Fun fact of the Day
 

For the year 2002

92% of Democratic fundraising money came from 23 donors who gave at least 1 million in cash to the political party

64% of the Republican's donations came from people who contributed less then 200 dollars

Beg's the Question

Which party is of the little people?

Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

C) none of the above

Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

The Dwarfen Party, or maybe the Halfling party.

While I'm pretty usually considered "Republican," I consider the two-party system here in the U.S. to be an abomination of what the founding fathers had in mind, and I think the above figures, while interesting, can probably be pretty easily skewed.

Re: Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

I happen to agree with the spirit of MrBug's point, but this was too funny. Nice one.

BTW, I think it is dwarven. ;)

[edit: actually, looks like it could be either - my bad. Post was still funny.]

Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

The one better at hiding large dollar donations? :-D

Kevin
[Independent]

Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

Does this mean 64% of all money donated to the party were from donations of $200 or less (in which case I find the claim a bit dubious), or is this 64% of all donations were in denominations of $200 or less (in which case we're comparing apples to oranges, and the stat does not support the argument)?

Just trying to clarify.

When will somebody get smart and create a Centrist party?

Neofield: Almost impossible. The one thing both parties agree on is setting the system to exclude third parties. Look at debate rules, matching funding rules, and a host of state and local rules. As much as I might want to join a third party, the system is so stacked against it as to make it fruitless. The only way to change is through the two party system.

Interesting tidbit Mr. Bug. Definitely not what the media and party members themselves would have us believe.

Hell, I say we put a vote forward to abolish all Parties.. No Partisan Politics!!!


MK - Proud Non-Member of neither the Democratic or Republican Parties.

This is why the laws need to be changed in regards to things like debates and funding rules.

Good point, and something I was also wondering. Notice the first sentance (the Democrat one) says 92% of 'fundraising' while the Republican one says 64% of 'donations'.

I firmly believe that a two party system more directly represents the will of the people. Take a look at the politics of multiparty countries, especially parliamentary govts., and you will a tangled mess of coalition buyouts and small party extortion.

neofied: But the guys that would change the rules are the guys that benefit from the rules.

One thing would be for somebody like Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, or any other moderate to form a new party while in office. I think that's the only way you'll ever have a true third party -- if the moderates unite and make it happen.

As it stands now you have a two party system that has moderates in each. Yet people still equate Democrats with Left-Wing/Liberal adn Republicans with Right-Wing/Conservative.

I think if a considerable group of the true moderates from both sides of the floor united and separated from the respective parties, that would change things dramatically. And I think you would see many registered voters file-in behind.

I think it begs the question, "What is your source?" and "Is there a distinction between the words fundraising and donations in your post?"

The vague wording, to me, indicates that the DNC gets 92% of its money from 23 donors, while 64% of the of the people that donate to the GOP give only $200.00. The percentages measure money raised (for DNC) vs how much people donate (for RNC).

That could mean that the remaining 8% of the DNC's money comes from people who give under $200.00. And that the remaining 36% of the RNC donors give over $1M each.

Please clarify this fun fact.

neofield: I'm with ya. Just PM me when the revolution starts!

Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

By saying 23 donors, you certainly leave the impression that you mean 23 people. I'm betting, though, that this isn't the case. I have to think that the list of 23 "donors" probably include such units as the United Auto Workers and the Teamsters - organizations that might be reasonably interpreted to represent "the little man."

In the spirit of John Locke, it's about time Goverment in general gets an overhaul


Quiksand, I meant to allude to PAC's when I was talking about the Democrats

Re: Fun fact of the Day
 

Here's a link to her syndicated column:

Mona Charen - July 8


Now, I see a difference between those two statements, don't you? Of course, your "interpretation" makes for a harder-hitting statement... but I don't think it's actually true, now, is it?

If you check out the source of the data, the Center for Responsive Politics I think you'll find that Mona got this one right.

The direct link to the donor demographiscs data is here.


You, of course, made the same mistake with the stats for Democrats. It's simply not true that 23 donors made up 92% of all Democratic fundraising - and neither Mona Charen nor her original source said so. What is true is that among donors who gave $1 million or more to federal candidates, parties, or PACs, 92% of that money went to Democrats. Once again - a very, very different thing.


There still might be an interesting point to be made here - but it's nowhere near as dramatic as you initially made it out to be.

Well, I copied it straight from Mallard Fillmore, a notoriusly conservative comic strip.

It might have been helpful to say so... knowing there's a motive makes the "mistakes" all the more understandable.

BUSTED!!!

It made for a lively debate though didn't it?

Amen.

Even without the outright lie this stat is beyond meaningless. Say you have the following 10 people and their donations:

A $1,000,000
B $100
C $100
D $100
E $100
F $100
G $100
H $100
I $100
J $100

You could say that 90% of the donations came from people who donated $100 or less, but you could also say 99.9% of the money came from people who donayed $1M or more. From the way the quote is worded it definately sounds like that's what they did.

Its sad that as useful as statistics is, one can pretty easily use it to twist whatever data to whatever lie one wants to propogate...

That was one of the funniest things I have ever read here at FOFC.

I also vote for c) None of the above. But what gets me is that the Democrats have used the 'little peope' statement as part of their mantra when it has been and still is an out-right lie. Some of their (left wing) policies include anti-growth here in the West (re: squeezing out affordable housing) and anti-corporation (re: squeezing out jobs), it is perceived that they believe everyone should be on the government dole one way or the other.

I'm as Liberal as they come. But both parties are a fuckin joke.

GET RID OF THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!





Excuse me for my rant

I've given a little thought to this, and here's the thing in my mind. The survey identifies only 25 people who donated more than $1 million in the entire country. That's combines donations to all federal candidates, soft money donations to parties, and donations to national PACs. Only 25 people.

Aside from the curious fact that 23 out of the 25 were giving to Democrats (which was the headline grabber), it just seems weird to me that the number is that few -- only 25 people in the whole country.

My current best guess at what's going on here is that most people who make contributions in large scale do so by way of various corporate entities - like limited liability companies, their own PACs, or something along those lines. The number 25 represents perhaps just the small share of big donors out there who opted to make all their contributions in their own name, rather than use a vessel. (Which might explain why it's mostly nitwitted Democrats)

I confess I know rather little about the mechanisms for campaign contributions - and whether that kind of vessel is sensible and legal for those transactions. But if so, that might help explain the stats here (on the high end).