Statistical Findings based on Poll earlier...

[xcalybur]

Here is the statistical analysis of the latest state and national republican polls and the potential for Ron Paul to win in those states and nationally. I have put this all in a .pdf, but don't have a place to upload and thus link to it. If someone has a place, please let me know. Now on to the overall results.

Iowa, we will win hands down. Actually, my analysis shows upwards of 45-50% of the vote going towards Ron Paul.

New Hampshire, unless the polling gets better for Ron Paul or he gets a turnout rate in the 75% range, Ron paul is comming in 3rd. This is one of the toughest states to win for us due to the massive turnout.

South Carolina, not as hard as New Hampshire, but we will still come in 3rd unless Ron Paul can get a turnout rate of around 60%. The numbers show that Romney and Huckabee will be in a dead heat for 1st and Ron Paul about 4% off of that. Almost a 3 way tie.

Nationally, we rock nationally. Not quite the sweep of Iowa, but we are in 1st place with around 25-30% of the vote in the republican primaries, not the general election.

We are in really good shape. If we really do take Iowa by storm, this could push up the numbers in New Hampshire significantly. If we could get about a 5% bump from a win in Iowa we would barely take New Hampshire.

[hillertexas]

Awesome...thanks.

[Thumper]

You could upload the .pdf on yousendit or rapidshare.

[xcalybur]

Ok, I put it up on rapidshare. Here is the link to download it. If you have any questions about how I ran the analysis or maybe you see where I did something wrong. Please let me know here. Thanks.

http://rapidshare.com/files/80753965/Poll_Analysis.pdf.html

[Jwaksman]

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely preposterous to think that Ron Paul will get 7 times the turnout of the other candidates. Just look at the polls where they talk about how decided, or how likely the voters are for each candidate. Ron Paul's are ALWAYS the most dedicated, but it's not that out of whack. I don't know how you can possibly look at the data and predict 50% turnout for Ron Paul. I mean, I can invent my own "analysis" where Paul gets 100% turnout and the other candidates get 0% turnout - we'll win every state with 100% of the vote! What would make that "analysis" any less legitimate?

I think best case scenario is about 30-50% better turnout than the other candidates. Doing that would turn poll numbers of 10% into close to 15% of the total vote. And that would be a great result.



Don't delude yourself into thinking we're getting 50% in Iowa... because it's not even going to be close to that. You need to set yourself up to be thrilled if we exceed expectations to finish 3rd. That's our best case scenario, and an increasingly possible one at that.

[FreedomLover]

I find it hard to believe that we can get 50% of the vote in Iowa and then get third in new hampshire.

A more likely percentage in Iowa would be 13-15%

[stefans]

your assumption of ron paul turnout is based on ron paul grassroots activists, who will of course be there.
but that's a very small percentage of the ron paul voters, even if the 9% polls are accurate.

[xcalybur]

You don't think that 50% of the people who are going to vote for Ron Paul will not go to a primary or caucus to vote for their man? The other percentages are based on statistics from the 2000 election. I think it is very likely that this would happen. Actually, in Iowa Ron Paul could get a 24% turnout and he would still win.

[xcalybur]

You may be right about the turnout, but I think we could pull off 25%. That would still get us a win in Iowa.

I was basing the 50% on the Kathryn Muratore article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/muratore7.html

[xcalybur]

I think our best case scenario is 1st place. Worst case is dead last. I think the probability is higher that we will take 3rd, but based on the analysis even at 25%, Ron Paul would win with 27% of the vote.

[stefans]

I think our best case scenario is 1st place.Worst case is dead last.

that's the best analysis so far ;)
stpo taking those polls seriously. we don't know and will see tomorrow.

[xcalybur]

What is your estimation of the number of Ron Paul voters that haven't been polled to Ron Paul voters who have? Maybe for every one polled Ron Paul voter there is one non-polled Ron Paul voter? or maybe 2:1?

What do you think?

