The Greatest Mistake the Campaign Made

[nate895]

I believe is that, even though radio talk show host Michael Savage had an open invitation for all GOP contenders to go on air with him, Ron Paul didn't. If Ron Paul would have went on the night before the Iowa caucuses, he could have won. That broadcast has has apx. 10 million listeners on a weekly basis. considering that 40K votes won the Iowa Caucuses, reaching out to a mere 31K more voters would have led to a victory, albeit narrow, over Huckabee. Not to mention the fact that if we were able to convince a quarter of his audience, just that night, we would have at least 2.5M nation wide voters, then incorporate Iowa momentum, and you got yourself a nominee in waiting. His audience already believes the Iraq war to be a strategic error, the gold standard should be applied, and many other issues, you need only make that last leap and they are entirely in that boat. I think a half an hour of Ron Paul on Michael Savage at a strategic time might have been a guarantee of nomination.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

He would not have won the Iowa Caucus if he went on that radio show. Maybe .5 percent more.

Edit: The campaign's biggest mistake was that McCain got 44% of the anti-war vote in NH. I'm not sure what should have been done, but that should have NEVER happened

 

[nate895]

He would not have won the Iowa Caucus if he went on that radio show. Maybe .5 percent more.

Who is to say? It has many people who agree on most issues, minus the Patriot Act and other Constitutional legislation. They already believe that a NWO is out there, you need merely convince them the Patriot Act is helping them. Michael Savage had also had his personal mail insulted in the months beforehand, you may have been able to convince that the government itself was involved.

 

[nate895]

Edit: The campaign's biggest mistake was that McCain got 44% of the anti-war vote in NH. I'm not sure what should have been done, but that should have NEVER happened

That was 35% of the vote, it could have changed a lot if we got a really high percentage of it, but that isn't a mistake, it is a symptom of many small mistakes.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

Who is to say? It has many people who agree on most issues, minus the Patriot Act and other Constitutional legislation. They already believe that a NWO is out there, you need merely convince them the Patriot Act is helping them. Michael Savage had also had his personal mail insulted in the months beforehand, you may have been able to convince that the government itself was involved.

We got 11000 votes in Iowa. You say we needed a mere?? 29000 more votes to win Iowa. So let me see if I get this straight, one radio show, the night before the caucus, was going to increase Ron's votes by 300%?

 

[slacker921]

Edit: The campaign's biggest mistake was that McCain got 44% of the anti-war vote in NH. I'm not sure what should have been done, but that should have NEVER happened

Who's to say it did.. have you seen the boxes the paper ballots were transported and stored in? There's no way you can say with 100% certainty that the vote in NH was accurate and no way to ever prove it one way or the other.. it does, however, boggle the mind that anyone who is against the Iraq war would ever vote for McCain.

That said.. I agree.. the anti-war vote in NH should have gone to Paul but whatever needed to happen didn't.

 

[nate895]

We got 11000 votes in Iowa. You say we needed a mere?? 29000 more votes to win Iowa. So let me see if I get this straight, one radio show, the night before the caucus, was going to increase Ron's votes by 300%.

Who knows? Most of those voters had only seen the vilified image of Ron Paul as an isolationist who believed in disbanding the military and other such nonsense, introduce them to these ideas and you could have people switching who they vote for or showing up and voting for him even though they didn't plan to show up.

 

[Banana]

Wow!

I never thought armchair quarterbacking could be *that* easy!

 

[N13]

IMO the big mistake was the blowback argument. Pragmatically speaking it should have been known or predicted in advance that the reaction to anyone taking that view would be highly negative by Republican voters. It should have been anticipated that this entailed that the US was at fault, guilty, and mistaken by a majority of voters and those in the media. This approach to foreign policy was a loser.

I'm not saying that the argument was not true. I'm saying that a better, more manageable, more Republican, and voter friendly stance should have been in economic terms. People understand this and will support you if you are saving them money, saving the lives of the troops, making our defences stronger, and being a fiscal conservative trying to lower taxes.

