▲ 962 ▼ Stephen Colbert’s unaired James Talarico interview hits 6.4 million YouTube views and results in $2.5 million raised for Talarico’s campaign in 24 hours (variety.com) submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors A plurality, but importantly not a majority. She received more from large individual donors and PACs combined than from small donors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago 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%. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors A plurality, but importantly not a majority. She received more from large individual donors and PACs combined than from small donors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago 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%. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago 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%. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) 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. My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago 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%. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago 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%. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago 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%. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) 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. permalink fedilink source parent