The Federalist says Libertarians are Blowing Opportunity of a Century

[angelatc]

Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

Just saying that the Libertarians don't agree on much across the board, but gun rights is a big exception to that. I don't think I've ever encountered a Libertarian that wanted restrictions on handguns. And yet here we are.

 

[SilentBull]

Perhaps if Rand is as myopic and tone-deaf as you are, he can halve the liberty movement and get embarrassed yet again in 2020.

Sure, go ahead and ignore the basics of marketing. I'm sure you know better how to get people elected. I'm sure you have helped elect many candidates, as smart as you are.

Feel free to ignore my post and my book recommendation, as it was meant for people interested in educating themselves.

 

[oyarde]

Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

More like Lyndon Johnson

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Sure, go ahead and ignore the basics of marketing. I'm sure you know better how to get people elected. I'm sure you have helped elect many candidates, as smart as you are.

Feel free to ignore my post and my book recommendation, as it was meant for people interested in educating themselves.

I will certainly ignore you, and your terrible-beyond-belief advice regarding political strategy for the liberty movement. Regardless of your excuse-making, we saw the fruits of your ideas in 2016. The fact that you want to double-down on them even after they have failed abysmally shows that you are boneheaded, not wise.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy [...]

Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?

It's this balancing act [...] that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.

Does this book you're talking about recommend the strategy of referring to the people you're trying to persuade as being "too stupid" to realize something?

 

[SilentBull]

I will certainly ignore you, and your terrible-beyond-belief advice regarding political strategy for the liberty movement. Regardless of your excuse-making, we saw the fruits of your ideas in 2016. The fact that you want to double-down on them even after they have failed abysmally shows that you are boneheaded, not wise.

And yet you completely ignore the reasons I stated as to why they failed; Trump, and idiot libertarians too stupid to see what he was trying to do, who refused to donate money to allow him to get his message out. Carry on. I look forward to your candidacy so you can teach Rand Paul how to get elected.

 

[69360]

I think the LP is doing just fine. Better than ever actually. It's silly to think they would make the jump from 1% to potus in one cycle. Polling double digits is good. They are probably going to hit 5% of the vote and get matching funds for next time. Maybe they run with some real funding next time around and they get to 15% and get in the debates.

 

[SilentBull]

Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?

Because the "innovators" and "early adopters" are always a very small segment in any market. There just aren't enough of them. The early and late majority account for something like 66% of the market.

The hardest part is switching your focus to go after that majority, while keeping your early customers happy, which was obviously the problem with Rand. If libertarians realized that he was doing this and would have donated the way they donated to Ron, he would have had a much better shot. He may still have lost because Trump, with the media's help, messed things up for everyone, including Jeb who was the favorite and also had an establishment strategy.

The early majority, also called "pragmatists", are scared away by big changes. They don't like anything too disruptive and are looking for incremental improvements only. They look for things that can neatly fit into their already established routines. Innovators and early adopters are the ones looking for revolution. To sell to the early majority and late majority, you have to package your message a certain way.

 

[fisharmor]

Silentbull, I've heard all that marketing crap before at dying churches. It was the exact same scenario, too. They got far enough off message to drive everyone away, some true believers stuck around trying to convince everyone that staying on message was the point and without a point there's no reason to stay, the leaders called them naysayers and fools and that they didn't understand how to run things, and it all spiraled down a leftist toilet bowl, in exactly the same way the OP article pointed out.

The only real way to get them back is to keep your bull a lot more silent and allow some ideological purity back in. That is what attracts independent voters. Truth. Not marketing strategy bullshit.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy [...]

Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?

Because the "innovators" and "early adopters" are always a very small segment in any market. There just aren't enough of them. The early and late majority account for something like 66% of the market.

The hardest part is switching your focus to go after that majority, while keeping your early customers happy, which was obviously the problem with Rand. If libertarians realized that he was doing this and would have donated the way they donated to Ron, he would have had a much better shot. He may still have lost because Trump, with the media's help, messed things up for everyone, including Jeb who was the favorite and also had an establishment strategy.

