Vote Result Calculation
So I have redone my calculation, here is a general formula for what it takes to win (you can check my algebra if you wish, hopefully no errors though I do better with pencil and paper).
Let's make a big equation.
Our turnout is Tp (for people who normally would not vote)
The regular people turn out is To
The polls are correct for everyone bang on (no margin of errors in anyone's favor as it can fluctuate either way so it isn't statistically reasonable to assume they are in our favor).
Instead the sample isn't good.
Rp is the fraction of supporters who would be included in the polls.
The population is P
Then the total number of people voting are:
N = P*To + P*Tp
The number of people voting for Paul is:
P*Tp + P*To*Rp
The number of people voting for someone else is
P*To*Rc
Were Rc is their poll fraction.
Then to win To*Rc < Tp + To*Rp
And our percentage is (Tp + To*Rp)/(To + Tp)
I think it is clearer to think of Tp in terms of the fraction of supporters that are not polled.
That is K = P Tp / (P To + P Tp) solving for Tp = To Rp K/ (1-K)
Then to win To*Rc < To Rp K/ (1-K) + To * Rp
Or
Rc < Rp K/ (1-K) + Rp
Rc < Rp /(1-K)
See it gets rid of turn out factors. All you now need to know is our poll number as a fraction, and the fraction of new people to the process.
To win this comes to 72% new people. (Rc = .32, Rp = .09)
To come in 3rd he only need 31% outside the poll. So I'd say we should get 3rd or better.
K is the percentage of under sampled people who will show up. Or the under sampled people * the fraction that show up. Just think how high that fraction has to be, to keep us over 72%. But here is to hoping.
You can register at poll
Check with your precinct but I believe this is true.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
I don't think this is true
I don't think this is true in NY. My card says the first election I can vote in is the general.
Is it true?
Are they expecting a snowstorm in Iowa on caucus day?
We are snowing here in NH right now, second time in 2 days.
Not in Des Moines as of
Not in Des Moines as of yesterday on google weather.
Intresting
But supposition is less important than action at this point. Get out the vote!
Thanks sadly I can't vote as
Thanks sadly I can't vote as I was registered Independent (NY) and the deadline past before I learned about Paul.
Hey! Your deadline isn't until January 6th!!!
!!!
It was Oct 12th for the
It was Oct 12th for the primary in NY.
You Can Still Help
I have a good friend who loves Dr. Paul. She has given hundreds of dollars, and spent countless hours campaigning for him. Still, she refuses to change her registration to become a Republican. I tried to appeal to her on that point several times, but she wont budge. But she has brought dozens of people into the Republican Party to vote for Dr. Paul. Strange, but true!
I am helping. Don't worry. I
I am helping. Don't worry. I would have but I missed the deadline. Also NYC will carry NY for Rudy, unless he drops out before then.
The Des Moines Register
According to The Des Moines Register, Republican party officials predict that participation in their presidential caucus in Iowa Thursday will be in the range of 87,000, about what it was in 2000, the last time the GOP nomination was contested.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/new-years-resol.html#...
Lies
The Des Moines is against Paul and will print any garbage that solidify your position that Ron Paul can't win.
But I eliminated turn out.
But I eliminated turn out. So that isn't relivant to this way of looking out of it.
Low turn out helps us in this perspective as the diehards outside the polled sample will turnout thus K is higher.
Turnout is a big factor.
If Ron Paul voters turn out at double the rate of the frontrunners' voters, that 79% unpolled needed-to-win drops to 39% unpolled. Does that sound better? There is no question Paul supporters are more fervent, more committed. That has been revealed in voter surveys checking for committment levels to the various candidates.
New Hampshire and Ecuador
You can eliminate turnout in
You can eliminate turnout in terms of the ratio of supporters. see above.
1 in 15
In my meetup group the show of hands was 1 Republican of 15 new Republican.
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." - Romans 12:18
Brilliant article that explains why we love Dr. Paul:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/farber-r1.1.1.html
If it is 1/15 of his
If it is 1/15 of his supporters then K 14/15 is .93 unfortunately you can't have K be that large and have a valid formula. Clearly his support among the poll sample is at least the numerator.
I Predice Ron will win Iowa AND new hampshire.. and here's why..
If the average voter turnout in the last presidential election was %33 (%17 Republicans, this based off of roughly 100 million voters last time round, our so called "likely republican voters") and we get %9 of those (that's %9 of %17 of all the poeple) then we have %1.5 of all poeple voting for RP. Now, let's say that %20 of democrats who voted last time will also vote for RP that's (%17* %20) or another %3.4. Now we can estimate that RP energized another full %5 (you'll notice I'm being very conservative here to show a win with worst case scenario numbers) of all the poeple who didn't vote last time but could've (we'll say this group is about %33 of the population) . Throw in the libertarians to make another %1 of all the poeple for a subtotal of %7.6 of all people voting for RP. Now let's say that %85 of the RP voters actually make it to the polls. We now have %6.46 of all poeple ACTUALLY voting for RP.
Now, let's assume the less than stellar (with one exception) field of R's this year inspire only the average %10 voter turnout for the other candidates (I'll even add another %5 as a fudge factor because this is such an unusual election year). If we can assume that none of them will draw from other demographics than those polled in any significant #'s(which is highly likely) than that makes the leader with say %35 of that voting block come out with %5.25 of all poeple voting for him.
So, you see, even with very cautous numbers, RP wins everywhere by a landslide.
Any Questions?
----------------------------------------------------------------
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi
You make too many
You make too many assumptions for me about levels of support in different blocks and you seem to add percentages simply. If the total population is P and R1 normally vote, and R2 is the percentage of people in the normal sample that vote for Paul then... P * R1 * R2/ (P* R1) is the percentage that we get or just R2.
