0 votes

2012 Popular Vote Projection w/ Ron Paul as 3rd Party.

Theres a lot of quick math here. Theres a lot of averaging. But its as close as I can get without massive amount of unobtainable data.

Basically I took the 1992 election and substituted Obama for Clinton, Romney for Bush, and Paul for Perot.

there are 1.25x more voters in 2008 than in 1992, but the popular vote has risen an average 10.8% per election since 2000.

after adding 10.8% to the 2008 totals. and dividing by the 1992 totals and %s. I figured that Ron Paul would do better than Perot, and get Perot's adjusted numbers + take 20% each from Obama and Romney.

the 2012 Election is as follows:

Paul: 35.22% @ 51,252,055 votes
Obama: 34.62% @ 50,378,937 votes
Romney: 30.15% @43,874,204 votes

ALSO CONSIDER: That Perot did as well as he did with Stockdale as Vice. STOCKDALE! So Imagine the increase in viability with Kucinich, established, popular, and easily erodes Obama's liberal base. Keep that in mind.

Theres WAAAAAAAAY too much math for me to do an electoral college projection.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think

a more appropriate previous election on which to base your estimations would be the 1980 election, in which Carter (Obama) ran against Reagan (republican nominee) and John Anderson (Ron Paul), who was a former republican candidate gone independent.

You're oddly assuming that

You're oddly assuming that 150 million people will come out to vote which is an increase of 20 million voters...pretty substantial

Last election was roughly 130 million but with Obama's "miracle" run...I dont think as many people will come out to vote for him in 2012 like they did in 2008. I'd be willing to bet turnout will drop because of this.

EDIT: difference between 2004/2008 was roughly 8 million...and considering how horrific 8 years with GWB were...i'm surprised the turnout wasn't larger.

Age matters

Also consider the amount of people who have turned 18 since november 2008, and will continue to turn 18 by november 2012.

though the popular vote may be less, i really designed the model around the % for each candidate, so you can just use my %s and divide them into whatever popular vote scenario you see plausable.

BASICALLY: The % is what matters.

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

I just don't see any reason Paul

I just don't see any reason Paul would get the same amount of votes as Perot, or Obama the same amount as Clinton, or Bush the same amount as Romney...

What do you base those assumptions on?

OWS is a source of support.

Ron refers to Newt, Romney, Perry and Cain as status quo candidates. It might actually be more accurate to refer to them as Wall Street Republicans.

The European debt collapse coupled with huge bank collapses in the US could really shake things up in Ron's favor.

If Ron is excluded from NH debate as in 2008, that would be a good time to declare his candidacy for nomination by the Occupy Party.

Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas

"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."

There would be HELL TO PAY

if he was excluded from the NH Debate. If I was Ron I would say screw it, and sign up for the Libertarian Primary.

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

what else would i use??

1992 was the most recent election where a viable 3rd party was in the race.

i used it as a template for another 3rd party entering the race, and adjusted the figures accordingly.

"What do you base those assumptions on?" My God, what do you want me to have done? Paid $1M for robo-polling and buy an IBM supercomputer extrapolate data on??

Just look at it for what it is. Its a simple numbers adjustment from as similar an election as there is REAL numbers on.

Give me a break.

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

There are numerous third party

Candidates every election, I don't mean to be overly negative but this projection is about as useful as barrel of pork is a to a Muslim.

Stop trolling

if you don't like it, then don't read it, stop posting, and make like a tree and get the f**k out of here.

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

Interesting projection

The one factor that is hard to calculate is the fact H.W. Bush had a very high popularity percentage that Obama does not have. If you add in the fact that most people have a real distrust and dissatisfaction with the establishment parties it could go even more for Paul. With the negative feelings against both parties, RP could easily bring in an additional 15% of the vote as the "none of the above" candidate.

Juan Williams may be right on, this is the age of Ron Paul.