The two biggest issues that need to be fixed for us to win

[matt0611]

We've known this for quite some time.

1. Electability. It is clear that the voters is South Carolina did not believe Ron could beat Obama to win the general. The head to head polls show otherwise. Only Ron and Mitt can beat Obama in the general, why don't voters know this? Why are there no ads that give this information to the voters? This needs to be fixed.

2. Foreign policy. It comes up debate after debate. When are we going to see an ad that explains Ron's foreign policy that is acceptable to the average republican voter?

What can we do to get the campaign to address these issues? If we don't fix these issues I don't see how we can win.
The campaign has done a great job so far but IMO has dropped the ball on these two issues.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I think the lack of funds limited the campaign's aggressiveness in SC. Not to mention the military mindset having trouble with the less military philosophy. Also, Ron Paul's message is very progressive and states like SC are one of the last places in the US to catch up with other states that are more capable of embracing this sort of change. Another factor is that the population of the state ranks extremely high in the elderly category. Which is why Florida is another state to be concerned about.

I'll be glad when we get to Nevada.

 

[Butchie]

I haven't donated in the last two moneybombs and I refuse to give them one more cent until they address the FP issue, that is what I hear more than anything else, the media is bad sure, but in all honesty most people I know don't even watch the news, what I have witnessed sink Ron time and again is Ron himself when it comes his FP answers in debates.

People are so focused on the media they are overlooking how important debates are, Newt has twice now ressurected his campaign simply by having 2 good debate performances, Ron has sunk himself twice now with lousy debate performances.

 

[TheDriver]

Another point that would help with older voters: Stop emphasizing that the "young people" are with me, even if you have a lot of younger support. Old people fear the world younger people would give them. Instead of making the younger voter point, why not tell a story of a retired grandma barely getting by on social security?

 

[Ronulus]

Electability clearly isn't an issue when SC overwhelmingly selects the most unelectable candidate.

 

[matt0611]

Electability clearly isn't an issue when SC overwhelmingly selects the most unelectable candidate.

Yes, but they are too uninformed to know that, and who would be surprised? The media sure isn't going to announce that Newt isn't electable but Ron is. Which is why the campaign needs to address this issue ASAP. This one is easy to fix. FP is harder but electability should be something easy to fix and would give a large bang for your buck.

 

[rb3b3]

I haven't donated in the last two moneybombs and I refuse to give them one more cent until they address the FP issue, that is what I hear more than anything else, the media is bad sure, but in all honesty most people I know don't even watch the news, what I have witnessed sink Ron time and again is Ron himself when it comes his FP answers in debates.

People are so focused on the media they are overlooking how important debates are, Newt has twice now ressurected his campaign simply by having 2 good debate performances, Ron has sunk himself twice now with lousy debate performances.

2 lousy debate performances? really? he killed the last debate bro, what were you watching? its the media thats the problem for him, but we will overcome them!

 

[TheDriver]

Yes, but they are too uninformed to know that, and who would be surprised? The media sure isn't going to announce that Newt isn't electable but Ron is. Which is why the campaign needs to address this issue ASAP. This one is easy to fix. FP is harder but electability should be something easy to fix and would give a large bang for your buck.

Yes, the national polling looks horrible for Winky Gingrich vs Obama, however I have a bad feeling his arrogant rise in the GOP polls are going to crossover to the head-to-head with Obama nationally, especially with Rasmussen.

 

[Diurdi]

We've known this for quite some time.

1. Electability. It is clear that the voters is South Carolina did not believe Ron could beat Obama to win the general. The head to head polls show otherwise. Only Ron and Mitt can beat Obama in the general, why don't voters know this? Why are there no ads that give this information to the voters? This needs to be fixed.

2. Foreign policy. It comes up debate after debate. When are we going to see an ad that explains Ron's foreign policy that is acceptable to the average republican voter?

What can we do to get the campaign to address these issues? If we don't fix these issues I don't see how we can win.
The campaign has done a great job so far but IMO has dropped the ball on these two issues.

