|
Obama has certainly raised an incredible amount of money. The way the donor count and amounts are presented are probably deliberate spin and likely disguise the actual sources of his contributions. Until we see the complete donor list breakdown, we can only speculate. (FYI I am an Edwards supporter who has not decided between Clinton and Obama -- I have issues with each.)
Now to the data. I used the reported round numbers of $28 million and 250,000 donors for an mean donation of $112. (The references to $32million did not indicate donor numbers; using $32m increases the big donor effect.) What else do we "know"? Over 90% gave less than $100 and 40% gave less than $25 and 10,000 gave $5 or $10. This initially sounds like the little donors have contributed most of the money.
But wait. The 40% giving under $25 could not have contributed over $2.3 million. Assuming 90% (not over) giving under $100 means that the 125,000 (50%) of donors of at least $25 but less than $100 would total between $3.1 and $12.5 million.
A couple of notes: The Obama campaign itself sells buttons, sign, bumper stickers, etc. and includes each purchase in full as a donation and donor. Clinton, Edwards, and most other campaigns did not themselves market such items, rather they licensed other "independent" parties who then ran the "store" separately without the reporting requirements being needed for each button or whatever. Both ways can meet legal requirements and each has advantages and disadvantages. The Obama method tends to inflate their donor count, but allows them get all the contact information "required by law" and build a larger mailing list. Even without this effect, the number of donors to the Obama campaign is still quite impressive. (A subtle problem with the Obama method happens in cases where a donor had donated the maximum $2300 and also bought signs, buttons, etc. now pushing them over legal limits!)
How else might one spin the distribution of the amounts donated to Obama? Maybe "Well over half of his contributions are from just a few thousand contributors." This example assumes the most-positive assumptions favoring small contributions. The data as presented would also support statements like "Obama received over 80% of his total from a just a few thousand big donors , while over 90% of donors did little more than buy a button or T-shirt."
"Truth or Truthiness?"
Based on other reports on Obama's donors, my training in statistics and data analysis, and auditing models (e.g. Paredo's Law, the 80/20 rule), I would expect the underlying data looks something like this:
7,000 at $2300
5,000 at $500 to $2300
5,000 at $101 to $499
5,000 at $100
So fewer than 3% of donors contributing nearly 60% of total dollars.
Fewer than 5% of donors contributing over 70% of total dollars.
Because of the "store" effect and other very small donations, I suspect that the difference between Obama and Clinton in the number of donors remaining who are able to donate significant amounts or max out is much less than all the pundits keep speculating.
Just my opinion.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
