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

[HillbillyDan]

If there are "technical glitches" then the bastards must be held accountable! If we have to go back to paper and pencils to get a proper vote then so be it!

 

[2young2vote]

Hmmm that is interesting but don't you think that such "active" ron paul supporters would have donated as well? If this is true than that is great.

 

[curtisag]

blimp!

 

[boethius27]

Sadly, 9 out of 10 Ron Paul supporters that I know (well, roughly anyways) have donated.

RP supporters are vocal and pro-active.

Lew has great logic, but I'm not sure how applicable it is. WE NEED TO VOTE, PERIOD.

 

[curtisag]

Sadly, 9 out of 10 Ron Paul supporters that I know (well, roughly anyways) have donated.

RP supporters are vocal and pro-active.

Lew has great logic, but I'm not sure how applicable it is. WE NEED TO VOTE, PERIOD.

I disagree, there are tons of Ron Paul supporters who can't or don't donate. My whole family is a good example. I am the only one who has donated, but they all like him and will vote.

 

[Adamsa]

Sadly, 9 out of 10 Ron Paul supporters that I know (well, roughly anyways) have donated.

RP supporters are vocal and pro-active.

Lew has great logic, but I'm not sure how applicable it is. WE NEED TO VOTE, PERIOD.

This is what I fear, but the grassroots has worked on a lot of people who might not even have the internet too.

 

[constitutional]

Sadly, 9 out of 10 Ron Paul supporters that I know (well, roughly anyways) have donated.

RP supporters are vocal and pro-active.

Lew has great logic, but I'm not sure how applicable it is. WE NEED TO VOTE, PERIOD.

I hope you are wrong.

I disagree, there are tons of Ron Paul supporters who can't or don't donate. My whole family is a good example. I am the only one who has donated, but they all like him and will vote.

I hope you are right.


:/

 

[justatrey]

AHHH stop teasing me with this stuff.

I'm sticking to hoping and praying (even though I'm an atheist) for third place. Third place = mass celebration in the streets.

 

[WilliamC]

WARNING- ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE BELOW

I know about 15 people who will be voting Paul in the Illinois primaries.

NONE of them go to meetup groups, visit this forum, or have participated in any moneybombs. I'm the only out of that 15 who has donated (never done rallys/meetups)

This tells me that the grasssroots that people are seeing (signs on the street/moneybombs) are just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

My honest opinion is that Ron Paul's voter/donor is 18-1, or somewhere close to that.

I don't know about exact figures but I'd be very suprised if you aren't correct. No matter how much
the grassroots activists like and support Ron Paul, there will always be far more who are not going
to do anything except vote. Even if Ron Paul has a huge 30% of his voters as activists (donating,
meetups, ect) then 70% of his support hasn't been heard from yet.

Tonight we can hope this is true. Tomorrow we will know.

 

[Luther]

The idea that Ron Paul's donor-to-voter ratio will be significantly worse than the worst donor-to-voter ratio from the 2004 caucus (Kucinich, 1/32) seems unlikely.

 

[LFOD]

That entire analysis is meaningless because we have no idea what RP's voter:donor ratio might be, therefore we have no clue about how many votes he will get.

Furthermore, using the Kucinich ratio generates the most optimistic result. That defeats the purpose of this style of analysis, which is to see what the result is from using the worst case number.

edit: nevermind. I was looking at the top ratios and comparing that to the Kucinich number. I'd like to see what the ratios actually were for the other candidates.

 

[DanK]

That entire analysis is meaningless because we have no idea what RP's voter:donor ratio might be, therefore we have no clue about how many votes he will get.

Furthermore, using the Kucinich ratio generates the most optimistic result. That defeats the purpose of this style of analysis, which is to see what the result is from using the worst case number.

Woah, woah, woah. Hold up. You just reversed your math. By saying Kucinich had the worst voter:donor ratio, they mean he had the least number of voters for each donor i.e. other candidates had like 50:1 or something like that (probably actually a lot more). This was using the worst case scenario from the 2004 numbers. RP's support may be fervent enough that he even gets lower than that, but I think it's reasonable to say at least 18:1, which would be 21.6% if they get 100,000 votes. He's taking 3rd at the very least.

 

[austin356]

The author of this Lew Rockwell article didn't take into account that Democratic (Kucinich) caucuses are different than Republican caucuses in Iowa.


Iowa caucuses are run not by the government, but rather by the state Democratic and Republican Parties.

While the Republican caucuses are fairly simple - voters can leave shortly after they declare their preferences - Democratic caucuses can require more time and multiple candidate preferences from participants. They do not conform to the one-person, one-vote rule, because votes are weighted according to a precinct's past level of participation. Ties can be settled by coin toss or picking names out of a hat.