Agree 100%, those are the two most important points.


The campaign has clearly failed with point #1, because polls show he does well against Obama, yet people don't think he does well against Obama.

 

[Ronulus]

Yes, the national polling looks horrible for Winky Gingrich vs Obama, however I have a bad feeling his arrogant rise in the GOP polls are going to crossover to the head-to-head with Obama nationally, especially with Rasmussen.

If and only if they are fabricated. Newt will get no democrats, no independents, and will have many republicans staying home and skipping out.

Then the fact that the guy's not just a serial hypocrite, but a pathological liar. Once that sinks in most people are going o realize he is not the man for the job. He is essentially Obama. He has a good speaking ability and probably got A's in his speech classes, when it comes to doing the right thing and keeping promises however, he can't do it and won't do it. The guy couldn't even keep a promise to his wife and to God, not just once but twice (we don't know if he has cheated on this wife yet).

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Solutions:

1) Electability: Engage evangelicals and social conservative voters better. "Electability" is simply code for the MSM saying Paul is not establishment-approved, therefore they treat him as a loser regardless of what actual polls say. Social conservatives have the ability to resist the MSM (at least on their issues), and would give Paul higher poll numbers if he had engaged them more strongly. This goes for our grassroots as well, whose frequent "bash the bibleheads" attitude has not been helpful in gaining votes for Paul from this group. Getting more support from that sector will make Paul more plausible-looking to many voters, regardless of MSM bias.

2) Foreign Policy: Paul needs to talk about false flags. It's not the lack of ads, it's the lack of an emotional counter to "we are threatened, we must fight back" fear-mongering that is hurting him. Paul limits the conversation to a "left-brain," logical discussion of non-intervention, which comes off as "he's unresponsive to our defense needs" to regular Republicans under the sleeping spell of the neo-con's "kill them, stop the towelheads" right-brain emotionalism. This emotionalism is an attitude or feeling, not a position, that will not go away with more explanations. When somebody is asleep who needs to wake up, you have to jostle them, not talk!

You can't wake people up, if you're not waking them up. Ads that merely repeat the rational case against blowback will not change the dynamic. Pointing out the public has been lied to, that Bin laden, Saddam, et al were CIA assets, false flags from 9/11 onward have manipulated us into accepting war, empire and TSA groping, etc., would change the dynamic, and can break the spell of the pro-war framework. Anything less leads to the same scenario we've already seen, because not addressing this thereby silently concedes the very framing of the issue that is leading to ignoring Paul's non-interventionist viewpoint.

 

[RonPaul101.com]

Another point that would help with older voters: Stop emphasizing that the "young people" are with me, even if you have a lot of younger support. Old people fear the world younger people would give them. Instead of making the younger voter point, why not tell a story of a retired grandma barely getting by on social security?

Exactly. Why keep trying to win the one demographic you own?Who does that?

 

[zeloc]

I DO NOT believe it is the foreign policy issue. I think that he is really not presenting himself appropriately. Eg, I saw a video of him yesterday talking about promoting his cause and slowly collecting delegates and how he was initially wanting to promote his cause and decided the way to do it was to win elections. He is NOT going to win the election by making statements like this. No one will vote for a candidate who does not seem serious about winning and him making statements like this gives that impression regardless of what the reality is. Look at Santorum's frank statement at the end of the last debate to vote for him for President vs. Ron Paul taking about the economy and foreign policy whenever he has a chance. I think we have to reach out to his campaign and change the way he presents himself as a Presidential contender. Santorum was a nobody and now might be ahead of Ron Paul due to his dramatically improving his debate performances (I remember the 1st few debates when Santorum had a lot of issues). Is there any way to reach out to the campaign? If this continues I think Ron Paul has 0 chance.

To clarify Ron Paul talks far too much about the issues and not at all about himself, and candidates want to vote for a tangible person, not an amorphous movement.

 

[Butchie]

2 lousy debate performances? really? he killed the last debate bro, what were you watching? its the media thats the problem for him, but we will overcome them!

