Grassroots effectiveness: Iowa vs New Hampshire

[margomaps]

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 I see 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!

So what happened? Did the grassroots (as well as the official campaign) just do an exceedingly poor job of getting Iowa voters out to the caucuses? Did the NH grassroots actually do a very good job -- and it was only the fate of a 65 degree/sunny day that doomed us (huge turnout across the board)?

[margomaps]

While everyone else is probably still thinking of a reply, I'll offer my own theory.

I think there is a "support ceiling" for Ron. That is, only a certain portion of each population is receptive to the idea of freedom as Ron preaches it. Above that ceiling there exist people who would not, could not support freedom even if it were carefully explained to them.

In Iowa, around 12,000 people showed up to indicate their preference for freedom. In New Hampshire, a little over 18,000 did the same.

My feeling is that there are somewhat more than 12,000 people in Iowa who truly understand and believe in freedom and limited government. I think the 12,000 is undercounting those who 1) didn't get a chance to hear Ron's message, or 2) didn't think it was worthwhile to go out to the caucus, since they had other things to do, or felt it was a lost cause. I will take a wild guess and say that around 20,000 people in Iowa are truly pro-freedom.

In New Hampshire, I would also guess that the number of freedom's friends is larger than 18,000. For similar reasons to Iowa's turnout, I'd take a wild guess that there are 30,000 pro-freedom folk in NH.

This still implies that there are 3 times as many people per-capita in NH versus Iowa that are pro-freedom. I believe that to be the case.

Going forward, my guess is that we'll continue to witness the support ceiling in action. It will give us some indication of the pro-freedom remnant in each state.

The bad news is that the ceiling appears to be very low as a percentage of the total population. The ceiling is so low that, without some unusual circumstances (brokered convention with an unexpected outcome; and somehow a Ron vs Clinton choice causing many to vote for Ron as the perceived lesser of 2 evils), our chances are not good at all. I haven't quite figured out the good news yet, but I'm working on it.

[mosquitobite]

the republicans can't win with social conservatives alone, they can't win with fiscal conservatives alone....

what CAN unite them? A CONSTITUTIONAL candidate.

[adpierce]

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 I see 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!

So what happened? Did the grassroots (as well as the official campaign) just do an exceedingly poor job of getting Iowa voters out to the caucuses? Did the NH grassroots actually do a very good job -- and it was only the fate of a 65 degree/sunny day that doomed us (huge turnout across the board)?

Do you understand the difference between a caucus and a primary? A caucus always has less turnout than a primary. It's the nature of the beast. A caucus starts at a specific time.. if you're not there on time you're not allowed in the doors. It goes on for 30 minutes to an hour. Iowa supporters didn't fail. Primaries are open all day long and people can show up mark a box and the whole process takes what ... 15 minutes max. Your argument is a huge failure because you fail to take this distinction into hand. By the way the turnout was a record turnout... it was massive. I couldn't find parking at my caucus site.

[coboman]

Isn't it the database fiasco, where they lost the numbers they were supposed to call?

[newbitech]

i am going to take a wild guess and say that both Iowa and N.H. support have been overstated.

i think there is a very strong sentiment that Dr. Paul is unelectable. Thats the first thing I remember hearing about the platform and it looks like that is our biggest cast off from Iowa and N.H.

Regarding the ratios of support to actual turnout as a measure of grassroots efforts, I would have to agree that in some areas, the ceiling has been hit and no matter how much effort is put forth, that ceiling cannot be breached.

We have to help people realize that voting in and of itself is not a civic responsibility. Voting for someone who upholds our constitution is the only thing that matters. Once that barrier is broken down, we can truly start taking advantage of the strong anti-establishment sentiment that is sweeping this country.

[margomaps]

Do you understand the difference between a caucus and a primary? A caucus always has less turnout than a primary. It's the nature of the beast. A caucus starts at a specific time.. if you're not there on time you're not allowed in the doors. It goes on for 30 minutes to an hour. Iowa supporters didn't fail. Primaries are open all day long and people can show up mark a box and the whole process takes what ... 15 minutes max. Your argument is a huge failure because you fail to take this distinction into hand. By the way the turnout was a record turnout... it was massive. I couldn't find parking at my caucus site.

Yep, caucuses get lower turnout that primaries -- no argument there.

However, my analysis included the possibility that Ron Paul supporters are indeed not the hardcore voters we've fooled ourselves into thinking we were. If we were, then we would have out-caucused and out-primary'd everyone else in Iowa in New Hampshire, in spite of the high turnout across the board.

Either we're not the super-voters we thought we were, or the grassroots is nearly irrelevant due to the support ceiling. The best the grassroots can do is make sure that all the potential supporters out there are aware of the message. It is not the grassroot's fault that the number of potential supporters is very small.