nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
Maybe it should be "one of the" instead just "the."
The Greatest Mistake the Campaign Made
- Thread starter nate895
- Start date
Maybe it should be "one of the" instead just "the."
Sorry, would you mind rephrasing this?
You were torn between not hiring someone who knows delegates process or not having a effective spokesperson for the campaign... is that what you tried to said?
Also, what do you mean by "reads crosstabs on polls, runs a GOTV operation" (GOTV=Get out to vote?). This is probably before I was registered, hence my ignorance.
JaylieWoW
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 806
Ok based on the insane things I've seen people say and do in person and on YouTubes on the internet.... I'd be willing to bet that much of the anti-war vote are anti-war in that they don't mind fighting wars, in fact they probably like them. Rather, they think McCain is some superhero war vet who will fight the wars better and thus end them quickly while still satiating their desires to kill whatever-monster-it-is-in-the-world at present time.
Does not surprise me at all that "anti-war" people voted for McCain. There is someone where I work that supports McCain that is against the war (and also ex-military).
Does not surprise me at all that "anti-war" people voted for McCain. There is someone where I work that supports McCain that is against the war (and also ex-military).
N13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,193
I would never suggest the Ron Paul deceive anyone. That was not my point at all.
I think my appoach would be to tell the voters about algebra and save calculus for later. Explain Foreign policy in economic terms rather than with psychological motivational explanations.
Providing answers that can be received by a majority of the listeners in a favorable way instead of making the same argument in a complicated manner that alienates the listener.
Ron Paul is free to choose any aqpproach to the election. Being a smart man with a vision for the future he chose his route, and it has paid off quite well in some ways. Unfortunately, it was not the best way to win the nomination.
A pragmatic approach does not necessarily mean pandering to the voters or deceiving the voters or lying to the voters. It could simply mean telling the truth and doing it in a way that is received by the voters in favorable light. There is no obligation to lay out all of the details, or the complexity of monetary policy, or foreign policy either.
Keep it simple. Keep it true. Keep it real. Keep their attention. Get more votes.
The message only appeals to about 5% of the population and there is a reason for that. This is a great base of support, but its not enough to win. Fortunately, we can learn from this and forward our goals with better efficiency in the future.
I think a Major mistake was them thinking every voter is "internet savy" because of there strong support online. Ron Pauls Handlers needed to understand that they needed to try extra hard to get those voters that arn't into the whole "youtube" thing and "internet research" its Sad but alot of voters dont have the passion for politics like the "internet crowd" does and should have really focused on building the bridge to link these two huge groups togather to form unity for Ron Paul . Oh and I think he should of kept his issues short and simple when explaining stuff to the voters and Should of refused to be bullied by the msm debates and so forth..
Bro.Butch
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Ditto +
The best grassroots movement in my lifetime squandered by inept top staffers completely out of their league and a candidate concerned more about his house seat than running to win. Hence staying in D.C. to vote instead of holding 100 town hall meetings across NH. This was a weak field to run against and the shame of it all is the money was there to win NH if used correctly.
They ask for $12 million to win, they got 20 and blowed it ! Moore and Synder should have never been hired, but at the least should have been fired the day after NH voted. Instead they are now sitting on over $5 millions in donations in which they will take out about $250, 000 for themselves in salary and expenses this year.
As long as I draw breath I will always remember those two in infamy, because they truly squandered a movement that could have changed the world in '09 and beyond for all of us. Sadly, it's not to be...
When this campaign began Ron Paul with property and savings etc. was worth 1.5 -to- $3 million (official F.E.C. documents). (Under official F.E.C. rules) At the time Ron decides this campaign is over, all campaign funds can be transferred into his congressional campaign fund. Upon defeat or retirement he can keep all excess funds for personal use. AH LA, Dr. Paul as of today has over doubled his personal net worth, thanks to all of you. And some of you have wondered why the campaign has stopped spending very much on campaigning !-lol
I submit everyone request that the campaign start back campaigning and use the donations for what they were sent in to do, SPREAD the MESSAGE to the people !!! There is about two weeks left to convience Dr. Paul to accept the CP nomination and take this campaign to the general Nov.4 and deny the socialist winner any claimed mandate. Alan Keyes may take it, if Ron won't step up and easily take it !!! We all know Keyes won't accomplish anything with it but a paycheck for being a professional (LOSING) candidate yet again. Call and request Ron to start back campaigning and/or accept their nomination !!!
(202) 225-2831
VoteForRonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,052
Keep the good work man! It seems that we have created dictators with our hands and now I cannot resist the feeling of questioning their loyalty to us and to Ron Paul. So let us keep pushing!
Bradley in DC
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 12,279
The number you gave is for the Congressional office which has nothing to do with any campaigns. Do NOT call that number about campaign related issues.
I know that you didn't intend to suggest anything like that. I was more of arguing that the message couldn't be dumbed down without passing the threshold of doublespeak.