Oh really, according to who, Ron Paul supporters? he's not there to convince us remember, let me tell you - going into a state with the highest unemployment in the country and saying it's good to ship jobs to China is a DISASTER (and yes, I know there's more to what he said than that, but that is what the people took from it, very few people take the time to think things through like we do)

Solutions:
You can't wake people up, if you're not waking them up. Ads that merely repeat the rational case against blowback will not change the dynamic. Pointing out the public has been lied to, that Bin laden, Saddam, et al were CIA assets, false flags from 9/11 onward have manipulated us into accepting war, empire and TSA groping, etc., would change the dynamic, and can break the spell of the pro-war framework. Anything less leads to the same scenario we've already seen, because not addressing this thereby silently concedes the very framing of the issue that is leading to ignoring Paul's non-interventionist viewpoint.

Sorry, but I think that is not such a good idea. Bringing up false flags first off adds to the conspiracy nut stigma, 2nd is pretty much falls into the same category as blowback, NeoCons don't want to hear the bad of our govt when it comes to FP, on domestic stuff fine, but not foreign stuff.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

^^^ Yes indeed, there were poor decisions announcing that and even Jesse Fumbled on MSNBC yesterday about Florida, which of course, the Main Stream Media is now running with. "Paul not running in Florida..."
"Paul just collecting delegates in some states, not campaigning in others."

You never reveal your hand to the enemy... lie through your teeth if you have to, especially to the enemy media. It just gives them more ammo.

I would of stated to all campaigners/media/audiences... ONTO Florida! We have grassroots and the people on our side waiting for us...


Lot's of mistakes being made lately.

 

[Article V]

Yes indeed, there were poor decisions announcing that and even Jesse fumbled on MSNBC yesterday about Florida, which of course, the Main Stream Media is now running with. Paul not running in Florida. Paul just collecting delegates in some states, not campaigning in others.

You never reveal your hand to the enemy... lie through your teeth if you have to, especially to the enemy media. It just gives them more ammo.

I would of stated by all campaigners... ONTO Florida! We have grassroots and the people on our side...


Lot's of mistakes being made lately.

Yes, it seems the Paul campaign has decided to communicate, "We're going to keep losing state after state, but our supporters should keep donating and nevermind the losses and the rising laughter and dismissiveness from the media and the public-at-large." Isn't that a great fundraising pitch? With leadership like that, I've no doubt we'll quickly hit the goal of the moneybomb that was begun over a week ago!
Ra-ra, freedom!

:\

 

[newbitech]

I think a couple of big issues are planning and vision.

Does Ron Paul really have a vision of what the country will have to go through for him to be president? Is the campaign really planning on winning?

I really don't believe that Ron Paul has visualized himself as president of the united states. I really don't believe his campaign has a plan on handling winning.

It almost feels like Ron Paul and the campaign were caught by surprise when the numbers for Iowa and N.H. came out. The campaign and Ron Paul acted like they won, and it seemed like they had no idea on how to capitalize on this in S.C. They had no plan for that.

Ron Paul isn't really striking me as a person who is used to political success. This is no surprise, because while he has won his own district in the House, he hasn't been able to really spread his success beyond that roll. He has absolutely done a phenomenal job in that roll, and much of the political success of his son Rand can be attributed to Ron Paul paving the way. That is success, but it is not personal success in the sense of elevating his position.

Yes Ron Paul has some important committee assignments as well, to some extent, that has been a success. I just don't think those political achievements register as being defining moments for the man. I hate to say it, but I just don't think Ron Paul can really see himself as a leader of this movement. He is doing the best he can, and I am not trying to knock him down, but I really believe his political instinct is to be a loner and an outsider who strategically attacks and exposes the system.

That has been his roll. I see no real evidence that he is ready to step outside of that roll. We know it's a fact that Ron Paul ran in 2008 as an educational candidate. We know that in 1988, he ran in a third party with no real shot to win anything. I don't really see any kind of evidence that the attitude of running for something besides winning has changed.

