Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Graph about presidential donors

  1. Nov 10, 2003 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2003 #2
    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.
     
  4. Nov 10, 2003 #3
    It just shows that Bush has sold himself to the corporations, and his grassroots support is less than he would like to believe.
     
  5. Nov 10, 2003 #4
    Or another way of lookin at it is, of the 80some million he has gotten, he has still recieved 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.
     
  6. Nov 10, 2003 #5
    But, at the same time, if you add up everything that the Dems are raising, the democrats have a better grassroots base.
     
  7. Nov 10, 2003 #6
    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 couldnt 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.
     
  8. Nov 10, 2003 #7
    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.
     
  9. Nov 10, 2003 #8
    And what I am saying is that Bush doesnt 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.
     
  10. Nov 10, 2003 #9
    Well, no, you can't, not exactly...but it is indicative of a trend.
     
  11. Nov 10, 2003 #10
    And what trend is thaT?
     
  12. Nov 10, 2003 #11
    That Dems represent the people, and Bush represents corporate interests.
     
  13. Nov 10, 2003 #12
    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.
     
  14. Nov 10, 2003 #13
    Calm down, chum...and what does Clinton have to do with anything? Is he your boogeyman??
     
  15. Nov 10, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    You are comparing apples to oranges in an effort to draw an unwarranted conclusion.
    Namecalling is a nono for moderators too.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2003
  16. Nov 10, 2003 #15

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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:
    Code (Text):

    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    | |
    | | | | | . . . .
     
    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.
     
  17. Nov 10, 2003 #16
    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.
     
  18. Nov 10, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  19. Nov 10, 2003 #18

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Not at all obvious to me.
     
  20. Nov 10, 2003 #19
    no its ok nate, we all misinterpret at times. *cough* Zero *cough*
    lol, jk, i love you.

    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 isnt black and white.

    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 shouldnt be compared to, example: democratic nominees.
     
  21. Nov 11, 2003 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Something positive said sarcastically is an insult. "Direct" insult? Reduntant. In any case, its a no-no.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Graph about presidential donors
Loading...