Voter:Doner ratio 10:1, Implication

Good question. I wish I had the data to try to answer. I'd also like to see the same stat for other campaigns.
 
if that donor to voter ratio holds true across other states, this doesnt bid well for the candidacy. Its great that RP supporters are more motivated than other candidates supporters, but in the end, we each only get one vote.

Its sad to say that without some larger mass media exposure we are facing a serious uphill climb. The supporter base has been growing at a rate of about 25% a month. With super tuesday looming a month out, Im not sure we have enough time.

No matter how this ends, we NEED to find a way to expand our mass media engines by abouot a thousandfold.
 
trust me, california is our saving grace, and if we can ramp things up in NY too
 
also don't forget mccain,huckabee, and thompson are near broke they can't stay in this much longer if donations don't pick up so we just need them to keep giuliani and romney down
 
Iowa had 673 donors
NH has had 686 donors

(~ half the population) which means Paul's support should be roughly double: IE ~20,000 votes.
 
~1000 people donated from Iowa

~10000 people voted in Iowa

if that donor to voter ratio holds true across other states, this doesnt bid well for the candidacy. Its great that RP supporters are more motivated than other candidates supporters, but in the end, we each only get one vote.

Its sad to say that without some larger mass media exposure we are facing a serious uphill climb. The supporter base has been growing at a rate of about 25% a month. With super tuesday looming a month out, Im not sure we have enough time.

No matter how this ends, we NEED to find a way to expand our mass media engines by abouot a thousandfold.

Doesn't that say we got 10 voters for every donor in the state? New Hampshire is a very strong donor state......How can that be bad?
 
Iowa had 673 donors
NH has had 686 donors

(~ half the population) which means Paul's support should be roughly double: IE ~20,000 votes.

Why would he get twice as many votes from the same number of donors? His percentage might double, perhaps, assuming the percentage of people who turnout is about the same as in Iowa, but the raw number of voters should be about the same.
 
I might be reading this wrong.......or my math could be off but this is my take.


According to the donor map the donor per million ratio in New Hampshire is roughly twice that of Iowa. Assuming the votes per donor ratio stays the same, then wouldnt the voting outcome be roughly twice what it was in Iowa?
 
All this speculation is not taking into account that Iowa's caucus and NH's primary are two different beasts. Iowa's system is more exclusive - requiring people to be at a specific place at a specific time. NH's all day system allows more people to participate. Apples and oranges.
 
I would predict that in New Hampshire Ron Paul should get at least 3rd position with 20% votes or better. Given the numbers out there (polls, donor ratio, Iowa result) that's what I got after analysing US politics for about 15 minutes. If you fall for it, then it's your own fault ;-)

I'm not from US, never been to NH or IA.
 
The voter:donor figures we've been seeing for the Democrats in 2004 (Kucinich with the lowest at 32) are for donations over $200, which means the ratio for Paul will be higher than 10:1.
 
we can win NYC we beat him in the straw poll, and their losing faith since he's looking like a loser in the medias eyes. We made an indifferent show, so expectations have been lowered meaning a good showing NH will have even more impact.
 
Back
Top