tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post7343647696504004723..comments2008-11-10T11:03:22.929-05:00Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235r.chappell@gmail.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-5356515864200123422008-11-10T11:03:22.929-05:002008-11-10T11:03:22.929-05:00The ratios are misleading because Obama raised so much more (i.e. from <I>everyone</I>). If you look at the raw frequency values on that page, you see Obama had twice as many 'maxed out' donors as McCain.<BR/><BR/>Will recently linked to <A HREF="http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/13/the-rich-support-mccain-the-super-rich-support-obama/" REL="nofollow">this wsj report</A>, but I don't recall what (if any) empirics were included in his talk.Richardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-52378588898323425802008-11-10T06:51:52.926-05:002008-11-10T06:51:52.926-05:00Did Will give any numbers to support his claim? A couple of minutes of googling suggests that he's wrong.<BR/><BR/>For instance:<BR/>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?sortby=X<BR/><BR/>I'm a little lost on the precise details on that page (are the dollar amounts the minimum such people donated, or the maximum?), but the general message is clear: The lowest sized donations made up around half of Obama's intake, against a third of McCain's, and the largest sized donations made up around a tenth of Obama's intake, against nearly a fifth of McCain's. That seems to support the view that McCain is supported by fewer but far richer people than Obama.<BR/><BR/>Those numbers are for individuals. I assume that matters will be worse still for Will's view if I could find some numbers on corporate donations. Likewise for think tank funding.<BR/><BR/>As I say, this was from a couple of minutes of searching, so perhaps I'm missing something.gregoryahttp://claimid.com/gregoryanoreply@blogger.com