The early majority, also called "pragmatists", are scared away by big changes. They don't like anything too disruptive and are looking for incremental improvements only. They look for things that can neatly fit into their already established routines. Innovators and early adopters are the ones looking for revolution. To sell to the early majority and late majority, you have to package your message a certain way.

With due respect, that all sounds rather pat and glib - and in any case, it doesn't answer the question I asked: what reason is there to think that the number of people Ron Paul reached was the maximum number that could have been reached? I have no doubt that there was indeed some (at least theoretical) "maximum" to the support Ron Paul might have achieved at any given point in time - but I am quite skeptical that he ever actually achieved it (or even came close to doing so, for that matter).

For one thing, such maxima are relative and not absolute; by their nature, they change with time and circumstances. For instance, Ron got more votes in '12 than he did in '08. How, then, can one say with any confidence that he would not have gotten even more in '16, had he run again? And if one cannot say this with confidence, then how can one say with confidence that he had "reached the maximum number of people that could be reached" (except by counterfactually asserting that he could not have gotten more than he actually did - which is the very claim at issue)?

For another thing, Ron was not a particularly good orator or expositor. Had he the speaking skill and eloquence of, say, a Harry Browne, I do not see how anyone could contend ceteris paribus that he could not have gotten more support than he did. And then, of course, there all the other contingent factors which subdued the support he actually received, as distinct from how much he otherwise might have achieved. The all-too-well-known shenanigans of the media are one example of such factors. Another example is the performance of the official campaign (let's be charitable and call that performance "somewhat less than vigorous") on a variety of accounts, such as the missed opportunity in Virginia, where only Ron and Romney were on the primary ballot in '12. Any of a number of other such factors could be identified.

The upshot of all this is that I simply do not know what Ron's "maximum" was, let alone whether he actually "reached" it or not - and neither do you. Nor does anyone else. Thus, I see no warrant for declarations that Ron Paul achieved "maximum reach" and that he took things as far as they can go "with that strategy" ...

 

[SilentBull]

Silentbull, I've heard all that marketing crap before at dying churches. It was the exact same scenario, too. They got far enough off message to drive everyone away, some true believers stuck around trying to convince everyone that staying on message was the point and without a point there's no reason to stay, the leaders called them naysayers and fools and that they didn't understand how to run things, and it all spiraled down a leftist toilet bowl, in exactly the same way the OP article pointed out.

The only real way to get them back is to keep your bull a lot more silent and allow some ideological purity back in. That is what attracts independent voters. Truth. Not marketing strategy bull$#@!.

Wow, I guess there is really no hope for the liberty movement. I come into this thread and recommend one of the best written books on marketing of all time, and this is the response I get from the "experts" that have never gotten anyone elected and probably have never had any experience actually marketing anything. Cool. You think you can win without understanding your customers, and you think you can win by attracting only a small minority. "Marketing is bullshit." Got it. Good luck to you.

 

[Anti Federalist]

GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

This.

 

[Danke]

This.

That.

 

[Occam's Banana]

That.

The other thing.

 

[Danke]

The other thing.

I know what you are up to, and I'm not falling for it.

-rep

 

[Natural Citizen]

Heh. That was funny.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I guess there are two "Stupid Parties" now.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I know what you are up to, and I'm not falling for it.

-rep

Too late. You already did.

±rep

 

[Origanalist]

Too late. You already did.

±rep

たわごと rep

 

[jmdrake]

Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?

Yeah. I noticed that too. The author of the OP is full of crap. Interestingly enough Ron Paul was "terrible" for suggesting our foreign policy caused 9/11 but Donald Trump is alright for saying Bush could have prevented 9/11 but didn't. Hmmmm.....maybe Ron should have gone more to the conspiracy theory side of things after all.