Voter - Donor Ratio and Logic Flaws

[grunt]

I saw this posted on the Lew Rockwell blog:

There has been some speculation out there that counting the number of donors to a campaign can determine and multiplying it by a given voter-to-donor ratio, the number of votes can be determined. According to Jim Babka, Paul would need a voter:donor ratio of 22:1 to 28:1 in order to capture 1/3rd of the caucus vote and win (22:1 at 80,000 GOP caucus-goers, and 28:1 with 100,000 GOP caucus-goers). Although voter:donor ratios are hard to come by, I looked at the number of donors prior to the 2004 Democratic Iowa caucus and the number of votes that candidate received (via OpenSecrets.org).

In the '04 Iowa Democratic Caucus, the candidate with the worst (lowest) voter:donor ratio was Dennis Kucinich, with 49 Iowa donors prior to the vote -- which yielded him 1588 votes and a voter:donor ratio of 32:1. If Ron Paul even achieved this low ratio (with his ~1,200 Iowa donors), he would win hands down.

There are a few potential flaws in this logic that I would like to point out before people too over-confident.

#1 - I think we can all agree that Ron Paul supporters/voters are more enthusiastic about donating, ground work, and going to vote. Ron Paul voters are much more likely to donate, which would result in a lower voter to donor ratio that your average candidate. The average major candidate voting republican does not typically donate, as shown in the average ratios.

#2 - The odds that there are those that support Ron Paul, but feel that it is more important for them to vote for Obama/Edwards or whoever in the other primary, also might have donated to Ron Paul's campaign a higher than usual. I don't know of any self-respecting democrat that would donate to Huckabee/Romney/McCain/Guiliani/Thompson's compaigns, but I certainly see interest from that side in supporting Ron Paul. The net effect is more donors that have zero associated voters and would also result in a lower ratio.

#3 - Kucinich's 2004 campaign did not have the same type of supporters as Ron Paul's campaign. His voters could not have been more likely to donate than Ron Paul's. He has trouble getting as much as 100k from the voters that he does have.

#4 - Dean's 2004 campaign - This should be the biggest red alarm of them all. We have to generate voters through hard work on the ground and determination. We cannot in any way assume that the voter/donor ratio gets as anything, because it will work against us (which as I have said, indicates the strength of RP supporters, not weakness).

I firmly believe Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic out there, and unfortunately this leads me to believe that this ratio will be quite low for Paul.

 

[grunt]

bump - theres another thread with the opposite opinion.

 

[Thumper]

Dean lost voter support after he freaked out on stage...

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I saw this posted on the Lew Rockwell blog:



There are a few potential flaws in this logic that I would like to point out before people too over-confident.

#1 - I think we can all agree that Ron Paul supporters/voters are more enthusiastic about donating, ground work, and going to vote. Ron Paul voters are much more likely to donate, which would result in a lower voter to donor ratio that your average candidate. The average major candidate voting republican does not typically donate, as shown in the average ratios.

#2 - The odds that there are those that support Ron Paul, but feel that it is more important for them to vote for Obama/Edwards or whoever in the other primary, also might have donated to Ron Paul's campaign a higher than usual. I don't know of any self-respecting democrat that would donate to Huckabee/Romney/McCain/Guiliani/Thompson's compaigns, but I certainly see interest from that side in supporting Ron Paul. The net effect is more donors that have zero associated voters and would also result in a lower ratio.

#3 - Kucinich's 2004 campaign did not have the same type of supporters as Ron Paul's campaign. His voters could not have been more likely to donate than Ron Paul's. He has trouble getting as much as 100k from the voters that he does have.

#4 - Dean's 2004 campaign - This should be the biggest red alarm of them all. We have to generate voters through hard work on the ground and determination. We cannot in any way assume that the voter/donor ratio gets as anything, because it will work against us (which as I have said, indicates the strength of RP supporters, not weakness).

I firmly believe Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic out there, and unfortunately this leads me to believe that this ratio will be quite low for Paul.

+1

We need to be realistic (but not pessimistic) about Iowa -- 3rd would be GREAT for us, that's not pessimstic, that's realistic.

