Posted on 02/17/2007 4:38:47 PM PST by Dog Gone
I did just that. Got an acknowledgement email and haven't heard anything since. And that was about a month ago. They really need to get someone on top of communications with volunteers, or people will lose interest. That's just fundamental direct response management.
It's much harder and takes much longer to go somewhere with a headwind than with a tailwind, so my analogy is perfect, and your reply is dumb.
***If a RINO gets the nomination, there won't be a headwind nor tailwind from socons. There will be no wind. Which would you prefer, a headwind or no wind? Your analogy aint perfect if it takes this much back & forth to get to your point, but your insult makes it perfectly clear that you're part of the RINO headwind we need to utilize in order to get where we need to be.
I put 'real conservative' in quotes when refering to the mythical 'perfect messiah candidate'.
***Oh, ok. Then I have a suggestion. Why not go over to a thread where we're talking about mythical perfect messiah candidates? We're on a thread where we're talking about a purty good socon candidate who is honorable. He's much better than the pretend conservative. <---notice not in quotes.
No. At least one other freeper enjoyed my designation for rudophiles.
What could be more self-defeating than nominating a candidate whose only track record difference on the issues from Hillary is the 'R' after his name and the fact that he has never been married to the POTUS?
Okay, in fairness, he told the Saudis to stick their check, but 10 million really isn't that much money, and nothing compared to the political capital he gained--besides, it wasn't his money, anyway.
It isn't a question of attack, it is a question of what the candidate stands for vs what the people will vote for.
If you want to find out more about Hunter, Google him, check out his website, do a search on this forum, there is plenty of info out there.
As for being told who is the "choice of _________ (fill in the blank)" , imagine how conservatives feel about the MSM shilling Rudy!
Again, the issues are the issues, and where a candidate has traditionally stood is highly relevant--and will ultimately determine their support--or lack thereof.
Everyone has heard of Jack the Ripper or the 'Son of Sam', (and no I am not comparing the "front runners" to serial killers), just making the point that name recognition alone does not make a suitable candidate.
As for "conservative" I have 'seen' some sweeping self-defined conservatives on this forum. Generally, though, most everyone would agree that we support control of the borders, a strong military, are anti-abortion, pro-gun (anti-gun control), and believe the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, just below God.
...I don't like being told that I can't or shouldn't support other candidates who don't meet some small group's definition of conservative.
Look, it is a free country (more or less, anyway), and you can support whom ever you choose. No one is telling you who you can or cannot support, that decision resides solely with you.
I'm not sure what small group you mean, whether it is the millions who vote against pro-abortion candidates, the 80 million gun owners who tend to vote against those rabidly in favor of more gun laws (when they think the new laws will affect them, anyway), or whether it is just those who want to keep our nation secure from invasion or attack. There is a bit of overlap there in the groups.
Perhaps the smallest group is those who have actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the anti-Federalist papers, and who have studied the history of the era in order to better understand the original intent of the framers.
Somewhere in there you will find conservatives, not among the Marxists and autocrats.
This is the season for sorting things out. Now is the time we will hash out our differences and hopefully find a candidate we can all support. That is what the primaries are all about. Expect vicious infighting, a harsh comparison of positions on the issues, and glaring comparisons of candidates.
Gotta happen.
If we don't strip them of their Madison Avenue polish and kick the tires, slam the doors, and look under the hood, you can bet the opposition will before the general election. If they can't pass muster here, what do you think the Democrat hit-machine will do to them? Shred them like cheap newsprint.
Better to vett our own than let our candidate get blown out of the water by the opposition.
This is not some pep-rally here, even if at times support for some of the candidates takes on that aura. This has the potential to determine the fate of the free world, and will shape the country and world our great-grandchildren inherit. As a great-grandpa, that importance cannot be underestimated by me, the future has bounced on my knee. It has a name, a personality, a smile all its own. It is up to me to not let them down.
Vote your concience, and I'll vote mine, but do do your research first.
This thread was asking how much of a tailwind could Hunter expect to produce from all sides, and the answer basically is... NOT MUCH. You really are clueless as to what it takes to win an election.
I didn't mock anyone. And all of the announced candidates have their faults.
If you honestly believe that Hunter will be a frontrunner, or even THE frontrunner, by next January, that's fine with me. Like I said, if he's the nominee, I will vote for him.
If you want to see examples of "mocking", visit any Rudy or McCain thread.
I got that feel insulted.
This thread was asking how much of a tailwind could Hunter expect to produce from all sides, and the answer basically is... NOT MUCH.
***Wrong. This back & forth about headwinds & tailwinds started with this undeveloped analogy/comment: "A 'real conservative' without those or similar credentials are going into a tremendous headwind. Ignoring reality will do ZERO!"
You really are clueless as to what it takes to win an election.
***You really are clueless as to what would happen should a RINO split the base.
hehe, yes I did LOL
Howard Dean entered the 2004 contest with low name recognition, but still better known on the national scene than where Rep. Duncan Hunter begins his quest for the Presidency.
