94% of the donations made in the final quarter of the year
[RD] Super Tuesday
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
94% of the donations made in the final quarter of the year
This is one of those cases where you'd want to know the relative proportion of contributions. Because it will be the 80/20 rule, and who she'll want to please going forwards.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Rubio has to win something big on Tuesday. Virginia and Georgia are close enough to hope. The endorsements might help there. Even with a win, he still has to take Florida and he trails.
Cruz will win Texas. He is likely to also win Oklahoma and Arkansas, whith a good shot at Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, and Tennessee. Anything less than two of those and Trump gains an insurmountable lead.
J
I don't know if figures for the current quarter exist yet. But I wouldn't think it's changed so drastically as to make the statement "Clinton's donors are almost exclusively big donors" true.
What she wants more than money is votes, so I imagine going forward she'll be more keen to please the small donors. I think the question is more about the extent to which she will be willing to piss off the big donors in order to do so.
I didn't really have a point, other than to clarify what you stated.
But if you look at the numbers, it does actually vary quite a bit. The numbers for her last quarter of '15 don't resemble the numbers for her donations to date.
Here is one source from last October, showing about 15% under $200
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-small-donors_us_5621583de4b02f6a900c501d
Here is another from last August, that includes SuperPACs
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp.../charts-2016-presidential-donors-millionaires
The NPR source shows about 13% under $200, with most of her donations in the $200-$2700 range.
This source is nice too, because it shows the total magnitude instead of just percentages, but doesn't break it down by amount per donation.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/raised_summ.php
Actually, I just thought about this again and I think I know what's going on.
The links I posted break it down by % of $ amount raised. The Clinton campaign is reporting their numbers in % of donations. So for example, if 50% of their donations were $99, and the other 50% were $10,001;
Clinton campaign reports 50% of donations were $100 or less, other sources would report that 99% of her fundraising was from donations over $10,000.
nevermind me, I'm just talking to myself.
The links I posted break it down by % of $ amount raised. The Clinton campaign is reporting their numbers in % of donations. So for example, if 50% of their donations were $99, and the other 50% were $10,001;
Clinton campaign reports 50% of donations were $100 or less, other sources would report that 99% of her fundraising was from donations over $10,000.
nevermind me, I'm just talking to myself.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
As the day approaches, Hillary and Donald inch forward.
On the Democratic side, this was always going to favor the candidate with the black vote. Bernie will win a few states, but Hillary will win 60% of the delegates, maybe more.
On the Republican side, no opposition to Trump ever developed. The Donald may lose 4-5 states, but he will come in second in all of those. Only and unforeseen disaster in Texas could slow him down. He might do better than Hillary when the counting is done.
J
On the Democratic side, this was always going to favor the candidate with the black vote. Bernie will win a few states, but Hillary will win 60% of the delegates, maybe more.
On the Republican side, no opposition to Trump ever developed. The Donald may lose 4-5 states, but he will come in second in all of those. Only and unforeseen disaster in Texas could slow him down. He might do better than Hillary when the counting is done.
J
now that both parties are sure who the noms are, barring anythng catastrophic, the rugs about to be pulled for one entertainer.
btw trump is coming to armstrong, er kasich country on super tuesday
http://fox8.com/2016/02/27/donald-trump-to-visit-ohio-on-super-tuesday/
btw trump is coming to armstrong, er kasich country on super tuesday
http://fox8.com/2016/02/27/donald-trump-to-visit-ohio-on-super-tuesday/
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
That is not quite true yet. Bernie could gather enough delegates on Tuesday to survive. Cruz could do the improbable and sweep all the Texas delegates (requires 50%). These are unlikely events, but stranger things have happened.
J
Cruz sweeping Texas would help Trump more than anyone else, because it would keep a hopeless candidate in the race longer, depriving Rubio of much needed votes. Cruz himself has no chance, even with a Texas victory.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
If Cruz swept Texas, he would have a real chance.
Rubio has one foot out the door and the other on wet soap. Cruz is the only candidate left that does have a chance.
J
What makes you say that? I thought it was the other way around.
