Jesse Benton "30,000 expected turnout"

[itsnobody]

He isn't going to win - how can he pull 30% of the vote?

A lower turnout means a lower percentage of all candidates...

There isn't enough hardcore Ron Paul supporters in Nevada to reach that elusive 10,000 needed for a win...

Miracles like that don't happen.

When the media isn't painting ron as viable or electable, the vast majority will not vote for him... why anyone thinks Ron can pull a majority vote and win in Nevada beggars belief.

Pete

Sure it can...if he has 1,054 donors in NV alone, thats already 1054 votes, he can definitely get 10,000 votes

 

[phixion]

Sure it can...if he has 1,054 donors in NV alone, thats already 1054 votes, he can definitely get 10,000 votes

Who says those 1,045 will vote in the primary?

Who says there's 10,000 who will actually come and vote?

If you believe it to be true, I suggest you head over to betfair.com because Ron Paul winning Nevada is going @ 100/1.

You could clean up when he wins and then donate it to the campaign.

It's not happening... be happy with a 3rd (and that will be difficult).

Pete

 

[AlexMerced]

we've generaly 10,000 as a minimum so far, so I'm positive about this one

 

[Sarge]

News from 4 minutes ago. Copyrighted, so you need to do a google search. AP story,

Uncertain GOP Race Shifts to SC, Nev.

Talking 25K turnout NV.

Must read for those in NV.

 

[da32130]

Sure it can...if he has 1,054 donors in NV alone, thats already 1054 votes, he can definitely get 10,000 votes

No. He already has 2108 votes (1054 is out of 70k donors, but there have been twice that)

He most likely has 5% if just donors votes. If turnout is low 30k and each donor finds one other person to vote for him he has 13%.

Even this would be a very low turnout. In Iowa there were about 9 votes for every donor. But NV is a closed caucus and Iowa was open.

 

[morerocklesstalk]

News from 4 minutes ago. Copyrighted, so you need to do a google search. AP story,

Uncertain GOP Race Shifts to SC, Nev.

Talking 25K turnout NV.

Must read for those in NV.

Good find.

 

[bbachtung]

According to an article that I read within the last week, many Nevada Republicans had not heard that there was a Republican caucus coming up. Mitt's got the majority of the Mormon vote in Nevada (which will be substantial); realistically, I think that 2nd place is the likely result in Nevada for RP.

 

[AlexMerced]

No. He already has 2108 votes (1054 is out of 70k donors, but there have been twice that)

He most likely has 5% if just donors votes. If turnout is low 30k and each donor finds one other person to vote for him he has 13%.

Even this would be a very low turnout. In Iowa there were about 9 votes for every donor. But NV is a closed caucus and Iowa was open.

Our ratio should be higher since it's closed caucus

the closed caucus is factor that benefits us, since we've been organizing in Nevada for so long

 

[jdmetz]

It doesn't matter if the media covers it or not. We need a win so I can tell every "he can't win" voter "Really? He won Nevada, and that's only a start". I have nothing to say to that right now.

Say, "He's already beat the national front runner in both Iowa and Michigan." (Since the media still insist on calling Guliani the front runner - we'll just use that to our advantage.)

 

[Austin]

Bullshit. When I was in Iowa, they told us the turnout was going to be 80,000, yet there were likely more than 120,000 participants. The same thing happened in NH, so don't believe this low turnout BS.

We will likely placed between 4th and 2nd (if we are lucky).

 

[itsnobody]

Who says those 1,045 will vote in the primary?

Who says there's 10,000 who will actually come and vote?

If you believe it to be true, I suggest you head over to betfair.com because Ron Paul winning Nevada is going @ 100/1.

You could clean up when he wins and then donate it to the campaign.

It's not happening... be happy with a 3rd (and that will be difficult).

Pete

Well if you donated money to someone then obviously you'll vote for them, that's how you know

So it's definitely possible

I say at least 1st place or 2nd place if we try

 

[da32130]

Our ratio should be higher since it's closed caucus

Are you saying we will get more than 9 votes per donor? That ratio was for only Paul in IA.

The organization we have should keep us closer to our IA ratio than everyone else is to their own, but I don't think any candidate should be expected to do better in ratio terms.

If we had a 9-1 ratio Paul would get 18k votes. That would be amazing, and luckily we shouldn't have to do anywhere near that well to win(unless turnout is 60k instead of 25-40k).

 

[yankee_blue]

Dont know where they get these numbers...

Voter turnout in he 2000 primary was: 211,430
http://secretaryofstate.biz/elections/results/2000Primary/VoterTurnout.asp

in 2004: 275,913

This is Reps and Dems together... but still...

 

[Sarge]

You can't compare 2000 or 2004 numbers. Things have changed, and this year it is by caucus.

That takes much more time and effort to attend.

Much different then a primary.

 

[Young_Apprentice]

The caucus system is new in Nevada isn't it? This should keep most people away who aren't sure how the system works. RP supporters, however, will be out in full force. I say expect at least 10,000 and a second or first place finish.

 

[da32130]

Dont know where they get these numbers...

Voter turnout in he 2000 primary was: 211,430
http://secretaryofstate.biz/elections/results/2000Primary/VoterTurnout.asp

in 2004: 275,913

This is Reps and Dems together... but still...

It may be because the election day turnout was only 143k or 70k per party. Now it is a caucus so it may be lower.

But you make a good point. It looks like the turnout could be much higher than the media thinks right now, even if they don't think it is likely.

 

[AlexMerced]

It may be because the election day turnout was only 143k or 70k per party. Now it is a caucus so it may be lower.

But you make a good point. It looks like the turnout could be much higher than the media thinks right now, even if they don't think it is likely.

I think a lot of the estimation is due to low registration numbers, registration is now closed

 

[da32130]

I think a lot of the estimation is due to low registration numbers, registration is now closed

So less people are registered than before? Even though the population has grown?

 

[Naraku]

Actually applying the Iowa and New Hampshire donor ratios has proven quite effective. It yielded the same amount in Michigan and when applied to Nevada you get about 22,000 people, which would trump a 60,000 turnout.

Several sources are already suggesting Paul could win Nevada. People talked up third for New Hampshire and Iowa and we got close in both cases. Turnout was the only problem, but it looks like it won't be a problem this time because turnout overall looks set to be low.

Remember in Iowa and New Hampshire there was a lot of organization by the campaigns and in Michigan all of the candidates above us actually went there intensely before it happened while Paul basically ignored the state, which he probably could have gotten third place had they focused on it. In this case Paul has been focusing heavily on Nevada while all the major campaigns are basically ignoring it.

 

[Nash]

Remember in Iowa and New Hampshire there was a lot of organization by the campaigns and in Michigan all of the candidates above us actually went there intensely before it happened while Paul basically ignored the state, which he probably could have gotten third place had they focused on it. In this case Paul has been focusing heavily on Nevada while all the major campaigns are basically ignoring it.

I guess one question I have is why HQ keeps ignoring states.

To what end are they doing this? Where are the resources going? If he's not campaigning in Michigan for example what was he doing instead? Has he been campaigning in Nevada this entire time? I don't understand the overall strategy here.