Dean pioneered political fundraising on the Internet but it was slow in starting. The Dean campaign had collected $1 million in contributions online two months after he set up his web site, but that was a full year after he created his campaign committee. Once it got going, the fundraising over the Internet proved extremely successful and they had collected $25.4 million by the end of September, 2003 which made Dean the top fundraiser among the Democrats. It came from many, small contributions solicited online. The overall average donation was approximately $80. It was driven by zealous, enthusiastic volunteers drawn from college campuses and young adults in their 20s.
Perhaps the zealous volunteers needed for the Hunter campaign might be found among veterans, active military, and members of conservative online forums.
The Dean campaign was innovative in their uses of the Internet in several ways, for example, campaign staff members and Dean himself blogged online and conducted polling via the Internet.
The model this election cycle for the online effort appears to be coming out of the Romney campaign for the Republicans. They’ve taken the Internet aspect of a campaign to the next level; especially in the area of fundraising. Real innovation is apparent in the prior planning for dozens of Mitt blog sites on the web and salesforce software tools adapted for the use of campaign volunteers with dramatic results. Just days after creating the Romney exploratory committee they brought 400 volunteers together in one place in Boston and raised a record $6.5 million in one day. The very professional campaign web site with superb video media content raised another $1.4 million in one month.
In my view, the downfall for Dean in the Democratic Iowa caucuses in January, 2004 came because the young staff and supporters were inexperienced with the caucus process in Iowa. I feel they neglected the ground game and old-school efforts needed to get out their vote on election day. Their growing infatuation with the Internet side of the campaign caused them to lose focus.
I think the third place finish in Iowa behind Kerry and Edwards sealed the fate of the Dean campaign, not the infamous “Dean Scream” moment by the candidate afterward. The campaign badly needed the help of the traditional Democrat election machine in the precincts to convert their money and wiz-bang Internet tools into bodies at the ballot box and they weren’t going to get that help after a third-place finish in Iowa. The talented and experienced folks among the Democrat organizers flocked to Kerry and Edwards and the rest is history.
Thanks. That's good to know.
From what limited polling data I have seen, in that scenario, fewer voters would flee to Hillary's camp or a third party than in a situation where Hillary ran against a liberal or even wishy-washy ("moderate") Republican.
While I thoroughly agree that Hillary is, as you so adeptly put it, "evil with a blueprint", I'd just as soon parry/riposte as merely parry her Heinous' bid for POTUS.
If, in the course of your research, you find reasons for Hunter to not be the candidate, (aside from the name recognition thing, which can be fixed), let me know.
The "attacks" on Rudy are a statement of his past positions.
If he cannot withstand both intense scrutiny and those "attacks" before the primaries, he won't make it in the General.
Raising money is nice. It isn't the same thing as raising votes, even though it helps. There is a lot of money in the urban northeast, and it will go to the known candidates from there first. No surprises there.
Regardless of whom I might support more, Rudy does not appeal to me because he has had next to no policy differences from Hillary. Evil is as evil does, with or without a blueprint, (...by their fruits ye shall know them.).
I, too, am trying to find a candidate I can give my wholehearted support, and so far Hunter looks like the best to come along.
As for Rudy, frankly, the idea of someone who supports it being a felony to own or transfer a tin box capable of holding a certain number of rifle or pistol cartridges does not cut it with me, especially because I own a few of those tin boxes, and especially when they can support the alleged right of a woman to have her baby killed while in the womb. Those are just two of the one-issue voter issues, but they are incalculably important, simply because these are issues where voters can, will, and have traditionally voted their concience. We need a candidate who can appeal to RKBA and at least be acceptable to pro-life voters.
The latter may not seem like a salient issue to you, but to those of us who view the 45 million slaughtered babies since Roe as a horror on par with any pogrom in history, a vote for anyone who will not actively work to stem that torrent of blood stains the voter's hands as well.
It is an issue which transcends politics and enters into how a person will be viewed by their God, one which will affect them for all eternity.
For those who claim to not believe in God, the issue may seem moot, but do not allow that faction to cause you or the Party Leaders to underestimate the seriousness of the issue to those of us who believe there is something intrinsically wrong with any culture which would permit, much less endorse the wholesale slaughter of its young, and who will vote against anyone who embraces the practice, regardless of party affiliation.
It is a matter which transcends Earthly politics.
Aside from this, some feel equally as strongly about border isues, there is a war on, and other social and financial issues rear their ugly little heads as well.
If the candidate has the right stance on the issues, support will follow, and the votes will come in. The cold calculus becomes one of who will tolerate what, and therein lies the rub. The closer you get to the center, the less strictly people seem to hold their beliefs (in general). No one has theratened to vote third party or stay at home because a candidate was simply not centrist enough. So while 'Centrists' will vote for a Conservative, the converse is less likely. Remember, morphing toward the middle (something the Dems do every election cycle ) is a shift in image (or attempt to) to the Right.
Lately, for some stupid reason, Republicans have tried shifting to the left, and they got spanked for it in 2006.
I really think '08 is not the time to repeat that experiment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.