If you add to the people who vote in the raw number then:
P * R3/ (P * (R1 + R3)) + P * R1 * R2 / (P * (R1 + R3)) is how much you get.
IE you get (R3 + R1(R2))/ (R1 + R3).... This isn't R3 + R2
That is to say if I get 5% of the general populous to vote for Ron Paul, that normally doesn't participate. If you have 10% before, and 20% turn out. The result is not 15%. It is 28% actually. Anyway, I didn't make an estimate of R1 in my stuff above (I picked it worst case to be 1)) This makes it closer to simple adding but lower. 14.3%
Let's make a big equation.
Our turnout is Tp (for people who normally would not vote)
The regular people turn out is To
The polls are correct for everyone bang on (no margin of errors in anyone's favor as it can fluctuate either way so it isn't statistically reasonable to assume they are in our favor).
Instead the sample isn't good.
Rp is the fraction of supporters who would be included in the polls.
The population is P
Then the total number of people voting are:
N = P*To + P*Tp
The number of people voting for Paul is:
P*Tp + P*To*Rp
The number of people voting for someone else is
P*To*Rc
Were Rc is there poll fraction.
Then to win To*Rc < Tp + To*Rp
And our percentage is (Tp + To*Rp)/(To + Tp)
I think it is clearer to think of Tp in terms of the fraction of supporters that are not polled.
That is K = P Tp / (P To + P Tp) solving for Tp = To Rp K/ (1-K)
Then to win To*Rc < To Rp K/ (1-K) + To * Rp
Or
Rc < Rp K/ (1-K) + Rp
Rc < Rp /(1-K)
See it gets rid of turn out factors. All you now need to know is our poll number as a fraction, and the fraction of new people to the process.
To win this come to 72% new people.
Here's my suggestion, give up on the polls...
When the Iowa results come out, if they match the polls, and their legitimate...then worry about the polls. Until then, just encourage people to caucas on Thursday! If we get 25,000 to the caucas....I think we win, hands down!
Mike
Who is Ron Paul? I am Ron Paul! We are Ron Paul!
"Fire Team for Freedom" on RonPaulRadio.com
Mondays and Wednesdays 10pm EST
or visit www.mikeandjake.com
Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com
To ignore any kind of data
To ignore any kind of data you have is silly. You are right that the results will speak for themselves but, you are going to make a prediction of wining or not it needs to be on data.
As people point out it is about turn out also. Again all that matters is you need to have 80% of people unpolled. That could amount to having everyone show up vs a small portion of their supporters showing up.
that is to say if the poll sample really is only 50% people who show up then to first order only 40% of the people who support RP need to be first time as long as they all show up.
We vote because polls aren't good enough but they are done for a reason and it is fun to speculate.
http://www.opednews.com/artic
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_bev_harr_071230_ne...
1st time voter here
and part of the second revolution.
1989, romanian revolution, it took us one week to overthrown the communist regime. we did it.
2008, ron paul revolution. we will do it.
I know I was a Dem this is my first repub primary
So I guess I am a first time repub.
me, too!
i'm telling you, it gave me the willies to cross over, ha!
but now i realize it's all a silly game...
I worry about the number of
I worry about the number of people who cannot cross over. I for instance cannot vote for Paul as I did not find out about him until after the registration deadline. That is killer for some states. Others like NH it will not matter for as I am sure everyone is registered independent who even mildly interested in politics (and isn't in the R or D).
no worries
just find at least one person who doesn't intend on voting and convince them to vote for you. my mom hasn't voted in 40 years or so, but I convinced her to vote for RP. I have to fill out the paperwork for her is all.
www.TuNeCedeMalis.com
www.Sitefind.org
Participate in the vote
Participate in the vote watch efforts.
A vast amount.
So many in my meet up group have never voted. Some are young, some are middle aged. Earlier today i was reading on here about a 70 year old man who NEVER registered to vote in his entire life.... until NOW! These kinds of stories make me wonder what that percentage is.
http://lettenyouknow.wordpress.com
I'm sure 70-95% of the
I'm sure 70-95% of the people who are really active are completely new, but what is relevant is the relative number of people who will vote for him.
If you look past polls compared to actual election results they are not that bad. The margin of error in a poll is about 4% typically (1/sqrt(number of people polled)) Almost all the results are within 2 sigma that is +/- 8% (95% of the time that should happen if the sample is good).
It works alright. Now is RP get 8% more and they all get 8% less then you know 34-8 vs 9 + 8 we still loose.
So what I did was I calculated the relative number of people we need. Clearly there are some... RP supporters that are old hats at politics, they are in the poll. However, old hats might not be on the daily paul, you tube etc.
So perception of the percentage of new first time voters might not be correct.
In any case I wouldn't say 50% seem an unreasonable guess.. BTW that also puts us in 3rd in NH.
BTW using the full sample from Real clear which no doubt some people will miss the whole point in that I am trying to access how far off they have to be, the margin or error should be something like 2% in NH, giving RP an event that happens 40% of the time, we need to only have 20% of our supporters in the sample.
That is 80% of our supporters in NH have to not be in the sample. I think again that is on the high side.
Therefore my hope is for 3rd place in Iowa which few expect us to increase the size of our old school following.
If he wins Iowa he should win NH also, given equal under sampling. However, my guess would be that the under sampling would be worse in Iowa than NH. Also the point could be made that my perception of the ratio of supporters might be skewed because I am only thinking internet vs regular people and only the Bushes really voted last time..
Still the fact remains to win either Iowa or NH we need about 80% of the voters to be outside the sample of the polls. A tall order.