Primary results (in percent) predictions using donor numbers
Please read my previous post (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/26572) for a technical explanation.
The following predictions are based on looking at the number of donors to the campaign from each state. I think multiply that number by the average ratio of voters to donors that was observed in the last three primary states: Iowa (8:1) , New Hampshire (11:1) and Michigan (11:1). The average is about 10:1. Finally I compare the number of expected votes with the 2000 GOP Primary turnout and get the percentage.
--Limitations--
I do not expect these numbers to be anywhere near 100% accurate, but I think they're a useful measure of what Ron Paul's actual support is and shows where the campaign might want to focus more resources. There are also a lot of assumptions in coming up with the numbers, among them: the voter turnout in 2008 wont be significantly different than in 2000, the voter to donor ratio is relatively uniform among the states, Ron Paul's support will not experience a significant change throughout the campaign as well as some more technical assumptions that are explained in the above link.
Finally some states aren't shown because I simply dont have turnout data for them.
The data:
State %
AK Unknown but will be high
AL 9.32
AR 24.12
AZ 16.01
CA 7.93
CO 21.34
CT 9.95
DC Unknown but will be very high
DE 10.3
FL 15.26
GA 6.99
ID 8.36
IL 7.87
IN 7.26
KY 15.98
LA 16.18
MA 5.86
MD 8.32
ME 7.38
MO 6.45
MS 6.93
MT 9.5
NC 13.6
NE 4.34
NJ 16.72
NM 15.6
NV Unknown but will be high
NY 3.62
OH 3.49
OK 13.27
OR 8.78
PA 9.86
RI 11.75
SC 3.7
SD 6.47
TN 13.76
TX 14.05
UT 23.67
VA 7.84
VT 4.6
WA 11.53
WI 4.93
WV 4.67
Do you have the list of
Do you have the list of donors/ state? I would like to see that.
Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Prediction for Maine:
ME 7.38%
Let's hope we greatly exceed that!
Yeehah!
Mission Accomplished: Prediction Greatly Exceeded. Great Job Maine!!!
So wait a minute, he got
So wait a minute, he got donations from 20,000 unique donors in Nevada, but only 6,000 people voted for Ron Paul?
no 2000
He got about 2000 donations from NV but only 6K votes.
Yea I know, very strange I've been discussing this for a while nobody really knows, but Nevada's turnout was REALLY small, meaning we only got serious voters, the people who donated were the only only serious about the campaign. We would have won if it hadn't been for the church buses, technically illegal if they want to maintain tax status... :( (well driving to polls isn't illegal but encouraging specific votes is, and you can bet they were)
Where Do You Find Number of Donors per State?
I've been looking for that. Can you tell me where you go to find out how many donors there are per state? I've seen something on CNN that shows $amounts per state through the 4th Q, but not number of donors. Thanks.
Wouldn't it be something if this was correct?
Florida = 15.26% ?
Other way -- One-in-fifteen
You're reading the data backward. Higher is WORSE.
Nick Bradly
Nick Bradly over at LRC was plugging some of these numbers, and he was showing that other candidates get 50, 60, 70, even 100 or more votes per donor. I wonder why Dr. Paul's voter:donor ratio is so incredibly poor.
With polls showing 40% of the GOP are against the war, it makes no sense why they flock to McCain and not Dr. Paul.
Well, look at it this way...
of the people that know about Dr. Paul, they are more likely to be excited enough about his candidacy to donate to the campaign. So why are we not getting more votes, one can only conclude that there are still a lot of people that don't know anything about Dr. Paul.
Casual support for the others...
That's why. Our group has a greater density of active members. How many people do you know are willing to argue for another candidate, yet when it comes time to donate, they believe someone else will pick up the slack. We ARE fewer in numbers, but more dedicated. Most Ron Paul supporters donate at least something, and if they can't, they give their time.
Other candidates may even have passionate voters... But voting with your wallet is more commitment than many of them can stand.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
I doubt anyone else has more
I doubt anyone else has more passionate voters.
Other campaigns have casual voters, people who think its their civic duty to vote, but make an uniformed, uneducated vote.
Your method is effectively proven.
Considering that we are limited to how much input data that we can effectively use, and therefore prevent a wider test of your scenarios.
So, it seems that it would be important to try to push the numbers higher for areas where we can win (> 15%).
It would also serve us to see if we can make the same predictions against other candidates. Unfortunately, that data lags by months because they don't provide real time indicators, but could you attempt to do so with the data that we do have?
Also, could you please get in touch with chowda to have these calculations included in ronpaulgraphs.com ?
It would be nice to have a spreadsheet type page that listed winner take all vs. some other mechanism and our current percentage so that if it is a winner take all, and we are only pulling a 3%, maybe we could divert resources somewhere else where me may actually win?
Good work, btw!
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Wow!
"SC 3.7"
Wow, you were only .3% off, if the 4% vote total I've been seeing is true. There may be something to your method.