The guy who wrote that article totally got the math mixed up. Ron Paul supporters are more likely to donate meaning that the odds that there are more Ron Paulites out there apart from those who have already donated who are going to vote is not very high. If you're a Ron Paul supporter, you've probably already donated, which means don't count on all kinds of Ron Paul supporters who haven't donated to the campaign coming out of the woodwork. We've worked hard and a good 3rd or 4th place in Iowa will be a well-earned prize that will get us lots of attention and new supporters.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Actually, I think the Kucinich camp is an apt comparison, not a bad one.

To support Kucinich that year, you had to be absolutely committed.

Anyone whose support was marginal would have bailed to support a more viable candidate.

Kucinich also gets all the "not a serious candidate" MSM BS that Paul does.

I think the most important thing to remember about the donor numbers is that we don't need a GOOD ratio to do well. With a ratio that's so bad it's a historical marvel, we will still do very well.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

"Ron Paul supporters are more likely to donate meaning that the odds that there are more Ron Paulites out there apart from those who have already donated who are going to vote is not very high."

That's precisely what's being tested.

In any other campaign with literally any other candidate, no matter how obscure or limited his support, it would be absolutely ludicrous to claim that all of that candidate's voters were also donors.

Even someone like a Gary Bauer HAD - HAD - to have had at least twenty times as many voters as donors.

On a message board like this one, it can seem like everyone has donated. But the people here are a tiny fraction of Paul's total support. For most people, making a political donation just isn't something they will ever do.

 

[akalucas]

bump - theres another thread with the opposite opinion.

out of curiosity what do you think the ratio will be for Paul?

I also suspect it will be low, but the question is how low will it be. I wonder if it will be offset by the fact the Paul's supporter are more likely to bring people with them than others. I suspect the people that Paul's people bring would not have gone to vote if they didnt receive a ride or there friend, family member..etc didnt push them to vote. I think every hardcore Paul supporter is going to bring at least 2 people with them to go caucus.

 

[Cardinal Red]

I saw this posted on the Lew Rockwell blog:



There are a few potential flaws in this logic that I would like to point out before people too over-confident.

#1 - I think we can all agree that Ron Paul supporters/voters are more enthusiastic about donating, ground work, and going to vote. Ron Paul voters are much more likely to donate, which would result in a lower voter to donor ratio that your average candidate. The average major candidate voting republican does not typically donate, as shown in the average ratios.

#2 - The odds that there are those that support Ron Paul, but feel that it is more important for them to vote for Obama/Edwards or whoever in the other primary, also might have donated to Ron Paul's campaign a higher than usual. I don't know of any self-respecting democrat that would donate to Huckabee/Romney/McCain/Guiliani/Thompson's compaigns, but I certainly see interest from that side in supporting Ron Paul. The net effect is more donors that have zero associated voters and would also result in a lower ratio.

#3 - Kucinich's 2004 campaign did not have the same type of supporters as Ron Paul's campaign. His voters could not have been more likely to donate than Ron Paul's. He has trouble getting as much as 100k from the voters that he does have.

#4 - Dean's 2004 campaign - This should be the biggest red alarm of them all. We have to generate voters through hard work on the ground and determination. We cannot in any way assume that the voter/donor ratio gets as anything, because it will work against us (which as I have said, indicates the strength of RP supporters, not weakness).

I firmly believe Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic out there, and unfortunately this leads me to believe that this ratio will be quite low for Paul.

QFT-- Underpromise/Overdeliver

 

[dfalken]

I know plenty of people (friends and family) that are definitely going to vote for Ron Paul but would have never dreamed of donating a penny to him or any candidate and consequently did not donate. I think a 20 to 1 ratio would be an extremely low ratio and yes I do expect Ron Paul to have one of the lowest ratios ever but at 20 to 1 that would still mean 24000 Iowa votes which could win it depending on voter turn out. That Lew Rockwell article is the most encouraging piece of info I have seen thus far. I think third place is pretty much guaranteed and I will be very happy with a 3rd place finish but after reading the Lew Rockwell article I think we could very well be in for a major surprise.

 

[HillbillyDan]

I agree, i was registered as a dem for 18 years, because they needed the help. But this year I switched to rep for the same reason, because Dr. Paul's message must be heard, and he must win the republican nomination.