The Viability Issue

[A. Havnes]

While I agree, we still need that soft support in order to win. Those people that make up their mind in the last few days are the ones that look at viability.

Not to mention, we can't possibly talk one-on-one with everybody we need to win the nomination.

 

[klamath]

Agree to a point. I think two headlines of "Paul wins [insert state here]" might be enough to gain viability regardless of the states. One though is not enough.

Santorum is experiencing this as well. This month in FL Paul polled as high as 14 points, Santorum as high as 19. They both dropped 6 or 7 points between those polls and election day.

It is a long shot but nevada and colorado wins would be a big eye opener to the late deciders. My point about Maine is it never will get headlines.

 

[tbone717]

Not to mention, we can't possibly talk one-on-one with everybody we need to win the nomination.

So true. There are 5 houses that surround me. If Paul was in contention come PA, all of those would vote for Paul. If memory serves me correctly, some of them liked him in 08 as well. But out of all of those people, I am the only one that you can consider as a hardcore supporter who is willing to donate and volunteer.

 

[tbone717]

It is a long shot but nevada and colorado wins would be a big eye opener to the late deciders. My point about Maine is it never will get headlines.

I agree about Maine. The way that it is spread out over a week or so lessens its impact.

 

[goldpants]

I am finding education levels of a populous a flawed means in determining how free thinking that populous is. Those with a closer connection to the libertarian spirit do not require a doctorate or even degrees of any sort in many instances. A libertarian minded person can fall back on his intelligence, creativity, guile, will, etc. And in many cases they derive most of their success from an education free of major institutions. Perhaps these people with lower education levels are not brainwashed, perhaps they are less influenced by propaganda, perhaps they are more self confident in their ability to perceive the world as they see it, or lastly they just may not be exposed to the propaganda on the same level as those effected, who knows. That is not to be confused with downright low intelligence, those born with lower IQ's are easily persuaded by propaganda, they do absorb much of what they are taught over and over again but struggle to think outside of that world view placed upon them. I have faith in the caucus states to fight back in the coming weeks, a smaller concerned free and critical thinking group of voters is just what the doctor ordered.

 

[CogWheeler]

I guess that is why nevada was one of RP best states in 2008, all those stupid ignorant RP people

Not trying to insult. Average years of college stats are where education gets measured. Lingering high unemployment, highest in the US at 12/13%, plus one of the most transitory populations, support this.

Florida was telling, as the first sub-prime state. It proved how disenfranchised some Republican voters have become. This was especially apparent among under water home borrowers. Turnout was lower than 2008, before B. Obama was the known opponent. Low Nevada turnout will spell trouble for the Republicans, in general, but may reveal where the opportunity was, or still is, in reaching this disaffected bunch. GOTV efforts in Clark County, where the average home lost more than 57% of its market value (Case-Shiller), may pay off.

Paul's Florida debate comment, stating that the creation of the welfare state favors the wealthy, at the cost of the middle class, is how to capitalize on these votes. I hope it works.

 

[LanceK37]

I think the only way to fix the problem would be for Ron Paul to win a few caucus states. However, living in a caucus state myself, I can tell you that they want to vote for a viable candidate as well. Romney is currently big in my small Minnesota town.

There's no difference between caucus states and primary states in terms of who they want to vote for, Romney and Gingrich are 1 and 2 in Minnesota just as they are in most other states.

 

[CogWheeler]

There's no difference between caucus states and primary states in terms of who they want to vote for, Romney and Gingrich are 1 and 2 in Minnesota just as they are in most other states.

But you could also argue 'winner take all' caused the sudden dip in Paul and Santorums numbers, as voters realized only two were in it for the FL pot.

 

[tbone717]

But you could also argue 'winner take all' caused the sudden dip in Paul and Santorums numbers, as voters realized only two were in it for the FL pot.

I would agree to a point, but I don't think the average voter understands the delegate process. Heck, we are immersed in this stuff and many here find it confusing, so I highly doubt the average Joe heading to the polls on a Tuesday afternoon gets the impact of it all. I think the dip came from the poor showings in SC. In hind sight, I think Paul should have spent more time and money in SC even if the probability of getting delegates from the state was low. A better showing in the popular vote, say a strong third or even second many have translated into a significantly higher percentage in FL even without a strong campaign there.