Actually
The numbers I'm seeing is Ron Paul 3.66% :p
I might have just gotten lucky with this method. Afterall, though I didn't predict percentages for Nevada, (although I did estimate a strong finish), my method predicted over 25,000 votes for Ron Paul in NV (compared with 6,000 actual). For SC, my method got the percentage right, but the vote prediction was 21,000 compared to 16,000 for what he actually got.
I think for now I'll keep the numbers the same until Florida.
One More Thing
Using the above assumptions, 2 primaries actually generated numbers greater than total 2000 GOP turnout; DC and AK. Effectively they showed values greater than 100%. That's why I put 'unknown, but high'
Its all about media push
If the media pushes for a big turnout we will get 10X, in states like LA and NV our turnout was low, but not nearly as low as the turnout for other candidates. That indicates 70% of Paul voters are casual voters who like him enough to vote, but not aren't really involved in the campaign.
No MN or ND...
And California may have the highest number of donors, but it will also have the highest number of votes cast. The higher the population, the lower % of the vote we will get. Lots of sheep remember?
"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 while plotting the Boston Tea Party.
http://disillusionedrants.blogspot.com/
But Keep in Mind...
that CA is not a unified primary, but is really 54 "min-primaries", as the state's delegate selection will be broken down by each congressional district. Thus, it's possible that the support for GOP "mainstream" candidates will be concentrated in traditional bastions such as Orange County and San Diego, whereas RP could win more than his share of deleagates from traditional liberal districts. I personally live in "The People's Republic of Santa Monica" and I see ONLY RP stickers around here - more than even Clinton or Obama....
Primary vs Caucus
NH and Michigan were primaries and both had 11:1 ratios. Iowa was a caucus and had 8:1. I wonder if using different assumptions for future states depending on whether they are primaries or caucuses would be useful.
Interesting that the SC result is very close to Paul's current RCP poll average (3.7 vs. 4.2).
Can you confirm the Arkansas result? 24% seems very high given Paul has fewer donors from the lower Mississippi area than anywhere else.
Also, is Minnesota missing?
After Nevada
I will see if the numbers need correcting for caucuses versus primaries. I just averaged the previous three results and used that number.
I agree the Arkansas number seems very high, but using the estimate of 10,750 voters from the 10:1 voter:donor ratio, and the 2000 GOP turnout of 44,000 votes, that's how I got 24%. I expect the actual numbers to be lower, but who knows?
And yes, Minnesota along with several other states are missing because I did not have 2000 GOP turnout numbers for it. My Minnesota Ron Paul vote prediction is 29,000 votes, so if you find 2000 GOP turnout data, use that number to find out percentage.
Nevada
Your linked post describes Nevada as very encouraging, yet the latest poll there puts Ron at 7%. In thirty-something hours we'll know a lot more about your analysis. Thanks for taking the time to do it. I hope you're right. -JP
The first 5 million supporters of Dr. Paul are 'early adopters.' The next 10 million will require a modified approach.
Historically
from what I've read, Nevada has a very low turnout for the GOP primaries. If we assume the same thing this year, and assume that only Ron Paul generates genuine enthusiastic support (not a bad assumption among the GOP) then Nevada will be very, very good for Ron Paul.
NV
Yea NV has an estimated 20K votes by my calculation (its a caucus so I used iowas donation rate). Some newspapers estimated NV to see about 30K votes in the republican ticket in total, that would give us a win. But there is no past caucus record from NV to make this assumption from. There was a million votes in NV in the 2000 final election.
too bad
2 out of 3 states above 20% are Mccain's state and Mormon central.
compared to
other candiates this doesn't seem good. I would still like to see RP focus on one state. If RP last till super tuesday and only gets 8% in every state what's the point?
Don't worry
It shows that the Florida numbers will be surprising and could be enough for a top 3 finish, which could boost the campaign come super tuesday. It also shows that RP has a chance on Super Tuesday, assuming no bump, to actually win some states and score a lot of delegates, effectively giving the GOP no clear front runner
Why is California so low?
I think CA has the largest number of donors...so are you hedging the "passion" factor and assuming that the proprtion of people supporting RP in CA are more likely to donate...is that why? Correct that, if it is a wrong assumption.
Hate povery, not the poor - Gandhi
Hate povery, not the poor - Gandhi
I did not
factor in any difference for 'passion', here's why: Iowa and Michigan had about the same rate of donation to population and compared to the rest of the country, it was average. Iowa's voter to donor ratio was 8:1, Michigan's was 11:1.
New Hampshire, on the other hand, was VERY passionate in terms of donations per population, yet when the time came it had the same voter to donor ratio as an averagely passionate state, like Michigan. With only three examples it might be a little premature to make assumptions, but it looks to me that overall donor passion is not a good indicator of what the final outcome will be. What matters are the total number of donations.
I like stuff like this.
I like stuff like this. :-)
----------
Liberty for Dummies