Lew Rockwell Just Convinced Me Paul Has A Serious Chance of 1st Place in Iowa

RoyalShock said:
1200 donors with a 32:1 voter-doner ratio yields 38400 votes. Is that what he is saying is needed for a "hands down" victory?

That doesn't seem to mesh with his numbers in the first paragraph that show a 22:1 ratio yielding 80000 votes.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes. I heard they expect 100K votes for the GOP caucus. That would be 38.4%!

This is encouraging, but bad weather would be a preferable omen.
 
jj111 said:
Devil's advocate: isn't it possible that we could have the worst voter to donor ratio; which would be the same as saying we could have the highest donor to voter ratio?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the math behind this. Re-read it, and if you still don't understand I'll try to explain it further. Also, don't forget the big football game on tomorrow. That will draw away much support from the front runners in the polls.
 
Adamsa said:
The question is "are there quiet and hidden Ron Paul voters out there?"
Click to expand...

HOLD!!!!!!!!
stirling.jpg
 
Very interesting. I think we'd still need to know what percentage of supporters donate. The lower the % the better the result. Is that what this donor:voter ratio really is? My brain hurts now... carry on.
 
curtisag said:
I don't think you understand the math behind this. Re-read it, and if you still don't understand I'll try to explain it further. Also, don't forget the big football game on tomorrow. That will draw away much support from the front runners in the polls.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be bad if we had a low voter-donor ratio. If we had 10 voters to every 1 donor, that's only about 10,000 votes, good enough for 5th place.

The higher the voters to donors, the better.
 
Basically, if we have a 12:1 voter:donor ratio, we're screwed, right? I expect our donor to voter ratio to be lower than everyone else (ie. more Ron Paul voters are apt to donate than every other candidate).
 
Or he could simply have a very high donor to voter porportion...

Don't expect 1st. Shoot for 3rd, anything else is a pleasant surprise.
 
Yes, tomorrow we'll find it out if we truly have a silent majority, and if we do, how large it is.
 
I think the article is misleading, because we probably have the "best" donor to voter ratio.

The worst 32:1 (voters to donors) means that for every 32 voters, 1 was a donor.

More of the people that will vote for Ron are likely to have been be a donor (Nov 5th, Tea Party, etc). So Ron might have a 10:1 voter to donor ratio. So for every 10 voters, 1 has donated. So multiple that (10) by the 1,200 donors and you get 12,000 votes. Not as exciting...

But I hope he has a "bad" voter to donor ratio, in which case he will clean house. However, I think his voters are enthusiastic donors too....
 
if 1200 donors were from Iowa

22:1 = 26,400

32:1 = 38,400

Either of which would be an impressive showing.

I happen to think our voter to turnout ratio will be lower because of our fundraising and grassroots. Because we have more passionate support I'm thinking more of our supporters donate than have in past campaigns. Unfortunately the only campaign we could compare with ours would be Dean, and we know how that turned out.

I think we'll do much better than Dean, but I just wanted to throw out that we probably won't have a 22:1 turnout ratio.
 
Ronin said:
Very interesting. I think we'd still need to know what percentage of supporters donate. The lower the % the better the result. Is that what this donor:voter ratio really is? My brain hurts now... carry on.
Click to expand...

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. 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.
 
Thor said:
I think the article is misleading, because we probably have the "best" donor to voter ratio.

The worst 32:1 (voters to donors) means that for every 32 voters, 1 was a donor.

More of the people that will vote for Ron are likely to have been be a donor (Nov 5th, Tea Party, etc). So Ron might have a 10:1 voter to donor ratio. So for every 10 voters, 1 has donated. So multiple that (10) by the 1,200 donors and you get 12,000 votes. Not as exciting...

But I hope he has a "bad" voter to donor ratio, in which case he will clean house. However, I think his voters are enthusiastic donors too....
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I was getting at :D
 
Wait... no... I think Ron Paul supporters are probably very likely to donate if they do support Ron Paul. Wouldn't that mean that there's far less of a chance that there are much more Ron Paul voters out there who haven't donated? I call fuzzy math on this. I think 3rd is our best shot.
 
I believe RP's donor-voter is more like 10:1, because his voters are not generally part of the Republican mainstream...just a guess. Sorry to be a downer.
 
I'm optimistic. I believe there are a lot RP voters out there who just couldn't scrape together the extra money during the holidays to donate. Maybe there are some who just don't contribute to campaigns, but will go and caucus? Maybe there are some who don't have a lot of time to study the candidates, and only learned of Dr. Paul in the last couple of weeks, during the campaign blitz?

It's a lot easier to get people to go your way with a free vote than to make them crack open their wallet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
A Chance to Double Your Gift!
Replies
3
Views
2K
TheTexan
TheTexan
Anti Federalist
ME - 40 percent of the non-citizens in Maine voted in 2024
Replies
17
Views
1K
sparebulb
S
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
421
acptulsa
acptulsa
M
Libertarianism and you
Replies
0
Views
386
Max Stirner II
M
PAF
Voting: The Seen and the Unseen
Replies
2
Views
159
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top