[AlexMerced]

I pray that your right

[AlexMerced]

I'm hoping for 2nd place, cause I don't want RP to become the target of the post-iowa pre-NH debate, but still the 2nd place showing can push him up in NH and SC

[Elwar]

From one poll I saw it asked 'how likely are you to not change your mind by election day'.

Ron Paul got 88% in that...the others were around 40-50%

That would probably be a good percentage to use for dedication to a candidate.

[Peace&Freedom]

You may be right about the turnout, but I think we could pull off 25%. That would still get us a win in Iowa.

I was basing the 50% on the Kathryn Muratore article here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/muratore7.html

And some are predicting the Paul turnout will be 75-80% or higher!

[Jwaksman]

From one poll I saw it asked 'how likely are you to not change your mind by election day'.

Ron Paul got 88% in that...the others were around 40-50%

That would probably be a good percentage to use for dedication to a candidate.



Even if that's true (and that is the most optimistic numbers I've seen yet) that would STILL place Paul's turnout at only double of his opponents. And nobody in the official campaign is that optimistic. The original "analysis" on this thread assumes more than SEVEN TIMES the turnout of the other candidates. Anyone can predict a Ron Paul victory by just inventing absurd turnout numbers.


If we can get 50% more turnout than the other campaigns it will be a dream come true. Forget 50% TOTAL turnout - that's a joke. But if the other campaigns gets around 7% or 8% turnout and we get around 12% to 15% turnout.... we'll be golden.

[Jwaksman]

And some are predicting the Paul turnout will be 75-80% or higher!



Whatever they're smoking, I'd like some.




You guys have to remember that we aren't polling at 1% anymore. We're at 8-10% - which means that most of our support is NORMAL PEOPLE. Not people who have accounts on ronpaulforums, or who attend meet-up events. These people will have the same turnout as every other campaign, or close to it. Sure, turnout among ronpaulforums posters will be in the 80-90% range, but they make up a pretty small part of the electorate...

[trey4sports]

Whatever they're smoking, I'd like some.




You guys have to remember that we aren't polling at 1% anymore. We're at 8-10% - which means that most of our support is NORMAL PEOPLE. Not people who have accounts on ronpaulforums, or who attend meet-up events. These people will have the same turnout as every other campaign, or close to it. Sure, turnout among ronpaulforums posters will be in the 80-90% range, but they make up a pretty small part of the electorate...

honestly, i think even without the grassroots fanatics we would still have a higher turnout ratio than the others. Dr Paul's message is very moving. even the normal folks understand how important this is. Tommorow should be exciting!!

[Jwaksman]

honestly, i think even without the grassroots fanatics we would still have a higher turnout ratio than the others. Dr Paul's message is very moving. even the normal folks understand how important this is. Tommorow should be exciting!!




I agree. I definitely think that the polls are underestimating Dr. Paul's turnout because none of them will go out on a limb and predict a turnout demographic too different from previous Iowa caucuses. We would have the highest turnout even without all of our organization to help us.


I'm just saying, let's not go off the deep end...

[ronpaulyourmom]

Your fundamental flaw is that you think the phone polls are only calling 04 republicans. That is, for the most part, untrue.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/disclosure_project_results_fro.php

[xcalybur]

Thank you for pointing that out ronpaulyourmom.

I still think we have an amazing shot at pulling out a win in Iowa.

[PubliusPublicola]

This isn't "objective statistical analysis" at all... it's wishful thinking based on some very strange figures.

For example, instead of 105,000 RP votes in Iowa, it might be more sane to speculate along these lines...

RP is polling at 8-10% in Iowa. There will be around 100,000 votes (not 350k).

I believe his demographic is considerably missed both in classification but also in turn-out intensity. If the RP base comes out strong, I give Ron Paul up to another 20,000 votes which will likely bring him to around 18-20%.

That should put him around 3rd place, above Mccain (who i think will hit around 13-16%).

[Ronin]

There's something else I think we are missing. Even if we get the same turnout as the others, Paul voters are less likely to change their position. I'm pretty sure that's where the 88% number came from. Today's poll shows something like 50% of caucus goers say they are still willing to change their candidate. We may be able to steal some votes from other candidates.

I think it will all come down to our presentation and "presence" at the caucuses. We need to make a convincing case and that all comes down to organization and getting out the vote. If we do this we should get at least a strong 3rd with Romney and Huckabee tied for 1st. I'm throwing in a couple extra points for Romney because he'll probably be better organized than Huckabee.

One thing I am concerned about is McCain stealing some votes from Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson because of his polling in NH. I wouldn't be surprised if there is 2 way tie for 1st and a 2 way tie for 3rd. Worst case a 3 way tie for 3rd with us in 4th.

This scenario would be something like:

Huckabee: 30
Romney: 30
Paul: 15
McCain: 15
Thompson: 7

Either way, NH should be a nail biter.

[Peace&Freedom]

There are 'normal people' supporting other candidates, and then there are Ron Paul 'normal people.' A much larger fragment of Paul voters are newly energized people who have not voted often before, or are voting truly FOR a candidate on the merits for the first time in their life. Many have also switched parties to vote, and a lot are Libertarians in IA who are just itching to vote in a contest where there the odds are in their favor to swing a NATIONAL race. It is doubtful they will be opting out of voting given those unique points of origin, compared to normal 'normal people.' THERE WILL BE A VERY HIGH PAUL TURNOUT.

[RonPaulCult]

Ok here's the thing - I'm ok with you giving RP a 50% voter turnout but I think you're wrong to give the other candidates only a 7% turnout. The polls - while flawed in many ways - choose their sample pool largely from those that voted in 2004 for BUSH when he ran AGAINST NOBODY.

These are republicans that vote NO MATTER WHAT. You should probably put their turnout at 75% and then see where Ron Paul ends up.

It will still be a bad prediction because we get so many independant voters and so many dems switched to republicans.

I just texted my friend in Iowa - I couldn't convince her to switch out from being a dem but she told me she has friends who are lifelong dems switching to republicans for tomorrow.

Those people would never show up in the polls.

[justinc.1089]

Here is the statistical analysis of the latest state and national republican polls and the potential for Ron Paul to win in those states and nationally. I have put this all in a .pdf, but don't have a place to upload and thus link to it. If someone has a place, please let me know. Now on to the overall results.

Iowa, we will win hands down. Actually, my analysis shows upwards of 45-50% of the vote going towards Ron Paul.

New Hampshire, unless the polling gets better for Ron Paul or he gets a turnout rate in the 75% range, Ron paul is comming in 3rd. This is one of the toughest states to win for us due to the massive turnout.

South Carolina, not as hard as New Hampshire, but we will still come in 3rd unless Ron Paul can get a turnout rate of around 60%. The numbers show that Romney and Huckabee will be in a dead heat for 1st and Ron Paul about 4% off of that. Almost a 3 way tie.

Nationally, we rock nationally. Not quite the sweep of Iowa, but we are in 1st place with around 25-30% of the vote in the republican primaries, not the general election.

We are in really good shape. If we really do take Iowa by storm, this could push up the numbers in New Hampshire significantly. If we could get about a 5% bump from a win in Iowa we would barely take New Hampshire.

Uh, WHAT?

You are probably one of the worst people for coming up with a poll that I have seen so far. You say Iowa is easier for us to win than NH, and that NH will be one of the toughest states for us to win, and that is absurd. The official campaign disagrees with that, the support generally disagrees with that, and even the polls generally disagree with that.

Iowa probably won't be won by us. We will most likely get 2nd, possibly 3rd.

New Hampshire will be 1st or 2nd.

And SC will be EXTREMELY tough for Paul to win. I live here, and I know. As things are right now, I would be willing to say we absolutely are NOT looking at a possibility of winning here. It would take the votes dividing between Huckabee and Romney perfectly for that to happen, and thats not very likely.

The ONLY thing you are correct on is saying we're good nationally. Thats absolutely correct. Only Huckabee touches us nationally and he can only take southern states and Iowa, and virtually nothing else.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Look this whole hoopla about Bush voters and all that jazz is simply unwarranted, the polls call random land-line phone numbers of registered voters identified as Republican, Democrat, or Independent. The person is then asked to self-identify which Caucus they plan on attending.

