Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don’t understand how numbers or percentages work…
Not trying to be insulting, but c’mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand, to a response you don’t understand, and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.
Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don’t understand how numbers or percentages work…
It seems it’s YOU that don’t understand: people rich enough to make large individual donations tend to be the kind of elites who expect something in return for their largesse, as do PACs.
With that in mind, it’s COMPLETELY reasonable to combine those groups to compare with the small donors who represent a wider swath of her constituency and thus incentivize less corrupt practices.
Not trying to be insulting, but c’mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand
False, see above.
to a response you don’t understand
Equally false.
and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.
Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?
Yes, I did. Unlike you and my response to you.
The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It’s not AIPAC or corporate interests, it’s small donors.
Again, the combination of the latter two is very much more relevant than the two separately. The donations NOT from small donors outweigh the donations FROM small donors
What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?
Literally nothing. It’s you that seem to refuse to acknowledge my solid point that a comparison of “small donors” and “not small donors” is the more apt one and that 55.25 is a larger percentage than 44.74.
Either way, over 72% of those PAC donations coming from business interests is an even more revealing stat.
Not sure what you’re trying to illustrate here?
The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors. She doesn’t take AIPAC money. What’s your point?
A plurality, but importantly not a majority.
She received more from large individual donors and PACs combined than from small donors.
Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don’t understand how numbers or percentages work…
Not trying to be insulting, but c’mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand, to a response you don’t understand, and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.
It seems it’s YOU that don’t understand: people rich enough to make large individual donations tend to be the kind of elites who expect something in return for their largesse, as do PACs.
With that in mind, it’s COMPLETELY reasonable to combine those groups to compare with the small donors who represent a wider swath of her constituency and thus incentivize less corrupt practices.
False, see above.
Equally false.
My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦
Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?
The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It’s not AIPAC or corporate interests, it’s small donors.
What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?
Add up the large individual contributions and the PAC contributions.
Is that larger or smaller than the small individual contributions %?
Is the small individual contributions greater or lesser than 50%? Keep in mind that to be the “majority” you must have more than 50%.
Yes, I did. Unlike you and my response to you.
Again, the combination of the latter two is very much more relevant than the two separately. The donations NOT from small donors outweigh the donations FROM small donors
Literally nothing. It’s you that seem to refuse to acknowledge my solid point that a comparison of “small donors” and “not small donors” is the more apt one and that 55.25 is a larger percentage than 44.74.
Either way, over 72% of those PAC donations coming from business interests is an even more revealing stat.