Second, but not as bad was the abandon the Federal Reserve and constant monetary theory discussion. People generally do not understand that kind of thing. Talking about bandoning the Fed and the department of education makes people scared because they do not know what it means. Voters are not secure and comfy with that message. Uncertainty leads to no vote for you. This kind of thing should be taked about after you win the election. Prior to this a candidate needs to keep it simple.

We are beter off when the dollar is strong. I will do that by working closely with the treasury dept. and the Fed. That's it, nothing scary there.

I want to strengthen education in this country and I'll begin with the dept. of education.


Keep it simple. I love Ron Paul, but parts of his message were complicated and it hurt him with the average voter. He tried too hard.

Just look at the simpleton who is probably going to win the nomination. McCain says things like "I don't know much about economics." This is the number one issue with voters and the guy who knows nothing gets the votes?

 

[No1ButPaul08]

Who knows? Most of those voters had only seen the vilified image of Ron Paul as an isolationist who believed in disbanding the military and other such nonsense, introduce them to these ideas and you could have people switching who they vote for or showing up and voting for him even though they didn't plan to show up.

I doubt 29000 people in Iowa were evening listening to the show. I do know, he was not going to get 29000 more votes by appearing on one radio show. To say otherwise is just foolish.

The campaign made a ton of mistakes, and not appearing on the Savage show was probably one of them, but it certainly didn't cost us Iowa.

 

[nate895]

I doubt 29000 people in Iowa were evening listening to the show. I do know, he was not going to get 29000 more votes by appearing on one radio show. To say otherwise is just foolish.

The campaign made a ton of mistakes, and not appearing on the Savage show was probably one of them, but it certainly didn't cost us Iowa.

Like I said, 10 million listen to the show on a regular basis, which means, if each state contributes the same percentage of listeners, there are 100,000 regular listeners in Iowa, meaning you'd need to convince 31% of them. That is possible if you frame your argument to fit their mindset.

 

[soapmistress]

I think Savage's islamofascist rants would have led into him calling RP a traitor just like all the war protesters that he wanted tried for acts of sedition. And if you disagree with him you won't get a word in edgewise.

I think RP is a gentleman, and I think a Savage appearance would have been a highly hostile interview.

For all of his talk talk talk about borders, language and culture, he's awfully lax about ideas of constitutional legality and civil rights. Homeless people for instance... have you heard him talk about homeless people yet? He says they should all be rounded up off the streets and put into one of three places that they all belong: jail, mental institutions or drug rehabs. He consistently derides the lawyers who defend civil liberties. I used to like him and I listened to him over the last 5-10 years quite a bit. But he is very intolerant and my-way-or-the-highway about a lot of things just because they bug him, not because it is inherently humane or righteous.

 

[nate895]

IMO the big mistake was the blowback argument. Pragmatically speaking it should have been known or predicted in advance that the reaction to anyone taking that view would be highly negative by Republican voters. It should have been anticipated that this entailed that the US was at fault, guilty, and mistaken by a majority of voters and those in the media. This approach to foreign policy was a loser.

I'm not saying that the argument was not true. I'm saying that a better, more manageable, more Republican, and voter friendly stance should have been in economic terms. People understand this and will support you if you are saving them money, saving the lives of the troops, making our defences stronger, and being a fiscal conservative trying to lower taxes.

Second, but not as bad was the abandon the Federal Reserve and constant monetary theory discussion. People generally do not understand that kind of thing. Talking about bandoning the Fed and the department of education makes people scared because they do not know what it means. Voters are not secure and comfy with that message. Uncertainty leads to no vote for you. This kind of thing should be taked about after you win the election. Prior to this a candidate needs to keep it simple.

We are beter off when the dollar is strong. I will do that by working closely with the treasury dept. and the Fed. That's it, nothing scary there.

I want to strengthen education in this country and I'll begin with the dept. of education.


Keep it simple. I love Ron Paul, but parts of his message were complicated and it hurt him with the average voter. He tried too hard.

Just look at the simpleton who is probably going to win the nomination. McCain says things like "I don't know much about economics." This is the number one issue with voters and the guy who knows nothing gets the votes?

