We are the Grassroots!!!

[newbitech]

Really good points in here to discuss.

When I think of grassroots, what sticks out to me most is actually "roots". I think that it's important for a campaign to understand what is going on under the surface. The relationship between the campaign and the grassroots needs to scale.

Each grassroots activist needs to feel connected to the campaign and to the rest of the grassroots. The campaign can promote efficiency by strategically placing resources at key way points creating a networking path for the individual activist.

An easy example of this is campaign offices inside of local communities. There is no reason why the meetup groups that were going on in 2007-2008 could not have eventually led to campaign offices and media hubs. These offices would easily be staffed by volunteers and the rent paid for by the meetup groups donating directly to their own grassroots efforts. This wouldn't cost anything for the campaign other than the initial setup fee and the extension of "official" title to whoever the campaign volunteer was going to be.

Then the paid for staffers at the broader scope could make their rounds.

One of the biggest frustrations I had in 2012 was that there was no campaign office. No were to go to make sure the campaign was hearing what was going on under the surface in my particular election "zone".

How do you win elections if you don't know what is going on in each community where your name is on the ballot? How do you win elections if you are not relating the issues to the local community?

Of course, you buy elections. You buy voter blocks, right.


I agree with the article, the American grassroots has been dormant. I thought for sure it was waking up to Ron Paul's message. It's a testament to how powerful the message is. And it is also a testament to how a campaign can trip itself up if it is not prepared to work FOR the grassroots.

The enthusiasm didn't carry over in terms of activism for 2012, but the message and the efforts succeeded.

2016 is a chance for a new wave of grassroots fervor. I can sense it. The message hasn't changed, the audience (thanks to Rand I believe) is more attentive, and competition is being exposed as media props.

I think the grassroots will be fired up and ready. I know I am starting to feel it and i am excited that perhaps this season I'll have more allies than enemies. I also know that 7 years has changed me and I am a much better messenger.

I expect the Paul's to have grown some in the last 7 years, and in particular, I expect the Paul's to do a much better job with the grassroots this time around. Regardless, I won't be around for 2020 politics. I just feel like it's now or never and if our country doesn't get it this time, then I will just get out of the way as those fools bum rush to the exists when the SHTF.

 

[Matt Collins]

I agree with most of what was posted in the OP..... The important thing is that people should be willing to follow good leadership and leadership should not make unreasonable requests...... a few points:



#4 - If individuals are trying to help a candidate, then they will do what the candidate asks of them instead of going off on self-gratifying but unproductive or potentially harmful endeavors.


#5 - there is a danger that grassroots can become co-opted to other causes (such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists), or by oppositions' souring. This is why good leadership is very important.




And grassroots activists have a responsibility to get trained as much as possible in order to be as effective as possible. The more grassroots leaders that are trained in being effective, the less hand-holding is needed by a campaign.

 

[Matt Collins]

One of the biggest frustrations I had in 2012 was that there was no campaign office. No were to go to make sure the campaign was hearing what was going on under the surface in my particular election "zone".

If you're talking about Tampa, the reality is that Florida was not in play for Ron, so it didn't make sense to spend resources there. Iowa and New Hampshire get most of the attention in election years, with SC, NV, MN, and a few others getting the rest. Florida of course does too, but their rules and size make it too hard to play for an upstart campaign.

 

[Natural Citizen]

#5 - there is a danger that grassroots can become co-opted to other causes (such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists), or by oppositions' souring. This is why good leadership is very important.

What else? Can't just cry 9/11 and rely upon that one as an easy out. What issues would you say "co-opt" your leadership's political ideology/infrastructure? In other words, what issues are your leadership avoiding beyond 9/11 that they feel is co-opting their vision? Grassroots is broad, Matt. Powerful too. What that means is that the terms of controversy cannot and will not be contained. It seems to me that what you're stimulating by fragmenting the terms of controversy is a platform to remove accountability.

 

[Matt Collins]

NC -

My point is that it is often times easy for groups of supporters to make their issues that of the candidate they support which is not a good thing.

 

[Natural Citizen]

NC -

My point is that it is often times easy for groups of supporters to make their issues that of the candidate they support which is not a good thing.

Yes, I get all of that. I'll tell you what, though, Matt. It's not the 80's anymore. Cripes, we live in the Information Age. People get more done in a 30 minute lunch meeting and a couple of keystrokes than folks back then got done in an entire year. And so politics must adapt. I mean, I can organize with people that I oppose on various political issues and still pave a much wider path than I can with those whom I completely agree with who function by the book. It just is what it is.

