curtisag
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 657
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018155.html
This is amazing analysis that I think is a very accurate gauge of estimating supporters who turn out to vote. We only need the worst voter:donor ratio of any candidate in the 2004 Iowa primaries to win Iowa. Amazing if true! Could this be the real reason Hannity is scrambling to kiss up to Ron Paul? Is there some insider info floating around at the highest levels of media pundits that Paul has a real chance of winning Iowa? Is this the source of the Paul media blitz today? I don't know, but it's certainly more possible than I ever realized.
EDIT (for those that are having trouble understanding this):
I will try to explain the voter:donor ratio in simple terms people can easily understand. Lets say Ron Paul gets 20,000 votes in the caucus out of a total of 100,000. That would mean he won 20% of the vote. To calculate his voter:donor ratio, you would take the 20,000 votes and divide by the number of donations he received in that state. Ron received donations of approximately 1200 people which is a significant number. Therefore this hypothetical ratio would be 16.66 votes for every single donation.
What they did here was look back in history to determine how other candidates did in 2004. They compared all the candidates vote totals vs. their donations. A larger voter/donor ratio is always better, because that means more votes per donation. But lets assume for the moment Ron Paul has the worst ratio compared to 2004, Dennis Kucinich. If Ron Paul gets that ratio or better, he wins. He would have to have the worst voter donor ratio of any candidate to lose.
This is amazing analysis that I think is a very accurate gauge of estimating supporters who turn out to vote. We only need the worst voter:donor ratio of any candidate in the 2004 Iowa primaries to win Iowa. Amazing if true! Could this be the real reason Hannity is scrambling to kiss up to Ron Paul? Is there some insider info floating around at the highest levels of media pundits that Paul has a real chance of winning Iowa? Is this the source of the Paul media blitz today? I don't know, but it's certainly more possible than I ever realized.
EDIT (for those that are having trouble understanding this):
I will try to explain the voter:donor ratio in simple terms people can easily understand. Lets say Ron Paul gets 20,000 votes in the caucus out of a total of 100,000. That would mean he won 20% of the vote. To calculate his voter:donor ratio, you would take the 20,000 votes and divide by the number of donations he received in that state. Ron received donations of approximately 1200 people which is a significant number. Therefore this hypothetical ratio would be 16.66 votes for every single donation.
What they did here was look back in history to determine how other candidates did in 2004. They compared all the candidates vote totals vs. their donations. A larger voter/donor ratio is always better, because that means more votes per donation. But lets assume for the moment Ron Paul has the worst ratio compared to 2004, Dennis Kucinich. If Ron Paul gets that ratio or better, he wins. He would have to have the worst voter donor ratio of any candidate to lose.
Last edited:
