Is the Graph on Presidential Donors Clear About Its Data Source and Metrics?

[RageSk8]

What do you think about this:
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/10/25/politics/campaigns/points_graph.gif

 

[HAVOC451]

It's an interesting graph. I'm suprised that Sharpton's not closer to the Kucinich end of the scale.
The graph is misleading in that the vast difference in total contributions is not represented visually.

 

[Zero]

It just shows that Bush has sold himself to the corporations, and his grassroots support is less than he would like to believe.

 

[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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Mattius_]

But, at the same time, if you add up everything that the Dems are raising, the democrats have a better grassroots base.

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Zero]

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.

Well, no, you can't, not exactly...but it is indicative of a trend.

 

[Mattius_]

And what trend is thaT?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mattius_
And what trend is thaT?

That Dems represent the people, and Bush represents corporate interests.

 

[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.

 

[Zero]

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.

Calm down, chum...and what does Clinton have to do with anything? Is he your boogeyman??

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

That Dems represent the people, and Bush represents corporate interests.

You are comparing apples to oranges in an effort to draw an unwarranted conclusion.

Calm down, chum...

Namecalling is a nono for moderators too.

 

[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:

|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | | | . . . .

Would be more representative of that.
(Bush and Dean on the left.)

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.

 

[RageSk8]

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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:

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.

 

[NateTG]

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.

 

[Mattius_]

Not at all obvious to me.

no its ok nate, we all misinterpret at times. *cough* Zero *cough*
lol, jk, i love you.

Namecalling is a nono for moderators too.

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.

and what does Clinton have to do with anything? Is he your boogeyman??

Clinton is the only valid comparison available because he was a president as a democrat. So, we can now compare bush and clinton, republican vs. democrat, on a level plane.

Thus, we do not have to compare bush to something that he shouldn't be compared to, example: democratic nominees.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Something positive said sarcastically is an insult. "Direct" insult? Reduntant. In any case, its a no-no.

 

[Zero]

Look, I didn't literally mean 'chopped up fish used to bait sharks' when I said 'chum'...I meant it as in 'old buddy old pal'...jeez, and people call ME sensitive.

Anyhoo, what is it they say about lies, damned lies, and statistics?

 

[NateTG]

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.

 

[RageSk8]

Ok, I still can't find where there's any indication of either of those on the graphic.

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. The graphic is from the ny times, or did you miss that too?

 

[Mattius_]

"Direct" insult? Reduntant.

No Russ, there are two kinds of insults which I am talking about. A direct insult, would be name calling, and an indirect insult which would be sarcasm, or suttle humour.

Something positive said sarcastically is an insult.

If this were the case, Myself, along with many many others members in these forums would be banned. Sarcasm is legal in my book; and as far as I am educated, it is under Zero, the administrator, as well.

Also, Zero has failed to acknowledge publicly that he is responsible for spreading these 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics' because he himself mis-interpreted, and also falsely compared these statistics, and could have possibly corrupted one of our other members with his rhetoric.

 

[NateTG]

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.

Do you understand the diference between percentile and percentage?

It's obvious that the shaded regions repesent different percentages, but my question was whether the percentages were based on donation count, or dollar count. (Which is not indicated anywhere on the graphic, and is signficant.)

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.

Anyone who knows anything about addition knows that it's possible to colate totals from multipe quarters. I would expect a graph listing realtive donations to include all of them unless there was some compelling reason to ignore prior quarters. Especially considering that the totals listed are significantly smaller than the 'war chests' that each campaign has already amassed.

For all we know, the 'financial analysts' are throwing out donations based on some arbitary scheme instead of using all of the data from the last quarter.

Unless you work for the company that produced the graph, you're not likely to know what data was used, or where it came from. I agree that the most likely source is the published funding reports, but the NYT could easily have requeste and received more up-to-date information for some of the candidates.

Hence, your claim that the data represents the 'last quarter' of fundraising is, barring context provided elsewhere, also unfounded.

The NYT wants to make a story out of this, so they're likely to choose a graphic presentation and a time window that corresponds to a large disparity between Dean and Bush even if the NYT is not otherwise biased.