And, really, is why I cut you much more slack than others do around here. I do see where you've contributed out in the wild just bcause I pay attention to people. But that is something that leadership at the lower level would also do well to do. Raising a half a million or so dollars in a few days on a whim for a political project/action isn't difficult anymore. What is increasingly difficult is to see it coming. Which, I suppose, would be another reason that we'd like to keep the grassroots manicured and trained to grow in a preferred lot. That's not going to happen, though.

 

[amy31416]

I agree with most of what was posted in the OP..... The important thing is that people should be willing to follow good leadership and leadership should not make unreasonable requests...... a few points:

So...you're the bearer of our "good leadership?"

#4 - If individuals are trying to help a candidate, then they will do what the candidate asks of them instead of going off on self-gratifying but unproductive or potentially harmful endeavors.

I do what's good for myself and my daughter, my family and people I trust who just might be able to make this country a better place, not what's good for you. And what's good for you is getting my money--you can't have it, and even if I had tons of money, I'd throw it off a building before you got a single dollar of it. Go get a real job--though I doubt anyone who actually works could tolerate you.

#5 - there is a danger that grassroots can become co-opted to other causes (such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists), or by oppositions' souring. This is why good leadership is very important.

GREAT! So where's this good leadership? You do know that you have to trust someone before you can consider them a leader, right?

And grassroots activists have a responsibility to get trained as much as possible in order to be as effective as possible. The more grassroots leaders that are trained in being effective, the less hand-holding is needed by a campaign.

Fantastic. Let's all start chip-ins, so Matt can donate (like many here did for him) and git us smelly masses some schoolin.' You are going to donate, right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Someone should do a line graph of the 2008 money bombs versus the commoditized ones from the 2012 campaign to highlight the differences.

I don't remember the hard numbers but the big three grassroots money bombs in 2007/2008 each raised at least 1 million+ (average of about 3.8 millions or so?) in 24 hours, whereas 2012's money bombs which dragged on for days never broke out of 6 figures IIRC.

2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008

On November 5, 2007, the campaign raised over $4.3 million.[210] That amount is the largest amount collected on a single day by any Republican candidate,[211][212] and the record for largest amount of on-line fund raising in a single day ever in U.S. history.[213] Paul eclipsed his overall third-quarter fund-raising total around 2:30 p.m. EST.

Paul's December campaign contributions rose to over $7.1 million and the Q4 campaign contributions rose to over $17 million as a result of this push. The campaign website displayed a novel real-time display of the funds raised and the names of donors.[214] Smaller fund raising money bombs continued throughout November and early December.
December 16 donation rates

A December 16, 2007, money bomb on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party broke the campaign's previous record,[215] raising nearly $2 million more than the November 5 event, bringing in over US$6 million in the largest single day of fund raising, on-line or not, in U.S. presidential campaign history.[216] During the last minutes of the drive, the server refused to accept contributions due to an overload of donations, as about 100 contributors per minute donated to the campaign; more than an additional $100,000 were donated within the hour past midnight.[217][218][219]

February 1, 2008, marked the 51st anniversary of Carol and Ron Paul's marriage. Supporters raised over $1 million in the 24-hour period for the campaign[220] as an "anniversary gift," making the it the fourth largest campaign donation day to date.[221]

2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Paul's second moneybomb (the first being before his official announcement) was scheduled for June 5, 2011, the anniversary of the 1933 joint resolution which abolished the gold standard. The June 5 moneybomb, which was themed as "The Revolution vs. RomneyCare: Round One", raised approximately $1.1 million.[61] A third moneybomb themed "Ready, Ames, Fire!" was executed on July 19, 2011 to provide support leading up to the Ames Straw Poll on August 13, 2011, raising over $550,000.[62]

In the second quarter of 2011, Paul's campaign ranked second, behind Mitt Romney, in total dollars raised with $4.5 million.[63] This was $1.5 million more than his original goal of $3 million.[64] During that quarter, the Paul campaign had raised more money from military personnel than all other GOP candidates combined, and even more money than Barack Obama, a trend that has continued from Paul's 2008 presidential campaign.[65]

A fourth moneybomb took place on Paul's 76th birthday on August 20, 2011. It raised more than $1.8 million despite a cyber-attack against the site that took it down for several hours, after which the donation drive was extended for another twelve hours.[66]