Voters being missed by the polls:
1. All unregistered voters who intend to vote but know about same-day registration on-site and are waiting until the last minute. Anybody who identifies themself to a pollster as unregistered is automatically disqualified from a poll regardless of what they say thereafter. It's usually the first question that is asked.

2. 3rd party voters, which if I recall correctly in the case of Libertarians, represent 3% of the Iowa electorate.

Other flaws the polls might be making:
1. Huckabee and Romney are supported by more females, Ron Paul and McCain (but especially RP) more by men. There's a good possibility that pollsters are over-representing the female voting bloc for the republicans.

2. The cell-phone thing. While pollsters do include some amount of people from the young demographic, the fact that 25% of the entire population under the age of 40 is unreachable via land-line likely is skewing their data against RP. To what extent is impossible to know.

3. The pollsters may be under-rating independents in the primary.

The Optimist's scenario for Ron:
All polls show him trending upward in the days leading up to the Caucus and pollsters like to round his numbers down. He's likely at 11% by official standards by tomorrow night.

11%
+ 1% for 3rd party voters switching just for tomorrow
+ 5% for the cell phone malfunction and/or unregistered first-time voters with landlines
+ 2% for higher than expected Independent participation
+ 1% for lower than expected female turnout and higher male turnout
----------------------------------------------
20%
x 1.2 for strong turnout
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
= 24% of the vote, good for a slim 2nd place finish.

[RonPaulCult]

Look this whole hoopla about Bush voters and all that jazz is simply unwarranted, the polls call random land-line phone numbers of registered voters identified as Republican, Democrat, or Independent. The person is then asked to self-identify which Caucus they plan on attending.

Voters being missed by the polls:
1. All unregistered voters who intend to vote but know about same-day registration on-site and are waiting until the last minute. Anybody who identifies themself to a pollster as unregistered is automatically disqualified from a poll regardless of what they say thereafter. It's usually the first question that is asked.

2. 3rd party voters, which if I recall correctly in the case of Libertarians, represent 3% of the Iowa electorate.

Other flaws the polls might be making:
1. Huckabee and Romney are supported by more females, Ron Paul and McCain (but especially RP) more by men. There's a good possibility that pollsters are over-representing the female voting bloc for the republicans.

2. The cell-phone thing. While pollsters do include some amount of people from the young demographic, the fact that 25% of the entire population under the age of 40 is unreachable via land-line likely is skewing their data against RP. To what extent is impossible to know.

3. The pollsters may be under-rating independents in the primary.

The Optimist's scenario for Ron:
All polls show him trending upward in the days leading up to the Caucus and pollsters like to round his numbers down. He's likely at 11% by official standards by tomorrow night.

11%
+ 1% for 3rd party voters switching just for tomorrow
+ 5% for the cell phone malfunction and/or unregistered first-time voters with landlines
+ 2% for higher than expected Independent participation
+ 1% for lower than expected female turnout and higher male turnout
----------------------------------------------
20%
x 1.2 for strong turnout
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
= 24% of the vote, good for a slim 2nd place finish.


How do you figure that the Bush voter stuff is not true? If you read the details of the polls they SAY this is so.

[ronpaulyourmom]

How do you figure that the Bush voter stuff is not true? If you read the details of the polls they SAY this is so.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/disclosure_project_results_fro.php

In the bottom of that article, methodologies for some of the major polls, including DMR.

[FreedomLover]

How do you figure that the Bush voter stuff is not true? If you read the details of the polls they SAY this is so.

Show me one poll that says "This poll called only those republicans who participated in the 2004 caucus"

[hueylong]

Pure crack.

[FreedomLover]

Anyway, I think RP and McCain are going to be battling it out for 3rd...I don't think thompsons' supporters are anymore enthusiastic about their candidate then fred himself, even with his 2 week ride through Iowa.