for other candidates to drop out and support Ron as a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. The message is SO bold that even the media can't help themselves from relaying it to viewers, and I think it's reshaping the way ordinary Americans are viewing this race. Attacking Romney will obviously further this message...but if Newt Gingrich comes out ahead of us, we just screwed ourselves.

For these reasons, I have to continue siding with the campaign's strategy. I do think they'll attack Romney soon; they seem to be gearing up for it...but I suspect they're trying to get rid of Gingrich first, like I'm suggesting. They may choose to attack Romney earlier than expected if Gingrich looks like he will falter in SC, and that would be a win all around if things go to plan. In the end though, our armchair campaign management means very little: The campaign has their mind set on this strategy one way or another. We (the grassroots) can act separately, but RevPAC is putting out positive ads so far, and we don't have another well-funded vehicle for TV ads.

Note that I do not have blind faith in the campaign on the basis of an argument from authority: They played things HORRIBLY in 2008, after all. However, I do believe the current strategy is working.

 

[Lethalmiko]

Mini-Me,

You have made very good points and I agree that killing off Newt is also important. Perhaps I am just not too sure that it needs concerted efforts. I tend not to have too much faith in opinion polls taken weeks in advance. Statistics show that polls taken within 3 days of an election are far more accurate so I would not worry too much with the current standings in SC as there is time to reverse them (RP has more solid support and organization than NG). The results in both IA and NH have already proved this point in that neither Romney nor Santorum were widely expected to win IA even two weeks before the caucus. Nate Silver's forecast for SC is already showing RP gaining on Romney who has been slowly but steadily declining. A hard punch right now would hasten his fall and expose his weaknesses, raising doubts in voters minds in future contests.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I feel that the Paul campaign messed up in IA where it should have been a clear win. They let Romney/Santorum overtake Paul. Contrary to what people believe, Santorum only got ahead because he was the last man standing and he was not properly vetted and attacked in time by the Paul campaign, even when the polls started to show a clear shift towards him.

I hope the campaign strategy works in the end but I am very skeptical at the moment and worried about Romney looking ever more inevitable with each win. Many pundits have already crowned Romney the winner.