 

[Butchie]

But this was expected was it not? Did anyone honestly think back in the summer that the media would laud over Paul? We knew from the start that the MSM would not give Paul positive coverage, so we and the campaign should have been prepared to combat that in any way possible.

That being said, I think we assume falsely that people watch and follow the media more than they actually do. The people that I know personally, I describe as casual voters. They do not follow the election coverage in any major way. Last night these people were not glued to their TV watching the FL results come in, they were watching other things. All they know from last night is that Romney won by a lot, and that Paul came in last.

Yepper, same here, most the people I know aren't big FOX/Rush fans either, barely watch news at all, but obviously the very basics do get out there of Romney 1st, Paul last.

 

[tbone717]

Yepper, same here, most the people I know aren't big FOX/Rush fans either, barely watch news at all, but obviously the very basics do get out there of Romney 1st, Paul last.

I think this perception comes from the fact that most of us immerse ourselves in this stuff 24/7. We automatically assume that other people care about it as well, when in reality most are casual voters. My parents are a good example. They are both registered Republicans and have been since the 1950's. They never miss an election, even the little local primaries. They get most of their news from the local paper and local TV.

 

[socal]

That is a well thought out summary but I would like to point out one thing....



They may not be FOX NEWS acolytes, but being "every day hard working middle class people" means they are getting their "news" from the lame stream media, which means they are being force fed a load of crap EVERY SINGLE DAY. The message from the "news media" is that Ron Paul CAN'T win. Every newscast blasts that out loud and clear. Every broadcast mentioning the candidates does it either overtly - by flat out saying it, or subliminally - by either ignoring him - or ridiculing him. THAT is what the "every day hard working middle class" person sees EVERY DAY. They watch CNN - and Fox - and MSNBC and ABC and CBS and they only conclusion they CAN come to is that Ron Paul is NOT a viable candidate, that he CAN'T win, that his policies are "out there", etc... etc... etc... ad nauseum. So, with respect to your friends - it really isn't their fault because people don't truly begin to open their eyes to other possibilities until they recognize something so egregious in our government that it literally forces them to rethink their politics, or until something happens in their lives - a lost job or some other personal tragedy that makes them see the world in a different light.

The reason we don't have riots in the streets RIGHT NOW is because most Americans are quite comfy thankyou. If you are very poor - the government provides for you. Why would you fight back?
If you are middle class - you have a decent job, a mortgage, kids. You aren't going hungry. You have a roof over your head. You don't "FEEL" the rights that have been stolen from you - those things don't connect to you - they are for "someone else".

Ron Paul represents something scary to people like this. They don't want to lose what they have, so they keep voting for people they believe will maintain the status quo, because the status quo is working for them. In essence, and I mean this in no derogatory sense at all - even though it will probably sound like it - they ARE sheeple. They may not seem like it. But they have chosen their votes based on the fact that they don't have to think. The media thinks for them. The government thinks for them. The Constitution is barely a blip on their radar - if it were anything MORE than that then they would vote for Ron Paul. Their personal comfort and maintenance of the status quo is in their best interest (for now). So why should they change?

One last thought. The ONLY way Dr. Paul is going to get through to these folks is to be FORCEFUL in his explanations of what is coming down the pike. In other words, he has to SCARE THEM. The future for America is very bleak - especially since it will be the collapse of our economic system under the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund and the WTO and other organizations plus our own politicians' impossible weakness when it comes to doing ANYTHING about our debt and deficit. ONLY Ron Paul knows exactly what is coming. We know how prescient he is and we know that what he says is right - it could be a year, or 10 years from now, but the system IS going to collapse under it's own weight - and maybe when the EU collapses, people will FINALLY see what he's been saying but until they recognize the danger then they will continue to vote as they always have.

Good point, and Dr. Paul has been saying that in recent speeches, but he needs to keep it up and spend more time on the issue.

 

[A. Havnes]

I think this perception comes from the fact that most of us immerse ourselves in this stuff 24/7. We automatically assume that other people care about it as well, when in reality most are casual voters. My parents are a good example. They are both registered Republicans and have been since the 1950's. They never miss an election, even the little local primaries. They get most of their news from the local paper and local TV.

