Turnout

[slantedview]

Just curious, do you guys have any plans in place (coordinated with the campaign perhaps... if that's even allowed?) to impact turnout tomorrow?

[raheelp]

Yes. I don't have much time but basically we will three positions.

1. Phone Callers
2. Poll Checker
3. Door Knockers

These three will coordinate to affect turnout. I am a poll checker :)

[skinzterpswizfan]

Yes. I don't have much time but basically we will three positions.

1. Phone Callers
2. Poll Checker
3. Door Knockers

These three will coordinate to affect turnout. I am a poll checker :)

Good luck, the fate of America is depending on you. :)

But no pressure or anything. ;)

[slantedview]

Yes. I don't have much time but basically we will three positions.

1. Phone Callers
2. Poll Checker
3. Door Knockers

These three will coordinate to affect turnout. I am a poll checker :)
cool. best of luck. we'll be there with you (from California) in spirit :)

[tamor]

Thanks for all your time and dedication

[fgd]

What about BUSSING AND CARPOOLING?

[ItsTime]

set up. Call New Hampshire HQ if you can help out in anyway


What about BUSSING AND CARPOOLING?

[ronpaulhawaii]

I am a poll checker and we have regional "list-collecters" set up to get the lists of who has (and has not) shown up back to HQ. We are on it and everyone is working very hard. I'm on my way back to Manchester to pick up my packet and do some street work with signs and hand-outs. My housemates hit 150 today (1.5 hours away) and then went to HQ see what else can be done...

m

[damon04]

bump

[MsDoodahs]

Any word on how gotv is going up there?

[tomaO2]

It looks like it went pretty badly and they don't got the excuse that they had their file list hacked.

We did worse here then we did in Iowa. Even in absolute numbers it's not significantly better considering the extra amount of work we put in and the strong libertarian vote. Looks like another grassroots failure.

I'm so dissapointed...

[margomaps]

We did worse here then we did in Iowa. Even in absolute numbers it's not significantly better considering the extra amount of work we put in and the strong libertarian vote. Looks like another grassroots failure.

NH's population is less than half Iowa's. Iowa turned out 11,817 votes for Paul.

Given the relative populations of the states, we might have expected NH to turn out 11,817/2 = 5,908 votes for Paul. NH turned out 18,245 (at last count) votes for Paul. 18,245/5,908 = 3.08.

Per capita, NH turned out more than THREE times the number of Ron Paul voters than Iowa did.

Yes, I understand that it's the percentages relative to other candidates that matters in terms of delegates. But the only conclusion I can take from this analysis is that Ron Paul supporters in Iowa totally and completely dropped the ball in the caucus process. The low turnout overall meant that Iowa was ripe for a huge Ron Paul victory there -- he could have easily achieved a strong 3rd place in Iowa if the NH Ron Paul supporters were exchanged with the Iowa Ron Paul supporters.

The only way this analysis could be flawed is that a fundamental axiom of our campaign is false. That axiom states that Ron Paul supporters are so gung-ho about their candidate that nothing could stop them from showing up to vote. Voters for other candidates are more prone to stay home if the weather isn't nice, or if there's a great ball game on TV -- but not Ron Paul supporters!

[parocks]

NH's population is less than half Iowa's. Iowa turned out 11,817 votes for Paul.

Given the relative populations of the states, we might have expected NH to turn out 11,817/2 = 5,908 votes for Paul. NH turned out 18,245 (at last count) votes for Paul. 18,245/5,908 = 3.08.

Per capita, NH turned out more than THREE times the number of Ron Paul voters than Iowa did.

Yes, I understand that it's the percentages relative to other candidates that matters in terms of delegates. But the only conclusion I can take from this analysis is that Ron Paul supporters in Iowa totally and completely dropped the ball in the caucus process. The low turnout overall meant that Iowa was ripe for a huge Ron Paul victory there -- he could have easily achieved a strong 3rd place in Iowa if the NH Ron Paul supporters were exchanged with the Iowa Ron Paul supporters.

The only way this analysis could be flawed is that a fundamental axiom of our campaign is false. That axiom states that Ron Paul supporters are so gung-ho about their candidate that nothing could stop them from showing up to vote. Voters for other candidates are more prone to stay home if the weather isn't nice, or if there's a great ball game on TV -- but not Ron Paul supporters!



I was a poll watcher in Lancaster, NH. 90% of our ID'd voters showed up.

1 supporter isn't a voter "I do not vote"

That might call into question a fundamental axiom.

We could easily question whether or not Ron Paul contributors are always Ron Paul voters if we wanted to use contributors as a predictor for voters.