Let's take abolishing the Federal Reserve as an example:
"As a POTUS, I will advocate for a strong dollar and a sound monetary policy."
This is true, but absolutely not descriptive; I'd imagine all other candidates would say the same thing and yet have something entirely different in their mind. It's also inevitable that someone will ask "How?"
Once that question has been asked, Ron Paul has to answer "by abolishing Federal Reserve and returning to a gold standard." We both agree that this is quite scary to an average voter and they may have wrong idea, thinking he's suggesting that we literally go back a thousand years back to when we were toting among pounds of metal in our pouch to market. Ron Paul could probably say something more like:
"by overhauling the Reserve, and require that dollars be fully backed other than promises."
But this puts us in the territory of waffling which can get us in more trouble, especially when we consider how biased MSM. This will just put Ron on defensive and inevitably someone will why wasn't he forthright with how he intended to approach this?
So, that's why I think that simplifying the message isn't really possible- he is *already* being simple as possible, and you have to admit that an average voter knows far more about what he *will* do than other candidates who babbles and blather on while saying nothing of substance. But I do agree with you fully that his stances does scare off the voters. It's an unfortunate conditioning we'll have to overcome, I'm afraid.
Soccrmastr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,208
One radio interview is the BIGGEST mistake? You need tor e-evaluate the whole campaign before you start making stupid conclusions like this.
liberteebell
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,415
I think RP could have done a MUCH better job with the message, not necessarily dumbing it down but doing a better job explaining, for example, HOW the fed and inflation are causing harm to the middle class and how his policy would change all that and literally put money in our pockets. He came off sounding totally negative; he sounded critical but without answers that the average public school educated person could understand. He might have done well with charts and graphs ala Ross Perot.
Same with foreign policy----he could have turned the tide had he couched his foreign policy like Reagen did, "Peace through Strength" or some such.
I understand Ron Paul's positions very well and I am aware that he does not come across well using bumper sticker slogans. But the public's attention span is that of a gnat. Had I been his advisor, I'd have dumbed about three major positions down into slogans that had lots of positive, rah, rah USofA feel-good stuff in them that enticed people to look further. And I would have gotten him a speech coach and speech writer to practice positive rhetoric and excellent come-backs to the inevitible questions he got. Even though he did hit several home-runs, he could have had a library of quips that would have done the opponents in.
nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
I am sure he is going to use a ton of that money putting delegates on the ballot. In my state, it costs around $300 to elect someone all the way through, and thery specifically ask us to not pay it and wait for them.
SteveMartin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,184
Not running a real campaign, and thinking we'd all be too dumb to notice.
nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
If we ran a real campaign, no one give a shit what the greatest mistake because we'd have won anyway. I don't hear people in McCain's camp going "greatest mistake the campaign made."
SteveMartin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,184
Ditto that, Nate.
freedom1787
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 52
4 Words - Public Education / Idiotic Masses
nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
My second ditto, yeah.
First, saying that Ron Paul could've gotten 25 extra percentage points simply by interviewing on some nightly talk show is absurd. Am I the only Ron Paul supporter not completely ignorant of politics?
Second, if you've ever listened to Michael Savage, you might begin to understand why Ron Paul didn't go on his show. He wouldn't have gotten any support from that audience anyway.
Second, if you've ever listened to Michael Savage, you might begin to understand why Ron Paul didn't go on his show. He wouldn't have gotten any support from that audience anyway.
SeanEdwards
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,407
Dodging the Michael Savage show may have been a mistake.
But I don't think that is anywhere near the worst mistake the campaign made. In my opinion the worst mistake they made was in not realizing from the beginning the potential depth of their support and as a consequence not running a serious campaign from day 1.
Paul himself stated that he never expected to do as well as he did with this campaign. He entered the race as a way to educate more people about his political philosophy and to raise the issue of returning to a constitutionally limited government with the voters; he did not enter the race with the goal of becoming president.
The campaign had no idea that they could raise millions of dollars in 24 hours via the internet with no investment of their own. Subsequently, they never planned how to effectively use millions of dollars in order to win votes. Then, when they got those millions of dollars they were unable to effectively convert that economic power into political power.
This campaign's biggest mistake was that they didn't think big.
But I don't think that is anywhere near the worst mistake the campaign made. In my opinion the worst mistake they made was in not realizing from the beginning the potential depth of their support and as a consequence not running a serious campaign from day 1.
Paul himself stated that he never expected to do as well as he did with this campaign. He entered the race as a way to educate more people about his political philosophy and to raise the issue of returning to a constitutionally limited government with the voters; he did not enter the race with the goal of becoming president.
The campaign had no idea that they could raise millions of dollars in 24 hours via the internet with no investment of their own. Subsequently, they never planned how to effectively use millions of dollars in order to win votes. Then, when they got those millions of dollars they were unable to effectively convert that economic power into political power.
This campaign's biggest mistake was that they didn't think big.