That's the truth. I'd also like to add that for a lot of people, it's the general election that gets their attention, not the primary. Last year, when I dragged my mom to the local voting center to vote Ron Paul with me, it's the first time she'd participated in the primary election, not the general.

 

[libertygrl]

And I would like to be the first to thank the media for a job well done.

OMG. This is what I heard throughout the '07-'08 campaign. NOTHING has changed. Trying to convince these people is like banging your head against the wall.

I cannot for the life of me fathom this sort of logic. These people are voting for party and not principle. I've actually got verbally attacked last time for voting based on principle. "Your principle is only going to make Obama win." Pathetic. Maybe we need to start a chip in to begin deprogramming the influence of the media on these people.

 

[affa]

You can never go back. It's kinda like that day when you discovered that Santa and the Easter Bunny were myths.

Spoiler alert, jerk.

 

[Lord Xar]

...

That being said, I think we assume falsely that people watch and follow the media more than they actually do. The people that I know personally, I describe as casual voters. They do not follow the election coverage in any major way....

Exit poll after exit poll show the same thing. Certain voting blocks do not vote for Ron Paul - for a myriad of reasons. But one constant is holding true. Those that watch Fox news inversely vote for Ron Paul. In other words, "if" you are a fox news watcher (and I assume they lump Rush etc.. into this question), then the chances they are voting for Ron Paul is slim.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

And I would like to be the first to thank the media for a job well done.

I have to agree with this ^^.
I'm always looking for the positive, uplifting articles to share with friends and people I'm trying to convert. Just this week alone, I've read no less than 5 psuedo-positive articles that ALL have this carefully injected into them:

As the Monitor notes, it’s still very unlikely that Paul will win the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul Could Have a Very Good Weekend
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9509-ron-paul-could-have-a-very-good-weekend

It's almost systematic. Paint the picture of a viable candidate, while casually reminding the reader he's unelectable.

 

[affa]

The three main strategies of TPTB are pretty clear, in my opinion:

1) Surge candidate after candidate to hide any 'Ron Paul surge' in the numbers.
2) Surge and attack in the days leading up to each important primary, be kind in the aftermath.
3) Ultimately choose an extremely flawed candidate [Gingrich] as the 'Anti-Romney', and engage the populace with the same exact gambit they practice every four years - force people into 'the lesser of two evils' defensive votes.

In my opinion, things have been going quite well for us, all things considered:
In regards to each:
1) I think they got derailed and have been playing catch up ever since Perry self-imploded (drunken speech, oops, etc). Bachman's off script random 'facts', and Cain's inability to learn the basics of geography, let alone foreign policy, were all unintended, unforced errors that forced TPTB to scramble.
2) We survived every attack practically unscathed. They did NOT expect this. Yes, we took a few hits to percentage points (Santorum in Iowa, Huntsman in NH) but we are still in the game, and we were not supposed to be at this point.
3) This is their bread and butter. They do the 'lesser of two evils' thing every election cycle. They have it down. There is hope, however... Gingrich is a loose cannon, to say the least. We need to hope they will either overplay their hand, or that Gingrich will do it for them. As long as Gingrich is even remotely viable, they will play the 2 evils card, guaranteed.

To that end, in my humble estimation, it is critical that Gingrich falls by the wayside ASAP. The mainstream media is simply too good at convincing people to vote against people, rather than for people. Thankfully, in part because of this, there is a very sizable contingent that will never support Romney.

 

[Tyler_Durden]

The three main strategies of TPTB are pretty clear, in my opinion:

1) Surge candidate after candidate to hide any 'Ron Paul surge' in the numbers.
2) Surge and attack in the days leading up to each important primary, be kind in the aftermath.
3) Ultimately choose an extremely flawed candidate [Gingrich] as the 'Anti-Romney', and engage the populace with the same exact gambit they practice every four years - force people into 'the lesser of two evils' defensive votes.

This is the pattern I recognize as well.....

 

[affa]

This is the pattern I recognize as well.....

I suppose I should add a 4th, but it was so blatantly obvious I forgot to:

4) Have all other candidates co-opt parts of his message to dilute it. If every candidate is portrayed as 'anti-establishment', it becomes a meaningless term. [and to be clear, -every- candidate has been called exactly that.]