This is a theory that has been quite thoroughly debunked by 538, which is also borne out in betting markets, which at least a week ago placed Rubio at about 40-50% chance to win, and Cruz at 2.4%, on par with Biden & Kasich. And all this was on the assumption that Cruz would win Texas.
Cruz does not have a realistic chance of picking up votes pretty much anywhere after Super Tuesday. The demographics of the coalition he was building relied upon victories early on and on Super Tuesday, because that's where the evangelicals are. His battle was an uphill one from the start, because the later states with less evangelical voters are winner-takes-all, and he's not going to win any of them. Kasich at least has that in his favour - sure, he's hardly taking anything from the evangelical states early on, but victories later would make up for that. Close losses later on do not make up anything for Cruz, and close losses are really more than he can hope for.
I appreciate that his polling numbers obscure the fact that he's done, but if you have a compelling theory that he isn't, I'm sure every political pundit in the country would be eager to hear it.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
There is a huge difference between winning Texas and sweeping Texas. Since you are supposing the latter, adjustments must be made.
Concerning 538, you probably refer to this article. If not, please cite.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-finally-steps-up-as-the-anti-trump/
Note that the current situation is that Rubio is running third in almost every state. Several states are not included because of lack of polling data. While you can make the case that Rubio has greater momentum, the idea that Cruz has the edge is hardly, "quite thoroughly debunked." Also Rubio still has to win his home state. Trump is currently up over 20%.
If Cruz wins all the delegates in Texas, that dynamic changes radically. For starters, that is 155 of 661 total delegates, well over 20%. If gets only 25% of the remaining 506, he still gets 282 delegates. That is likely enough delegates to win the day. With that comes a shift in coverage and the other things that the article says accrue to Rubio.
Neither scenario is anything but a longshot. Rubio's is still the longer of the two.
J
Concerning 538, you probably refer to this article. If not, please cite.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-finally-steps-up-as-the-anti-trump/
Rubio does have a narrow path to the nomination. It will probably require, first, for him to improve upon his current polling on Super Tuesday: Even a couple of percentage points taken from Cruz would probably be enough for Rubio to beat Cruz almost everywhere but Texas. A couple more percentage points and Rubio could be competitive with Trump in states like Virginia. Then he’ll have to make some further progress before March 15, when winner-take-all Florida and Ohio vote, and probably hope that one or more of his rivals drops out. Polls of a hypothetical one-on-one matchup between Trump and Rubio show a competitive race.
Note that the current situation is that Rubio is running third in almost every state. Several states are not included because of lack of polling data. While you can make the case that Rubio has greater momentum, the idea that Cruz has the edge is hardly, "quite thoroughly debunked." Also Rubio still has to win his home state. Trump is currently up over 20%.
If Cruz wins all the delegates in Texas, that dynamic changes radically. For starters, that is 155 of 661 total delegates, well over 20%. If gets only 25% of the remaining 506, he still gets 282 delegates. That is likely enough delegates to win the day. With that comes a shift in coverage and the other things that the article says accrue to Rubio.
Neither scenario is anything but a longshot. Rubio's is still the longer of the two.
J
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
If Cruz comes out ahead of Rubio after Tuesday, Trump pretty much has it in the Bag because Cruz isn't winning too many Non-Texas States.
Florida and Ohio and both most likely Trump States. I think Trump wins at least half the Super-Tuesday states.
Florida and Ohio and both most likely Trump States. I think Trump wins at least half the Super-Tuesday states.
@J - okay, so taking that best-case scenario for Cruz, where does that leave him? Still an awful lot of delegates away from the nomination, with virtually no chance of securing them. It would certainly hurt Rubio, but that's precisely why it helps Trump - Rubio can actually pose some sort of threat in the later winner-takes-all states to Cruz, but there is no data to support the idea that Cruz would do the same.
(BTW, that is largely what I'm citing, also their election podcasts)
(BTW, that is largely what I'm citing, also their election podcasts)
_random_
Jewel Runner
US Presidential elections are a small sample size, and primary elections even moreso. It's difficult to make predictions based on such little precedent Not saying it'll happen, but this whole circus is already so goddamn weird who the hell knows?
Similar threads
