Tuesday. What's Wrong? How to fix in future?

[alucard13mmfmj]

Perhaps we can discuss any flaws from the campaign and all pro-Ron Paul groups/PACs from Super Tuesday... so we don't make the same mistake in 2016 or even in the next few states. I know that the super tuesdays in the next election cycle will be different... with different players and maybe different states, but I feel it should be addressed anyways. I don't want this to turn into a "what if" thread... more like possible strategies that can be used in future states or in later election cycles.

-I think it is silly that the states vote/close polls at different times of the day. The results from states that close first will announce their results first. These first states will influence the later states that vote on the same day. In this day and age... with the internet age, the results will reach everyone within minutes. This would explain why Alaska was epic fail (last state to close polls). Hypothetically, If I was a soft supporter of Ron Paul in Alaska and I saw that Ron Paul lost the first 9 states, I would probably switch my vote to Romney or Santorum. The first state or two will set the narrative of Super Tuesday in this day and age. Should focus heavily on early states of Super Tuesday.

-States where polls open early and closes early. I don't remember what time, which states held/closed their polls and different time zones didnt help XD.... Old people get up early. Young people get up pretty late, especially on weekends. Weekdays, they are in class, studying for exam, writing up lab reports or working. Change vote targeting to different demographics to suit the polling time and day of the particular state. As a young guy, I'd like to say that odds are.. other young guys were probably playing Call of Duty and drinking beer the night before caucus/primary... and wake up too late.

I'd like to add that we all probably want to see some kind of strategy change within the campaign. Not the delegate strategy... but how the campaign is going to operate. If we are going to just coast along and do the same things, I think some people might go crazy here.

At any rate, change is the key to winning if you are not doing too hot. Change and adapt! We will make the GOP piss their pants before we are through. Who knows, maybe some of the evil GOP leadership, who conduct "shady stuff" will have heart attacks from the stress of Ron Paul and his supporters^^.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I've been saying this for AGES, the mainstreamers won't care what a candidate has to say unless they think he's "electable" & that "unelectable" was the biggest meme against Paul & hence it should've been countered right off the bat by telling people how he's the ONLY Republican that can attract enough Independents & Democrats to beat Obama

And if you're already thinking of 2016 then you should take a rest, this is a battle, giving up isn't an option here, you've to keep fighting!

There are still states like California (which 170-delegates winner-take-all) that Paul CAN win & those wins in the later stages will be more fresh in the people's minds & he'll seem to have the momentum going into Tampa, FL for the conventions & that might persuade the the delegates of dropped out candidates to consider Paul since most are anti-Romney & even they would understand that Paul has more appeal amongst Independents & Democrats to beat Obama

 

[Travlyr]

The Art of War.

Knowing the opposition is the key.

Ron Paul wants an audit of the Federal Reserve System so that they expose themselves for the thieves they are. He is calling for an end to big government. End the drug wars, yet they are very profitable for the drug lords, the government police, and the "justice" system. End the military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, medical industrial complex, banking industrial complex, education industrial complex, and significantly reduce the number of government workers.

The problem is that Ron Paul has $10 - $20 or whatever million to work with and a media black out. Their team has free media coverage, all the power brokers, and $10 trillion to spend.

They will do whatever it takes to keep their free money machine. Know your enemy.

 

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

The problem is the media black out.

Even still, for the past several days when I see media coverage of the primary, Pauls picture is left out from the 3 stooges.

Just now, a ticker ran across the bottom of CNN that said " Still No Wins for Paul After Super Tuesday"

Between now and 2016 someone needs to start and grow a very major and popular news network.

Even then, many of the older voters do not have cable.

We also have to out number the uninformed ( no internet access ) and make the second target getting the internet generation REGISTERED to VOTE.

Whoever becomes our freedom candidate for 2016 , if Obama gets a second, needs to be BRILLIANT at public speaking. I personally enjoy and understand RP being all over the place. He is a multi dimensional thinker and I dig it. However, his incomplete sentences and jumping around just looses most people though. Face it, most of us have had to act as interpreter for him when converting people. His message is so misunderstood on so many levels-


Voters think he wants to legalize prostitution and drug use instead of just decriminalize things at the Federal level, leaving it to the states to pass laws over and regulate.

Voters think he wants to be an isolationist instead of wanting to use diplomacy, friendship and free trade to establish peace as a first choice to declaring a war if under attack by a country and winning it if neccesary.

Voters think he wants to return to the gold standard and get rid of fiat money instead of creating a competing currency backed by something sound.

Voters think he wants to shrink the military instead of build a stonger national defense and employ our troops here, reoppening closed bases on U.S. soil, defending our country and our borders.

