Reminder: 1 in 50 American Adults needed to win.

[James R]

If one in 40 American adults voted for Ron Paul in the primaries he would win in a landslide victory.

1. The population of the United States is currently 302million, of which approximately 74 million are minors, for a total of 228 million potential voters.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.census.gov/popest/nationa...EST2006-02.xls

2. In the 2004 primaries, there were 16,400,000 Democrat voters total. There are a similar number of Republican voters. However, polls suggest a minimum of 10% Democratic leaning. This suggest a Republican turnout of about 14,800,000 this primary.
http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

3. The 2004 Republican race is without any leader or prospect of leadership and most likely a score of 29% would win the nomination if held today. So, we need 4,300,000 votes to win. We could win with as few as 3,250,000 votes depending how the campaign goes. By the more likely estimate, that means that 1 in 50 American adults are needed to win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

4. Therefore, hardly any votes are needed for a win by any candidate (only 1.9% of the US population). People just don't realize how few votes are needed to win these primaries (1 in 50 people!). Each one vote for any candidate is quite powerful in the primaries race. And of course Paul will gain those the easiest.

Similar statistics are in NH. Less than 3% of the adults there voting for him would mean a landslide victory in the primaries race.

[cac1963]

If one in 40 American adults voted for Ron Paul in the primaries he would win in a landslide victory.

1. The population of the United States is currently 302million, of which approximately 74 million are minors, for a total of 228 million potential voters.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.census.gov/popest/nationa...EST2006-02.xls

2. In the 2004 primaries, there were 16,400,000 Democrat voters total. There are a similar number of Republican voters. However, polls suggest a minimum of 10% Democratic leaning. This suggest a Republican turnout of about 14,800,000 this primary.
http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

3. The 2004 Republican race is without any leader or prospect of leadership and most likely a score of 29% would win the nomination if held today. So, we need 4,300,000 votes to win. We could win with as few as 3,250,000 votes depending how the campaign goes. By the more likely estimate, that means that 1 in 50 American adults are needed to win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

4. Therefore, hardly any votes are needed for a win by any candidate (only 1.9% of the US population). People just don't realize how few votes are needed to win these primaries (1 in 50 people!). Each one vote for any candidate is quite powerful in the primaries race. And of course Paul will gain those the easiest.

Similar statistics are in NH. Less than 3% of the adults there voting for him would mean a landslide victory in the primaries race.

I tried to analyze Georgia's voting patterns in the GOP primaries going back to 96, but couldn't come up with anything conclusive. In my own county, the low GOP turnout was about 3,000 primary voters and the high was 11,000. That would mean the worst-case scenario would require a turnout of about 5,000 for Paul to assure him a victory over the others. How the devil can we hone in on likely turnout required for a Paul victory in my own county, much less our own state, with such a wide turnout spread as what the (non)patterns indicate?

It's realistic to assume there are at least 1500 Paul voters in my county based on feedback from various people in the network of organizations feeding into each other for similar causes. Would this be enough to deliver one county with an 8000 vote spread in primary turnouts? If so, we need to start targeting other counties to have the same effect.

[Man from La Mancha]

If one in 40 American adults voted for Ron Paul in the primaries he would win in a landslide victory.

Similar statistics are in NH. Less than 3% of the adults there voting for him would mean a landslide victory in the primaries race.
Your assumption has one big flaw, your assuming a fair vote count.:(

.

[cac1963]

Your assumption has one big flaw, your assuming a fair vote count.:(

.

I agree, but something said in another thread against a write-in vote for Paul made me think that a write-in vote would be more easy to verify than a single push button on the screen.

We've had a couple write-in candidates locally, using the Diebold machines, and it gave the elections board alot of grief because of the printed tally they had to reconcile with the machine totals for "write-in" counts. So I was wondering if a write-in campaign (even with Paul's name on the ballot) would help assure the accuracy of the vote, simply because the machine has to spit out the name a couple hundred times on the final printouts.

[tfelice]

Your assumption has one big flaw, your assuming a fair vote count.:(

.

That's why each Paul supporter needs to register to be a poll watcher for their home polling place. That way we can be assured of being inside the closed doors when the votes are tabulated. Also, doing out own exit polling wouldn't hurt either. I'd like to see HQ start to organize this on the state level if they haven't already done so.

Also, regarding the topic of the thread. Is is possible for someone to produce a county by county estimated target number of votes needed for a 51% victory? I'm sure the information is out there, it just needs to be processed.

[cac1963]

That's why each Paul supporter needs to register to be a poll watcher for their home polling place. That way we can be assured of being inside the closed doors when the votes are tabulated. Also, doing out own exit polling wouldn't hurt either. I'd like to see HQ start to organize this on the state level if they haven't already done so.

Also, regarding the topic of the thread. Is is possible for someone to produce a county by county estimated target number of votes needed for a 51% victory? I'm sure the information is out there, it just needs to be processed.

I've tried but the numbers are too confusing to make any real predictions. For example the year 2000 had a huge primary turnout but practically none in 2004. The turnout was the same for 96 as for 2000, but about 30% lower in 92. Here are the GA GOP presidential primary turnout totals since 88, if you know anybody that can make anything out of them:

88 - 400,928 (6 candidates, G.HW. Bush won with 53.75%)

92 - 453,987 (2 candidates, George Bush won with 64.3%, Pat Buchanan got 35% or 162,082 votes)

96 - 654,170 (10 candidates, Bob Dole won with 40.55%, again Pat Buchanan got 162,627 votes, 29.08%)

00 - 643,188 (6 candidates, Bush won with 66.9%, McCain got 27.8% or 179,046 votes)

04 - 161,374 (Bush was only candidate on the ballot).

How do you make predictions from these numbers, when you've got repeat candidates (McCain) and weird turnout numbers? I think we can probably assume all those Buchanan voters will turn out for Paul as well, and interestingly Buchanan did real good percentage wise but the multiple frontrunners had consolidated into one single player by the time our primary roled around (super Tuesday). Can anybody make any predictions based on these numbers for Georgia?