Can anyone review if and how this issue affects the donor:voter ratios ? Its seems the ratios for Dems would be much lower than Republicans due to fewer "precinct votes" (dems) than individual (Rep) votes.

EVERYONE READ THE ABOVE POST. It has a very important incite.

Earlier I thought of this and was thinking it would negatively impact our Nicks calculations and I spread too much negativity on these forums as it is but after doing a little thinking it actually works in our favor since Nick is using Dennis as his control.



This means that the numbers Nick is using are Dennis supporters who actually had their vote count, aka they were in a Precinct where Dennis reached 15% (very very few). This completely throws off the calculation, but in a prudent manner (underestimated rather than over)

A more accurate measure would be to take Dean's voter to donor ratio and use that. Divide by however many times you think Ron Paul supporters were more likely to donate than dean supporters and there you go.

Someone find how many unique donors Dean had and how many votes he received.



My Conclusion:

Positive: Nick's comparision to Dennis is faulty due to differences in the democratic and republican caucus procedures. He underestimates (vastly) Dennis' voter to donor ratio.

Negative (personal judgement not analytical analysis; separate from the above): I think our supporters are soo dedicated that they are much more likely to donate. We will have a record low voter to donor ratio.

 

[curtisag]

EVERYONE READ THE ABOVE POST. It has a very important incite.

Earlier I thought of this and was thinking it would negatively impact our Nicks calculations but after doing a little thinking it actually works in our favor since Nick is using Dennis as his control.



This means that the numbers Nick is using are Dennis supporters who actually had their vote count, aka they were in a Precinct where Dennis reached 15% (very very few). This completely throws off the calculation, but in a prudent manner (underestimated rather than over)

A more accurate measure would be to take Dean's voter to donor ratio and use that. Divide by however many times you think Ron Paul supporters were more likely to donate than dean supporters and there you go.

Someone find how many unique donors Dean had and how many votes he received.

I agree, we should be closer to Dean's ratio of voters to donations. However, we don't need Dean's ratio to win. Winning is everything. And all we need is the LOWEST voter to donation ratio.

 

[bobmurph]

That entire analysis is meaningless because we have no idea what RP's voter:donor ratio might be, therefore we have no clue about how many votes he will get.

Furthermore, using the Kucinich ratio generates the most optimistic result. That defeats the purpose of this style of analysis, which is to see what the result is from using the worst case number.

The way I undertand the story, the Kunicich #'s are the lowest voter:donor from 2004. Meaning Kerry, Dean, etc had votor:donor ratios of greater than 32:1 (40:1, 50:1, etc). "Experts" estimate Ron Paul only needs a voter:donor of 22:1 to win. The Kucinich #'s are NOT the best case scenario...they are the least optimistic #'s based on the 2004 data.

Neverthess, you're right that we can't tell what his voter:donor will actually be. Even if it is 10:1 we will proabably get 3rd. It is exciting though that we only need a ratio that is 66% of what the lowest ratio was in 2004! Go RP!

 

[LFOD]

Woah, woah, woah. Hold up. You just reversed your math. By saying Kucinich had the worst voter:donor ratio, they mean he had the least number of voters for each donor i.e. other candidates had like 50:1 or something like that (probably actually a lot more). This was using the worst case scenario from the 2004 numbers. RP's support may be fervent enough that he even gets lower than that, but I think it's reasonable to say at least 18:1, which would be 21.6% if they get 100,000 votes. He's taking 3rd at the very least.

You're right. I understood it incorrectly. I do wish he had posted the numbers for the entire analysis though. It looks pretty tedious to try to reproduce.

 

[mavtek]

I'd say depending on the demographic we have a 7-10% donor/supporter ratio. Which should get us 15,000 votes I'm hoping.

 

[Joe3113]

Being a college student, I know many RP supporters that cannot afford to donate. The campaign claims that there are many young followers, which would mean that many do not have adequate funds to donate. Additionally, has there ever been a candidate that has had more donors that have maxed out than RP? I find maxed-out donors everywhere, which would mean that there aren't as many supporters donating, but rather small amounts of supporters donating LARGE, LARGE amounts. RP supporters are known for their energy, but instead of donating, some sign-wave, create videos, etc.....

I really hope you are right

 

[Joe3113]

There WILL be "technical glitches" tommorrow which will leave Ron Paul off the ballot in some precincts etc..guaranteed that the fix is somewhat in....as much as they could anyway.

If that happens it's time to go ape shit

 

[speciallyblend]

i get it and yes hit the nail on the head