Primary and Caucus results graph by state

[jeremiahj13]

Here is a graph I made:
Purple: 0%-4%
Red: 5%-9%
Yellow - 10%-19%
Green: 20%+ (Alaska did score green, but is not on the map)

* Nebraska has no data
** Washington state had both a primary and caucus.
Caucus: 22%
Primary: 5%-9%

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/298835_10150336927323063_581748062_8402498_9804164 8_n.jpg

[bb_dg]

Is this graph based on polls?

[D.A.S.]

Is this from the 2008 Primary/Caucus results?

Great work! How did you make this, if I may be curious?

[InTradePro]

Is this graph based on polls?

It's the actual results of 2008 if I remember correctly.

But why is this being posted? It seems meaningless imho.

[eduardo89]

It's the actual results of 2008 if I remember correctly.

But why is this being posted? It seems meaningless imho.

Shows us where we really need to work on. Although if we do well in Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC we'll do well in the rest.

[InTradePro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries

Worthless information so far as I can tell.

[InTradePro]

Shows us where we really need to work on. Although if we do well in Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC we'll do well in the rest.

Current % from polls and other data much more meaningful that data from 4 years ago in my view.

[Keith and stuff]

Shows us where we really need to work on. Although if we do well in Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC we'll do well in the rest.
After the first few Primaries/Caucus the map losses much of it's value. After the first 15 or so, the map is pretty much worthless.

[jeremiahj13]

Is this from the 2008 Primary/Caucus results?

Great work! How did you make this, if I may be curious?

I just found a blank U.S. Map on google, and researched the results, and used my Computer's "Paint" program to color the states in :).

[jeremiahj13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_ primaries

Worthless information so far as I can tell.

Maybe for Nebraska! Lol. I think it is good to show us where we need work and where we have done well. Look: FL and SC are both very early states, and we didn't get much votes there. What does that tell ya?

[Eric21ND]

Green baby!! Told you ND is Ron Paul friendly :D

[BUSHLIED]

The map is not meaningless. One obvious piece of information is that Ron does well in states with very low population density (persons per sq. mile).

For example:

The green states, where he did 20% or better, are among the 50 states with the lowest population density: Montana is ranked 48/50, North Dakota is 47/50, Idaho is 44/50, and Alaska is 50/50. Washington State, based on this criteria, is the best for him as he got >20% in a state ranked at 11/50 but probably in areas of the state that have lower densities and which also means he did well among the states with the lowest amount of delegates.

Among the yellow states, where he got between 10 and 19% of the vote, PA was his best which is ranked at 9/50 (the most densely populated state that he did well in) however, that was when all other candidates dropped I think, so those results are skewed in that state...all other "yellow states" are ranked between 31/50 to 45/50 which is the bottom 50% of states and again among the lower amount of delegates.

I would be willing to bet that if you ran a correlation coefficient between Ron's percent of vote and population density, you would be looking at a moderate to strong correlation such that as population density decreases, Ron's vote percentage increases...

Furthermore, Ron only did "well" in two states in the East (Maine and Penn). This is no surprise considering that the East coast is the most densely population area of the US with the exception of CA and IL.

Also, I am certain that Ron did well in the caucuses and I think that states with small populations are more likely to use caucuses...so either it seems that both the caucus process and/or low population density allow him to do well.

When it comes to larger primary states that are in the top 10 of the income brackets for 4 states (CA, MASS, CONN, and VA) he got 4% or less...only Maryland, New Jersey, and New Hampshire who are in the top 10 did he get between 5-9%...

Among the 8 states with the most delegates Ron got 5-9% in 4 states and 4% or less in 3, and PA was an outliers...

So even if you double his performance in the top 8 states where he gets a hypothetical 18% in NY, TX, OH, and MI....I am still very doubtful that he wins 1st place, maybe 2nd, but most likely 3rd place...and gets a hypothetical 8% in FL, CA, and GA I doubt that's enough to even get 4th place. Romney is going to take MI for sure. And Perry's presence cuts into TX. Leaving OH and NY the only possible states Ron has a chance to win...Ron has no real home-state or region advantage except for the really small upper-north west states that are fairly insignificant in the nominating process.