Voters think he wants to close down the public schools, instead of just wanting to return curriculum control back to the school districts and states.

So many misunderstandings about his message like this have been a large part of the problem as well. Once you thoroughly explain him to people and clear up ALL of their misunderstandings, 9 out of 10 easily convert.

We have our work cut out for us. lol

I acknowledge the very encouraging progress made over the years despite the challenges. This mornign when dropping my car off for regular service, two guys at the dealership said, " I like your RP sticker. " Things are building.

They were both in apathy and refuse to partcipate in elections because they think the whole system is a rigged scam.

We need strategies for getting these apathetic/turned off by the corruption people involved and registered as well. One said he did send Paul money though.

 

[Forty Twice]

Figure out why this happens:


http://www.google.com/search?q=Results+for+North+Dakota+Republican+Caucus
Results for North Dakota Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Mar 06, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum 4,510 39.7%
Ron Paul 3,186 28.1%
Mitt Romney 2,691 23.7%
Newt Gingrich 962 8.5%
Other 0 0%

+

Ron Paul speaks to over 550 voters in Dickinson, where crowds this size are rare.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul addressed a crowd of about 1,200 people in Bismarck on Monday evening

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/231330/
However, Paul has campaigned most widely, drawing almost 3,000 people over two days during stops in Williston, Dickinson, Bismarck and Jamestown late last month.

Has this ever happened before where a candidate has as many people attend his rallies as gets votes in a state primary or caucus? I do not believe these results.

Also this. There were less than 12,000 total votes in North Dakota in Tuesday's caucuses. In the 2010 Midterm Primary election, there were 102,000 ballots cast (both parties) out of 500,000 people of voting age in the state. Ron Paul got 0.62% of the voting age population to vote for him in a state where he should be quite popular. RP may not have a majority of voters who support him, but there are more than 0.62% of the population in all parts of the US who would go through hell or high water to vote for him. He campaigned in ND like a madman when the others didn't show up. The campaign could have asked for 10,000 volunteers from the whole US to go to ND , grab a Paul supporter, drive him/her to caucus, have them vote, and take them to the campaign party afterwards. I think they simply chunk the Ron Paul votes in the garbage.

Something is rotten in the state of Bismarck.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I don't think there's any way to "fix" it.

The American people just haven't suffered enough. That's what it says in our Declaration of Independence. It takes a lot of sh** to get the American people mad. We haven't reached the threshold.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that ****mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed****. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Apparently, the evils are still sufferable.

The question is, should we hurry things along, or do we continue to fight it, and postpone reaching that threshold? I mean, I'm seriously considering voting for the most statist candidates I can find, so we can finally reset things.

 

[tfurrh]

Whoever is of the opinion that the media is not a major contributor to our failure is living in lala land. That's not a defeatist position, it's not a 'giving up' position, it's simply a reality. Until we change our tactics with the media, and address that problem, they will always have us over a barrel.

 

[Tecnolog]

so we don't make the same mistake in 2016

Paul will be to old to run in 2016. It's now or never.

 

[tbone717]

The main key is retail politics. And that is the biggest weakness of this campaign.

The candidate needs to be able to meet people where they are, rather than waiting for people to come to him. What does that mean? It means that rather than having a list of issues that you want to educate the people about, instead you discover what issues are important to them and address their concerns with your solutions to those problems. We need less rallies with stump speeches and more Q&A's and town halls. We need more time on the street shaking hands and kissing babies, particularly in the early states.

And as AhuwaleKaNaneHuna stated in the above post, the candidate needs to be able to clear up any misconceptions about their policy with short, concise, definitive answers. To put it as simply as possible, it takes the right combination of ideological integrity and political savvy to win an election. And sadly, savvy does carry more weight than integrity - just look at Romney to see that. He has little ideological integrity but tons of savvy and he is winning. Paul has tons of integrity, but little savvy and he is losing.

Finally, we need to realize the importance of the early states. If you cannot win one of the first three contests, you face an incredible uphill battle. We should never again underestimate the psychological value of a victory.

 

[gerryb]

Learn effective campaigning techniques, and recuit people to implement them.

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/training/

 

[tfurrh]

Learn effective campaigning techniques, and recuit people to implement them.

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/training/

Youth For Ron Paul comes to mind.

 

[wgadget]

Figure out why this happens:


http://www.google.com/search?q=Results+for+North+Dakota+Republican+Caucus
Results for North Dakota Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Mar 06, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum 4,510 39.7%
Ron Paul 3,186 28.1%
Mitt Romney 2,691 23.7%
Newt Gingrich 962 8.5%
Other 0 0%

+

Ron Paul speaks to over 550 voters in Dickinson, where crowds this size are rare.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul addressed a crowd of about 1,200 people in Bismarck on Monday evening

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/231330/
However, Paul has campaigned most widely, drawing almost 3,000 people over two days during stops in Williston, Dickinson, Bismarck and Jamestown late last month.

