There is a big diffence between average contribution of $27 and average contribution by each person.

[LiberalFighter]

If you can use the former it is easy for there to be a very low average.

[George II]

1. That is true - the way he got that average was through multiple small contributions by the same...

...people. One hundred $27 contributions from one person equals $2700.

What's the difference between 100 $27 contributions and one $2700 contribution? Nothing.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Just more smoke, guess these do not count the donations he had to return.

[pandr32]

3. I guess not

The truth is only roughly half of his millions and millions and millions come from "small, individual donations" as Sanders likes to tout at every opportunity. The other half are large donations and as we have found out--many are unspecified or from out of the country.

[Treant]

4. Mean or median?

If I get 100 contributions, but 51 of them I convince to give $3 and 49 to give $2700, I can rightfully claim that the average (the median) is $3.

Of course, I got a total of $132,453, and an average (mean) of $1,324 per contribution.

Without seeing the complete donor list, stating an average is actually pretty meaningless. Technically, I could even be using the mode of the contributions as the average, which could skew things even worse...

[LiberalFighter]

6. Your post is focused on contributions.

I was pointing out the difference between contributions vs contributors. A contributor could make multiple donations but based on Sanders' pronouncement each donation is treated separately.

[Treant]

8. That, too.

If I, as a contributor, make 100 contributions, I can warp the median and the mode to be just about anything I want.

Warranted, my total maximum will be $2700, but we can make it look like I gave multiple contributions at an average of $3 if we want.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Most people think average mean when average is used.

Also, I wasn't referencing average contributions by a specific individual. And no one would care under these circumstances.

To be clear, Sanders is intentionally misusing the average contribution of $27 statement. Most people would think that it is total of all contributions divided by number of unique contributors.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. It is interesting how "27" pops up

a lot: $27 average contribution as a constant Bernie meme and 27,000 supporters at last night's rally (despite police estimates of around 11,000).

Is there something mystical about "27" and why?

[LiberalFighter]

7. I keep seeing conflicting numbers on that rally.

Based on another person's information the park doesn't hold too many people.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. I was using the SBS campaign's number

although I too have trouble believing it.

The park police estimate is much smaller (11,000 including those both in and out of the park) and overhead views certainly do not seem to show a number anywhere near 27,000.

That was another reason that I asked somewhat facetiously about the "27" combo.

[Treant]

10. 27 is a perfect cube?

It's also the only positive integer where the sum of the digits (2+7=9), multiplied by 3, is the number itself--but I doubt that signifies.

3 is, in and of itself, special in a lot of religions and traditions (but not for the Japanese, where 3 is an unlucky number). 3*3*3 = 27 (that perfect cube thing), so three threes.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. LOL, thanks Treant!

Do you think that's why the SBS campaign likes to use it?

In the hope of some mystical interference that will somehow change the math for Bernie in the primaries?

[Treant]

13. It wouldn't surprise me.

It's also a number that "feels right" to us in a way that, say, 26 doesn't.

If you ask people to choose a number from 1 to 100, many will immediately select 37 or 73. Three and seven are both "lucky" to us in most European traditions, we tend to prefer odd numbers, and so on.

27 doesn't quite match, but it's probably the best they could do...

[jmowreader]

14. Here's how this shit works

One lump-sum donor of $2400

plus 99 donors of $3 apiece (total $297)

equal a cumulative total of $2697

divided by 100 equals $26.97 each - rounded up to $27!

It's a very common tactic that all politicians use to dilute the effects of the guys who can afford to write $2400 checks to politicians.