Do you? What evidence do we have that Ron Paul has a vision of what it will take for him to become president? What evidence do we have that Ron Paul's campaign has a plan to handle the success of even mental wins (Iowa, N.H.) much less actual wins?

Yes, the delegate strategy. I understand that, it was the SAME THING I heard in 2008.

Anyways,

Here are some facts that just don't mesh for me.

Iowa & N.H. millions spent, tripled the vote for Ron Paul
S.C. & FL millions NOT spend, tripled+ the vote for Ron Paul

What exactly is the campaign spending money on? Do we really thing that the ads etc are working if the evidence shows the same amount of support will show up regardless if those ads are played or not?

I think that Ron Paul's vote triples regardless if ads are run or not. That is because of the work done in the last 4 years. Lets face it folks, people are not going to vote for Ron Paul based on attack ads. It takes time to build up a vote for Ron Paul.

What is lacking is people do not see or CANDIDATE as someone who has a vision and a plan to win. He just doesn't instill that in to people. That is fine, the message is out there and people love it and eat it up when they have the time to understand it. BUT at the end of the day, when it comes time to decide, what people are looking for is someone with a vision and a plan to win.

That's just how it is, and as someone who has been around for 4+ years digging deep looking for leadership and a plan, I am not finding it in this movement. Sadly.

 

[Article V]

It's true that Ron is not presenting himself as a frontrunner, and that the campaign is not presenting himself as someone who is going to win any states. They instead keep telling the public, "We're not going to win any states, we're going to collect delegates, and then win the nomination." Do they honestly believe that kind of presentation and strategy is going to persuade new voters and new donors? Or do they think the devout Ron Paul base can just endlessly empty their pocketbooks to the campaign using the mantra "Trust them"?

I've an idea: I'm going to start a bakery and sell less donuts then my competition in every state; once I've proven I can sell less donuts than all my competition in every state, it's going to be clear to all the naysayers that I have more desirable donuts than all my competition. THEN, when I get to the Donut Convention, everyone's going to elect me as the most popular donut-maker and send me to uncrown the Donut King.

...isn't that a good business model? Now trust me and invest in my bakery.

Or wait, if that's not a persuasive enough strategy for you, I got one better. I'm going to put out a bunch of press releases saying that the donut business is really a two-way competition between me and Donut Hut. Then, I'm going to sell less donuts than Donut Barn while, in turn, my only true competitor Donut Hut sells far less than the Donut Hole.

...isn't that the way to convince the world that Donut Barn and Donut Hole are not in the competition? Now trust me and invest in my bakery.

 

[zeloc]

Agree with your posts, HOLLYWOOD, newbitech (very nice description), and Article V, which are in line with what I was describing in my post. I think his campaign staff are self-destructing, but they need to step up and it is their job to tell Ron Paul what he needs to hear and not what he wants to hear. Does anyone know if the campaign reads these forums? Is there any way to communicate with them? I believe the campaign still has a lot of money but not spending it in a random fashion might be the best thing for him right now, there will be more debates and if he changes his strategy and his message it could sway a lot of persons, plus being on the ballot in all 50 states and having reserve cash could be very useful. I believe that Ron Paul would be the best President of the current individuals running and will vote for him but cringe with this awkwardness and self-sabotage from his campaign. I did fill out the form on his website but "campaign suggestions" was not one of the boxes.

 

[Article V]

Agree with your posts, HOLLYWOOD, newbitech (very nice description), and Article V, which are in line with what I was describing in my post. I think his campaign staff are self-destructing [...] Does anyone know if the campaign reads these forums?

If they do bother reading theses forums, all the threads that are constructively critical get quickly killed by the Mods who send them into the trashheap of obscurity that is the Vent or Hot Topics, where those critiques can be left under-discussed and under-developed.

It seems the RPF mods insist on slowly killing our movement by turning us into Ron Paul zombies: "Don't think, don't question, trust us and donate."