Projected NH voter turnout: I need it

[Nate K]

If I can get that, I will be able to estimate how well we do there, using the voter:donor ratio.

Also, idk where lewrockwell got the 1,xxx amount of donors from Iowa, on ronpaulgraphs, it has about half that.

once the final results come in, we'll have an estimated ratio, and from there know where to work from.

[Nate K]

bump

[ronpaul4pres]

If I can get that, I will be able to estimate how well we do there, using the voter:donor ratio.

Also, idk where lewrockwell got the 1,xxx amount of donors from Iowa, on ronpaulgraphs, it has about half that.

once the final results come in, we'll have an estimated ratio, and from there know where to work from.

Ron Paul Graphs has a little more than 50% of the actual count - so you need to almost double the number to get a ball park of the real count.

I already calculated that in Iowa, we're looking at roughly 12% donor/voter ratio.

With those numbers, we should not expect a win in NH - especially with Obama potentially pulling more of the independents that Ron needs.

[Nate K]

bump

[Nate K]

bump i need this, i'm using a new formula and i'm damn good at math.

[jgmaynard]

Our SoS is estimating 500k voters with 150K Inds - our registration is 44% Ind, 31% R and 24% D, but I don't know if registration coorolates with actually showing up at the polls.

JM

[frasu]

bump

[Nate K]

ok i just did the math, using donor:voter ratio and a new theory, meetup.com members: voter ratio. both formulas come up with roughly the same number

i applied them to New Hampshire and for both of them, statistically we'll have only a handful more at NH than Iowa.. just about the same numbers. Which isn't too good of news if the turnout will be even more.. And i know, this isn't all statistics it's a whole new ball game there. with that amount of independents and the work people put into it there, things can work in our favor a lot more.

[Nate K]

This method shows roughly 10,000 voter turnout for South Carolina..

[ronpaulyourmom]

The method is flawed, you just cant use Iowa for comparisons in that way.

[Xonox]

Using Iowa data you'll get less votes, they're a different demographic, not to mention the campaign kind of messed up with the caller lists. We can still use it as a baseline though.

[Nate K]

Forecasts a 25,000 showing in Michigan, anyone know where i can get the predicted voters for each state?

[skinzterpswizfan]

The method is flawed, you just cant use Iowa for comparisons in that way.

QFT

Support in Iowa should in theory be much less than other places judging by the exit polling they were doing.

[Nate K]

The method is flawed, you just cant use Iowa for comparisons in that way.

that's true.. it oughtta be more solid after NH. because after doing Michigan, i know we can get a lot more than 25,000. I'll wait till after NH to continue this.

[Richandler]

The way you would find this is comparing 2000 with 2008 and taking the percentage and applying that to NH's 2000 turn out. Given that there has been some population growth I'd ad about 5% to that total.

[N13]

The method is flawed, you just cant use Iowa for comparisons in that way.

+1

[JPFromTally]

Donors per capita is a lot higher in NH than in Iowa.

[LiveFreeorDie]

Ron must do better in NH. After all the state slogan in Ron's slogan.

[OferNave]

We need to complete at least three primaries/caucuses, and calculate the voter : donor ratio for each. If the number has low variance from state to state, only then can we have some confidence in projections resulting from using this method in other states.

[Joe Knows]

If I can get that, I will be able to estimate how well we do there, using the voter:donor ratio.

Also, idk where lewrockwell got the 1,xxx amount of donors from Iowa, on ronpaulgraphs, it has about half that.

once the final results come in, we'll have an estimated ratio, and from there know where to work from.

You cannot make a comparison between New Hampshire and Iowa because Iowa was a caucus state and New Hampshire is a primary. There is a big difference.

[jeffrey7]

Sorry Nate, I am a Ph.D. student in mathematics... and you are probably not that good at math. If you were you would probably not give too much credence to the results driven "statistics" espoused by many of the people on this forum.