Only 17.51% of RP supporters voted in Iowa. No wonder we were 5th. Learn from stats:

[tttar]

Here's my previous thread on this, from before the Iowa caucus:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=72218

I'd guessed 12% of the others would vote. Only 10.11% did.

Then we blew it because ONLY 17.51% OF OUR PEOPLE SHOWED UP.

I updated my spreadsheet on this, and if the polls were accurate, I think it more or less proves the 17.51% number. (And if the polls UNDERSTATED our support - as we'd been hoping - that even makes it WORSE.)

http://www.mediafire.com/?9jldjvwuabd

I'm sorry that I can't make the spreadsheet any more clear than it is, but if you want to plug in some "what if" values, first remember to only mess with the yellow cells, and then look to the flagged cells for more guidance.

I wish I'd figured this out in detail much earlier than the morning of another primary.

Bottom line: We need 60% participation to put RP at 30%, but less than 18% came. The campaigning apparently needs to be directed at our own supporters.

3rd place is possible in New Hampshire, because the other guys have always voted in record numbers there, but if everyone would simply SHOW UP in the other states, this is winnable.

That's what this writer was hoping:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/muratore7.html

Had only 24% bothered to come (plug in 24% into cell J7, in the Primaries sheet), Ron Paul would have placed 3rd in Iowa. And Fox News would have shit.

But most Ron Paul supporters didn't want that badly enough, I guess...

Are we going to repeat the performance?

You can later plug in poll stats for other upcoming states at the bottom of the same sheet, in the Nationwide section.

Then add the estimated turnout rates, vary the one for Ron Paul, and you'll see over and over again that we need about 3 times as many people showing up than we just had.

 

[noztnac]

We need 80%!!! What the hell is wrong with people?

 

[MiamiBalloonGuy]

WTF? Only 17.5 % of Ron Paul Supporters showed up? WTH? Everyone that is a Paul supporter MUST take your Election Day off and vote... do we really want a president obabma? I really don't.... Please go and vote!

 

[JohnnyWrath]

We need 80%!!! What the hell is wrong with people?

+1 get off the couch and off the PC....vote !!!!

 

[colecrowe]

wow that is awesome. Send this to HQ and the meetups that are calling the lists to motivate them--that spreadsheet is fun

 

[tfelice]

Oddly enough this result holds true with the general trend of younger voters. They are quick to march in the streets, attend protests, and in today's generation since up on MySpace & post YouTube videos. But when it comes to actually getting up and voting they don't do it.

 

[rp08orbust]

Sorry if you've already explained this tttar, but how are you defining "supporter" and where are you getting the numbers?

 

[Ozwest]

Hate to say it, but you young f*cks, are slack bastards.

 

[Ozwest]

Educate me. Get off your asses and vote in New Hampshire.

Hmmm...

 

[tttar]

Sorry if you've already explained this tttar, but how are you defining "supporter" and where are you getting the numbers?

Well, check out the spreadsheet.

"Supporter" is easy. It's the 6% that polled for Ron Paul in Iowa. If you only include "dedicated supporters" like the people here, I have no problem with them. But if that's all the "support" there is, we're of course dead.

The spreadsheet has lots of historical voter participation stats, but more importantly uses the exact vote count from Iowa, and tries to make it meaningful in the context of the 6%. We actually got 9.96%, and I think we can learn something from that. The 17.51% of course isn't as precise as implied, but it can't be off by more than 1-2%.

Which is of course pretty pathetic, at any rate.

 

[rp08orbust]

Hate to say it, but you young f*cks, are slack bastards.

I'll reserve judgment as to whether the young f*cks are in fact slack bastards until I hear how tttar divines that Ron Paul had 67,500 "supporters" in IA.

The now legendary "list" that the campaign lost only had ~17,000 supporters. If tttar knew about 50,000 more, maybe he should have been working for the campaign.

 

[colecrowe]

I'll reserve judgment as to whether the young f*cks are in fact slack bastards until I hear how tttar divines that Ron Paul had 67,500 "supporters" in IA.

The now legendary "list" that the campaign lost only had ~17,000 supporters. If tttar knew about 50,000 more, maybe he should have been working for the campaign.

You are a fing idiot. THE 67,500 IS 6% OF THE VOTING ELIGIBLE POPULATION. He extrapolated from the polls showing 6% of respondents supported Ron Paul.

 

[tttar]

You are a fing idiot. THE 67,500 IS 6% OF THE VOTING ELIGIBLE POPULATION. He extrapolated from the polls showing 6% of respondents supported Ron Paul.

Thank you. I was going to say that, but in kinder terms.

Also, I looked at the 2000 and 2004 numbers and added a few more to get the 2008 VEP estimate. And I assumed 50% of those were Republicans.

Again, the 17.51% isn't really precise to .01%, but how far off can I be?

 

[Ozwest]

I'll reserve judgment as to whether the young f*cks are in fact slack bastards until I hear how tttar divines that Ron Paul had 67,500 "supporters" in IA.

The now legendary "list" that the campaign lost only had ~17,000 supporters. If tttar knew about 50,000 more, maybe he should have been working for the campaign.

F#ck "legendary lists,

Stop being pussies, and vote your asses off!

 

[Ozwest]

Too many of you are "overwhelmed" with your U-Tube connection.

Guess what? The "old f%cks, are going to steal this right away from you, and right under your scrawny asses.

Welcome to your "America."

 

[rp08orbust]

You are a fing idiot. THE 67,500 IS 6% OF THE VOTING ELIGIBLE POPULATION. He extrapolated from the polls showing 6% of respondents supported Ron Paul.

Yes, I see that now, and I don't think his point makes sense. The 6% he uses is based on pollsters calling likely Republican primary voters, not all eligible voters. tttar is then taking that 6% and applying it to the million people who don't care about politics and calling them "supporters". Then he turns around and lambastes these imaginary supporters for being lazy.

My interpretation of the data, on the other hand, is that we need to <b>create</b> more supporters out of those eligible voters who might lean toward Ron Paul if forced to choose.

 

[WilliamC]

Fair weather supporters worse than FOX News

If true this is troubling, I had expected better from those who decide to support Ron Paul.

 

[Ozwest]

I realized you guys were spitting chips, when I saw the "idolization" of media personalities.

Go back to the Mall!

 

[rp08orbust]

If true this is troubling, I had expected better from those who decide to support Ron Paul.

We don't know that any of the 50,000 supporters that tttar hypothesized to exist "decided" anything. See #16.

 

[tttar]

Yes, I see that now, and I don't think his point makes sense. The 6% he uses is based on pollsters calling likely Republican primary voters, not all eligible voters. tttar is then taking that 6% and applying it to the million people who don't care about politics and calling them "supporters". Then he turns around and lambastes these imaginary supporters for being lazy.

My interpretation of the data, on the other hand, is that we need to <b>create</b> more supporters out of those eligible voters who might lean toward Ron Paul if forced to choose.

Well what other number can I use to compare them to the 10.11%?

I'm not trying to "lambast" you guys, I'm simply saying that when comparing apples to apples, people who say they like Ron Paul seem to be about 70% more dedicated, but we need to do a lot better.

I doubt this needs to be directed at anyone here; but it gives us an idea about the kinds of people we need to get more involved - the same people we were so happy about, watching the rising poll numbers.