A fifth moneybomb began on September 17, the date of the 224th anniversary of the creation of the United States Constitution. Continuing throughout the following day, it raised more than $1 million.[67] Shortly after the Constitution Day moneybomb, a sixth moneybomb, entitled "End of Quarter Push", began on September 22 in an attempt to generate $1.5 million before the 3rd Quarter fundraising deadline.[68]

In the third quarter of 2011, Paul raised over $8 million.[8] A three-day moneybomb entitled "Black This Out" brought in more than $2.75 million in mid-October.[69][70]

On December 16, a moneybomb titled the "Tea Party MoneyBomb" took place and raised upwards of $4 million over a period of two days.[71]

Paul was also supported by a Super PAC, Endorse Liberty. By January 16, 2012, the PAC had spent $2.83 million promoting Paul's campaign.[72]

 

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...of-Matt-and-the-Ad/page2&highlight=moneybombs

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...LM-with-cash-(Isagenix)&p=5716281#post5716281

 

[Deborah K]

I agree with most of what was posted in the OP..... The important thing is that people should be willing to follow good leadership and leadership should not make unreasonable requests...... a few points:



#4 - If individuals are trying to help a candidate, then they will do what the candidate asks of them instead of going off on self-gratifying but unproductive or potentially harmful endeavors.


#5 - there is a danger that grassroots can become co-opted to other causes (such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists), or by oppositions' souring. This is why good leadership is very important.




And grassroots activists have a responsibility to get trained as much as possible in order to be as effective as possible. The more grassroots leaders that are trained in being effective, the less hand-holding is needed by a campaign.

Matt, you're the one who constantly claims that the campaign should control the messaging from the grassroots. Everything you have ever stated about grassroots activism is the opposite of what the OP states. Keep back-peddling.

You've already ruined your reputation here, Matt. You need to give it a rest. You're finished.

 

[mosquitobite]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...assroots-MoneyBomb-Right-After-Rand-Announces

 

[Deborah K]

Nice post.

I would like to note that guidance is more of an advisory position, whereas management is more of a 'take control' position. Volunteers (which is what the grassroots is made up of) have no tolerance for being made to feel like they are in the employ of someone. They will take guidance, organization, planning, and structure from leaders on a project (event) as long as they believe that said leaders (which are usually the people who come up with the idea of the project) are in keeping with the goals and objectives as they were laid out. This works well for individual grassroots events. I know this first hand. And, I know that in order to pull off an event, you have to have planning, organization, structure, and leadership.

In our case, we have a grassroots movement, and thus, many factions within that movement. If a candidate wants to utilize our support for his/her philosophies, ideas, and goals, then it behooves that candidate (and staff) to refrain from deliberate marginalization of certain factions within that movement, and to refrain from trying to control our creativity.

To cause division within a movement, in an attempt to ostracize that which one may believe is damaging to the cause as a whole, is the death knell to the strength, vitality, cohesiveness, purpose, and future of that movement. What needs to be done, is to unite all the factions under one cause: the cause of freedom. Period. Drive that message home. Answer all criticism with it. Allow people to believe what they want to believe. If they're misguided, patiently inform and educate them, but if they - like you - believe in the cause of freedom, you'll know it because their actions and their words will prove it. This, in and of itself, speaks truth to power.

We have a presidential election coming up. Those of us who believe that Rand could change the course of history for the better will want to be involved. We have an opportunity now to have a huge impact through our grassroots efforts. And, even if you don't like Rand, or don't believe in the political process, you do believe in the cause of freedom, and so we can still collaborate and work side by side in achieving that goal.

We've built something great together. We are special, because we're pure - we aren't bought and paid for. We cannot allow anyone, or anything to divide and conquer us, or try to control us any longer.

Based on what I've read in these forums this morning, this is worth repeating.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Based on what I've read in these forums this morning, this is worth repeating.

I've never in my life seen so many stubborn people as I do in this community. And I know that I'm no different but gosh. It's a hoot alright. This is the only movement that I know of that actually places liberty into perspective with tyranny. I mean, I'm seeing muti-national companies wreak havok on what our founders scribbled up and it's often justified because, get this...liberty. I'm simply diametrically opposed to the people who refer to tyranny as liberty. May be something that I won't be able to work with and have to move on. I don't know. And Rand, I'm not too sure about these days. Seems like he's just building support for the republican party and will endorse the establishment candidate when it's all said and done.

Of course, I'm in a foul mood at the moment too. I don't know.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Of course, Rand is his daddy's boy, too, but It's hard to watch him stray the way that he is in critical areas.