No, he just introduced it the wrong way. You need to slowly get the voter to accept other views, and then that leap to believing in blow back is not that far off.

 

[nate895]

I think Savage's islamofascist rants would have led into him calling RP a traitor just like all the war protesters that he wanted tried for acts of sedition. And if you disagree with him you won't get a word in edgewise.

I think RP is a gentleman, and I think a Savage appearance would have been a highly hostile interview.

For all of his talk talk talk about borders, language and culture, he's awfully lax about ideas of constitutional legality and civil rights. Homeless people for instance... have you heard him talk about homeless people yet? He says they should all be rounded up off the streets and put into one of three places that they all belong: jail, mental institutions or drug rehabs. He consistently derides the lawyers who defend civil liberties. I used to like him and I listened to him over the last 5-10 years quite a bit. But he is very intolerant and my-way-or-the-highway about a lot of things just because they bug him, not because it is inherently humane or righteous.

Exactly why you need to frame the argument to fit what he already thinks in the other areas. That is the problem, we could have won , but the campaign just took a position on an issue in public and expected them to visit the website and read, a fundamental flaw. You need to tell the voter using things they already agree with you on that you are right.

 

[ultimaonliner]

Wow!

I never thought armchair quarterbacking could be *that* easy!

ROFL!

 

[N13]

No, he just introduced it the wrong way. You need to slowly get the voter to accept other views, and then that leap to believing in blow back is not that far off.

The good side of what Ron Paul did was to educate an army of highly informed activists. This will change the future of this country.


Introducing the ideas the wrong way is what I said, so we agree on that.

Getting the voter to accept other views was the mistake. You want their votes. After you are elected, you can work on that part. Its a pragmatic position. That is what was needed, not an overload of complicated/ emotional information. The winning route was the path of least resistance.

The Ghoul exhibited the classic response to blowback. Why spit in the fan when you can easily walk around it and pull out the plug?

Why say things like eliminate the dept. of education when you know that a majority of voters receive that as wanting to destroy education in the US?

 

[Joseph Hart]

What matters is now

 

[Broadlighter]

Oy Gestalt!

Michael Savage would have had Ron Paul on the show for as long he could tolerate him or vice versa. He would have treated him like any other guest - cordial, polite, but not in a way that lets the guest explain himself. Savage would play nice to make himself look like the good guy next to his kooky guest. Once Paul was gone from the mike, Savage would go "Attila the Tongue" on Ron Paul's platform where he disagrees. Then he'd go "Attila the Tongue" on anyone calling in who shows support for Ron Paul.

The net result may have actually been a drop in voters, but not a big drop.

Michael Savage aligns himself to no one and I think he's actually a liberal doing his part to dumb down his conservative listeners.

 

[Banana]

Getting the voter to accept other views was the mistake. You want their votes. After you are elected, you can work on that part. Its a pragmatic position. That is what was needed, not an overload of complicated/ emotional information. The winning route was the path of least resistance.

The Ghoul exhibited the classic response to blowback. Why spit in the fan when you can easily walk around it and pull out the plug?

Why say things like eliminate the dept. of education when you know that a majority of voters receive that as wanting to destroy education in the US?

FWIW, I really don't think Ron Paul would want to deceive (whether deliberately or inadvertently) voters by saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing something else in White House. He had to be frank with what he would want to do as a POTUS, and in spirit of true republic, win the endorsement of voters instead of pandering to voters.

I think this illustrates the campaigning in general well:

Now, Ron Paul could have done the same thing, but in end he'd be just like other candidates, and people will be very angry with him when he takes back the "favors" once elected and will undo everything he wants to do. Right now he's that lady on left.

I think he understand that to make long-lasting change to the system, he has to convince everyone to agree with this view, so that would be why he refuse to dumb down the message.

This is pure speculation by your truly, though. My armchair is quite big and comfy, you know?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Not hiring ANYONE who understands the delegate process, can read crosstabs on polls, run a Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operation or explain how Dr. Paul's ideas would work and why American and the world would be better off if he were elected.