Has this ever happened before where a candidate has as many people attend his rallies as gets votes in a state primary or caucus? I do not believe these results.

Also this. There were less than 12,000 total votes in North Dakota in Tuesday's caucuses. In the 2010 Midterm Primary election, there were 102,000 ballots cast (both parties) out of 500,000 people of voting age in the state. Ron Paul got 0.62% of the voting age population to vote for him in a state where he should be quite popular. RP may not have a majority of voters who support him, but there are more than 0.62% of the population in all parts of the US who would go through hell or high water to vote for him. He campaigned in ND like a madman when the others didn't show up. The campaign could have asked for 10,000 volunteers from the whole US to go to ND , grab a Paul supporter, drive him/her to caucus, have them vote, and take them to the campaign party afterwards. I think they simply chunk the Ron Paul votes in the garbage.

Something is rotten in the state of Bismarck.

Seems like if they could get to the rallies, they could get to the caucuses.

 

[wgadget]

The main key is retail politics. And that is the biggest weakness of this campaign.

The candidate needs to be able to meet people where they are, rather than waiting for people to come to him. What does that mean? It means that rather than having a list of issues that you want to educate the people about, instead you discover what issues are important to them and address their concerns with your solutions to those problems. We need less rallies with stump speeches and more Q&A's and town halls. We need more time on the street shaking hands and kissing babies, particularly in the early states.

And as AhuwaleKaNaneHuna stated in the above post, the candidate needs to be able to clear up any misconceptions about their policy with short, concise, definitive answers. To put it as simply as possible, it takes the right combination of ideological integrity and political savvy to win an election. And sadly, savvy does carry more weight than integrity - just look at Romney to see that. He has little ideological integrity but tons of savvy and he is winning. Paul has tons of integrity, but little savvy and he is losing.

Finally, we need to realize the importance of the early states. If you cannot win one of the first three contests, you face an incredible uphill battle. We should never again underestimate the psychological value of a victory.

Well, it was made quite clear that if Ron had won Iowa, it would have been meaningless, and Iowa would forever carry the stigma.

 

[tfurrh]

Well, it was made quite clear that if Ron had won Iowa, it would have been meaningless, and Iowa would forever carry the stigma.

You mean the media had it covered either way???!!!

 

[tbone717]

Well, it was made quite clear that if Ron had won Iowa, it would have been meaningless, and Iowa would forever carry the stigma.

Yeah I don't buy that either. It would have been backed up with the strong showing in NH. I think a big mistake was made skipping SC and FL. I understand they were concentrating on delegates but in the grand scheme of things, a strong showing in both may have helped us with the four caucuses that followed. Hind sight is always 20/20 of course, but it is helpful to know where things went wrong so they are no repeated.

 

[TruckinMike]

Whoever is of the opinion that the media is not a major contributor to our failure is living in lala land. That's not a defeatist position, it's not a 'giving up' position, it's simply a reality. Until we change our tactics with the media, and address that problem, they will always have us over a barrel.

 

[klamath]

When doing analisis it is alway important to point out what was done right as well as what went wrong.
I think the campaign did an excellent job of organizing in Iowa. They seemed to have a pretty well oiled machine that almost pulled it off despite the media ignoring RP.
I believe two thing contributed to the loss. Not doing smalls events all across Iowa and talking to a lot of personal small town people like santorum did. The second thing was trying to ignore the newletters away as a non issue. RP should have called a national news conference and admitted to poor oversight and what he learned from it, brought out anything that possibly could have come out later and denounced racism. He had too many things that has been tied with southern racism already.

States rights. Heavily tied too the civil war and racism.
Southern congressmen.
Against the civil rights act.
Denounced the civil war.
voted against the medal for rosa parks.
All of us know full well RP doesn't hold these positions out of racism but to the average voter those are key phrases that click racism in the average voters head. Add that to two weeks of nonstop newsletter coverage and those anti war democrats are not going to turn out for him.

 

[FrancisMarion]

To address the first sentence in the first post: IMHO, the main flaw is in thinking that the obtainment of our goals is based in presidential campaigns. Infer as you please.

P.S. Do you know your state Attorney General well?

 

[Elixir]

With all due respect I have to say that y'all are completely missing what's going on in this election.

Ron Paul IS winning the majority of the public vote but his votes are being flipped to Romney. There is nothing that needs fixing besides our fraudulent paperless electronic voting process.

You who cast the votes decide absolutely nothing. Those who count the votes decide the outcome of the election.