FALSE: Clinton Funded by "Grassroots"
[This article was first published on EconBS, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
The blatant distortions of reality put forth by the Clinton campaign are so offensive as to be laughable at times. In the victory speech of Hillary Clinton in South Carolina she spent a significant portion of it talking about how her campaign is financed by “grassroots”.
Well, looking at the breakdown of funding for her campaign, only about 12% of her funds are from individuals contributing less than $200 while the vast majority of her funding (77%) is from individuals contributing $1000 or more.
If you are going to tell me that a movement is 77% funded by people giving $1000 or more is “grassroots”, I am going to have to ask, “what grass are you smoking?” The only way you can call such a top-heavy movement “grassroots” is if you are growing grass in Koch brothers’ back yard!
Obviously some small portion of the Clinton campaign is funded by small donors. However, for the campaign to misrepresent itself as “grassroots” powered by “small-donors” is frankly a complete falsehood especially when compared with a true grass roots funded campaign.
From the second graph we can see what a true “grassroots” campaign looks like. This is the Sanders campaign which has received only 10% of its total funds from individuals giving $1000 or more and 72% of its funds from people giving less than $200.
You might think that the Clinton campaign only looks bad when compared with publicly backed campaigns such as that of Bernie Sanders. However, this is not the case either. As I have noted previously, the Clinton campaign has far more big sponsors than all other candidates currently campaigning combined. And this is not counting the millions of funds paid into the Clinton Super-PAC.
But don’t take my word for it. Run the analysis yourself.
Related Articles:
Clinton Many More Rich Supporters Than All Other Candidates Combined
Big Business Backs Hillary: Small Bernie
Analysis: Clinton backed by Big Money: Sanders by Small
Overwhelming Growth In National Support for Bernie Sanders Mapped
Hillary 1993: Largest Drop in Girl Names EVER; Chelsea Distant Second
As First Lady, Popularity of Babies Named “Hillary” Dropped by an Unprecedented 90%
Hillary Clinton’s Biggest 2016 Rival: Herself
Legally Rig An Election: A Citizen’s Guide to Gerrymandering
Nevada:Sanders has 6x the Supporters as Clinton
The Simple Reason Sanders Is Winning
Cause of Death: Melanin | Evaluating Death-by-Police Data
Obama 2008 received 3x more media coverage than Sanders 2016
The Unreported War On America’s Poor
What it means to be a US Veteran Today
Well, looking at the breakdown of funding for her campaign, only about 12% of her funds are from individuals contributing less than $200 while the vast majority of her funding (77%) is from individuals contributing $1000 or more.
If you are going to tell me that a movement is 77% funded by people giving $1000 or more is “grassroots”, I am going to have to ask, “what grass are you smoking?” The only way you can call such a top-heavy movement “grassroots” is if you are growing grass in Koch brothers’ back yard!
Obviously some small portion of the Clinton campaign is funded by small donors. However, for the campaign to misrepresent itself as “grassroots” powered by “small-donors” is frankly a complete falsehood especially when compared with a true grass roots funded campaign.
From the second graph we can see what a true “grassroots” campaign looks like. This is the Sanders campaign which has received only 10% of its total funds from individuals giving $1000 or more and 72% of its funds from people giving less than $200.
You might think that the Clinton campaign only looks bad when compared with publicly backed campaigns such as that of Bernie Sanders. However, this is not the case either. As I have noted previously, the Clinton campaign has far more big sponsors than all other candidates currently campaigning combined. And this is not counting the millions of funds paid into the Clinton Super-PAC.
But don’t take my word for it. Run the analysis yourself.
Related Articles:
Clinton Many More Rich Supporters Than All Other Candidates Combined
Big Business Backs Hillary: Small Bernie
Analysis: Clinton backed by Big Money: Sanders by Small
Overwhelming Growth In National Support for Bernie Sanders Mapped
Hillary 1993: Largest Drop in Girl Names EVER; Chelsea Distant Second
As First Lady, Popularity of Babies Named “Hillary” Dropped by an Unprecedented 90%
Hillary Clinton’s Biggest 2016 Rival: Herself
Legally Rig An Election: A Citizen’s Guide to Gerrymandering
Nevada:Sanders has 6x the Supporters as Clinton
The Simple Reason Sanders Is Winning
Cause of Death: Melanin | Evaluating Death-by-Police Data
Obama 2008 received 3x more media coverage than Sanders 2016
The Unreported War On America’s Poor
What it means to be a US Veteran Today
To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: EconBS.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.