- #1
RageSk8
What do you think about this:
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/10/25/politics/campaigns/points_graph.gif
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/10/25/politics/campaigns/points_graph.gif
But, at the same time, if you add up everything that the Dems are raising, the democrats have a better grassroots base.Originally posted by Mattius_
Or another way of lookin at it is, of the 80some million he has gotten, he has still received more from grass-roots organizations than almost everyone else. The massive total number dwarves the decievingly sizable amount of small donors.
I would loosely guess that out of the 82.4 million, he has made about 7-9 million from small donators, which sums up to more than anyone else except howard dean.
But, at the same time, if you add up everything that the Dems are raising, the democrats have a better grassroots base.
What I'm saying, chum, is that while Bush has more cash, the fact that the Dems have more grassroots support means that they have more votes.Originally posted by Mattius_
Thats pretty spurious, your comparing one person to 9 others, OFCOURSE 9 people are going to gather more money, because those nine people together, can afford to appeal to one specific ideology each(thus appealing to one type of person each). Making all 9 together, a large sum of niche ideologies and thus, a large pool of money.
If there were 9 republicans versus 1 democrat, that democrat couldn't afford to please each and every person with a large sum of niche as easily as the republicans could.
Understand?... Well, Dont say i didnt try to explain it.
Well, no, you can't, not exactly...but it is indicative of a trend.Originally posted by Mattius_
And what I am saying is that Bush doesn't represent all republicans, does he? Once all but one democrat has been eliminated, the total money raised, along with the total votes(in comparison to the total accumulated between the 9 as of now), will drop.
So as i was saying before, you cannot compare One person to 9.
That Dems represent the people, and Bush represents corporate interests.Originally posted by Mattius_
And what trend is thaT?
Calm down, chum...and what does Clinton have to do with anything? Is he your boogeyman??Originally posted by Mattius_
Off base once again Zero, Bush is a President. I would like to see these same graphs when Clinton was president. I bet you Clinton had a high amount of Corporate support as well.
Thats just plain flawed analysis of the data. The graphs for the major candidates all look virtually identical. It shouldn't be surprising that a big donor isn't going to back a nobody candidate. We'll see what the graph looks like for the two actual candidates for next year's election.Originally posted by Zero
It just shows that Bush has sold himself to the corporations, and his grassroots support is less than he would like to believe.
You are comparing apples to oranges in an effort to draw an unwarranted conclusion.That Dems represent the people, and Bush represents corporate interests.
Namecalling is a nono for moderators too.Calm down, chum...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | | | . . . .
Of course, the figure also doesn't mention if it's percentage by dollars, or by number of donations, or when the data is from.
The point is to show where the money for different candidates comes from and I have no beef with the normalization done to show that. Agenda? Dunno. Its an interesting graph to me, just very easy for someone with an agenda to misinterpret. I won't make the leap to assuming (guessing) it was created because of an agenda.Originally posted by NateTG
It's not like the illustration is particularly usefull -- I would guess that it was created by someone with an agenda -- it misrepresents the relative amounts of money hugely:
Not at all obvious to me.Originally posted by RageSk8
It's percentage by dollars, that sould be fairly obvious. It is also fairly obvious that these figures are from the last quarter of fundraising.
Not at all obvious to me.
Namecalling is a nono for moderators too.
and what does Clinton have to do with anything? Is he your boogeyman??
Something positive said sarcastically is an insult. "Direct" insult? Reduntant. In any case, its a no-no.Originally posted by Mattius_
Lol russ, funny thing is(before your post) I actually looked chum up in the dictionary to see if it was an insult, But infact, he does have his bases covered; it is not a direct insult. However, we can all cut the sarcasm with a knife... Too bad sarcasm isn't black and white.
Originally posted by RageSk8
It's percentage by dollars, that sould be fairly obvious. It is also fairly obvious that these figures are from the last quarter of fundraising.
Ok, I still can't find where there's any indication of either of those on the graphic.
"Direct" insult? Reduntant.
Something positive said sarcastically is an insult.
Originally posted by RageSk8
On the top of each column is the total money - so, it should be obvious that the different regions shaded represent percentiles of the total.
Anyone who knows anything about primaries would realize that these numbers could only be gotten through the fundraising reports each candidate has to deliver at the end of a quarter.
A graph about presidential donors is a visual representation of the individuals or organizations who have donated money to a specific presidential candidate or campaign. The graph typically displays the total amount donated, as well as the percentage of donations from different sources.
A graph about presidential donors can provide insight into the financial support a candidate receives, which can impact their campaign strategy and overall success. It can also reveal any potential conflicts of interest or patterns in donation sources.
Graphs about presidential donors can be found on various news websites, political analysis sites, and campaign websites. They may also be included in research studies or reports on campaign financing.
The data for a graph about presidential donors is typically collected from public records, such as campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. This data is then analyzed and presented visually in the form of a graph.
Yes, a graph about presidential donors can be manipulated if the data used to create it is inaccurate or biased. It is important to verify the source and methodology of the data before drawing conclusions from the graph.