The optimal strategy to win based on this data, would be to obviously sweep the small caucus states if he could and try to strongly compete among these following states:
WA, MS, WI, MN, SC, LA, KY, OR...these are the slightly larger states with more delegates where he got mostly between 5% and 19%...if he doubled his support he could win MN and OR but with the presence of Bachmann, she takes away a sure win in MN..leaving only OR as a strong likelihood of 1st.

So the path to the nomination is slim and only possible if he sweeps all caucus states which is about 1/3 of the delegates needed and then takes about half of the delegates from all other states which means 2nd place finishes in the states stated above, a possibility, but some strong performances in the top delegate rich states AND that his Ron's biggest problem. I am not sure that even a bump out of IA and NH is big enough to accomplish wins in NY, OH, or PA...IMHO. Ron would have to fight it out in every state, all the way to end, and hope he can force a convention...yet if the other, later states are winner take all and he is "heads-up" against Romney, then well, he can't force a convention...he's done.

[jeremiahj13]

Green: We're good to go :)
Yellow: We can win these states, but we have to put in some work.
Red: We'll have to haul major BUTT to win these states.
Purple: It is all but hopeless in these states.

[Eric21ND]

The map is not meaningless. One obvious piece of information is that Ron does well in states with very low population density (persons per sq. mile).

For example:

The green states, where he did 20% or better, are among the 50 states with the lowest population density: Montana is ranked 48/50, North Dakota is 47/50, Idaho is 44/50, and Alaska is 50/50. Washington State, based on this criteria, is the best for him as he got >20% in a state ranked at 11/50 but probably in areas of the state that have lower densities and which also means he did well among the states with the lowest amount of delegates.

Among the yellow states, where he got between 10 and 19% of the vote, PA was his best which is ranked at 9/50 (the most densely populated state that he did well in) however, that was when all other candidates dropped I think, so those results are skewed in that state...all other "yellow states" are ranked between 31/50 to 45/50 which is the bottom 50% of states and again among the lower amount of delegates.

I would be willing to bet that if you ran a correlation coefficient between Ron's percent of vote and population density, you would be looking at a moderate to strong correlation such that as population density decreases, Ron's vote percentage increases...

Furthermore, Ron only did "well" in two states in the East (Maine and Penn). This is no surprise considering that the East coast is the most densely population area of the US with the exception of CA and IL.

Also, I am certain that Ron did well in the caucuses and I think that states with small populations are more likely to use caucuses...so either it seems that both the caucus process and/or low population density allow him to do well.

When it comes to larger primary states that are in the top 10 of the income brackets for 4 states (CA, MASS, CONN, and VA) he got 4% or less...only Maryland, New Jersey, and New Hampshire who are in the top 10 did he get between 5-9%...

Among the 8 states with the most delegates Ron got 5-9% in 4 states and 4% or less in 3, and PA was an outliers...

So even if you double his performance in the top 8 states where he gets a hypothetical 18% in NY, TX, OH, and MI....I am still very doubtful that he wins 1st place, maybe 2nd, but most likely 3rd place...and gets a hypothetical 8% in FL, CA, and GA I doubt that's enough to even get 4th place. Romney is going to take MI for sure. And Perry's presence cuts into TX. Leaving OH and NY the only possible states Ron has a chance to win...Ron has no real home-state or region advantage except for the really small upper-north west states that are fairly insignificant in the nominating process.

The optimal strategy to win based on this data, would be to obviously sweep the small caucus states if he could and try to strongly compete among these following states:
WA, MS, WI, MN, SC, LA, KY, OR...these are the slightly larger states with more delegates where he got mostly between 5% and 19%...if he doubled his support he could win MN and OR but with the presence of Bachmann, she takes away a sure win in MN..leaving only OR as a strong likelihood of 1st.

So the path to the nomination is slim and only possible if he sweeps all caucus states which is about 1/3 of the delegates needed and then takes about half of the delegates from all other states which means 2nd place finishes in the states stated above, a possibility, but some strong performances in the top delegate rich states AND that his Ron's biggest problem. I am not sure that even a bump out of IA and NH is big enough to accomplish wins in NY, OH, or PA...IMHO. Ron would have to fight it out in every state, all the way to end, and hope he can force a convention...yet if the other, later states are winner take all and he is "heads-up" against Romney, then well, he can't force a convention...he's done.
You're too pessimistic dude. It's a totally new election cycle and the GOP filed is WEAK and only 3 are bringing in major money.