View Full Version : Update on Dem/GOP spending in WI recalls
09-20-2011, 03:07 PM
According to the most recent accounting, it ends up that the Democrats did outspend their GOP counterparts, both money raised in state and for outside money as well.
One poster here claimed that it was at a several 100%s multiple ratio, forgetting just now, but claims at 7-1, and 5-1 were made. Possibly 3-1 was provided as the low estimate.
What does the most recent updated figure indicate?
The report found Democrats and their backers outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million in this summer's recalls.
That's about 14% more spending by Democrats than Republicans, about 1/7th of 100%, meaning a 3-1 claim was off by 2,100%.
When I complained about this estimate as way off the mark at the time, the reply was voluminous but unresponsive, citing figures for all of the outside money as being Democratic money.
What was the outside money difference?
Outside groups outspent the candidates themselves $34.5 million to $8 million. The advantage for Democrats also was seen in outside spending, as they generated $18.6 million compared to $15.9 million for Republicans.
That is a 17% advantage in outside money for the Democratic side.
Does it bother you that the numbers in your link don't add up?
Of course it doesn't.
Once again a pathetic reply.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Does it bother you that the numbers in your link don't add up?
At this point, an adult would <span style='font-size: 14pt'>show </span>that they don't add up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course it doesn't. </div></div>
This is what an immature 13 yr old would say.
09-20-2011, 05:50 PM
Nice catch, if it were true.
Let's look at the numbers.
(Ds)23.5 m = (Rs)20.5 m = (T)43.5 m, for the total of all the Democratic and Republican monies, both internally and externally raised.
For the outside groups:
$18.6 m (Ds) + $15.9 m (Rs) = $34.5 m, as this sentence says was the total:
Outside groups outspent the candidates themselves <span style='font-size: 14pt'>$34.5 million</span> to $8 million.
So what doesn't add up?
Perhaps you meant to flag that adding the most recent numbers above (34.5 + 8 = 42.5) doesn't add up to 43.5?
True, it doesn't. Misses it by 2%. Still better than your <s>2,100%</s> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>4,900%</span> whiff, and almost correct, instead of being off by orders of magnitude. But is it really an error?
No. What you are forgetting is that beyond the CANDIDATES raising money in-state, their respective PARTIES can also raise money IN STATE.
Your error was in assuming the excluded middle, a fairly frequent occurrence for you.
09-20-2011, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does it bother you that the numbers in your link don't add up?
Of course it doesn't. </div></div>
Does the below quotation of our exchange in August bother you? (As it shows you were incredibly wrong on your facts?)
Of course it doesn't.
From here, right on page one. (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=362183&fpart=1)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
The unions relied on ground forces, as well as some money. I doubt that they outspent the pro-Walker/pro-GOP side, and $35 mil was the TOTAL spent, not just the total for one side.
FOX pegs (D) spending at $35M.
The reich wing ABC NEWShas it at $30M ... almost all of it from out of state.
The reich wing Reuters says $37M in total.
So ... by the most favorable estimate, the (D)'s outspent the (R)'s by 30:7 and lost.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>At the least favorable estimate it was a 35:2 ratio.
If you average it ... they outspent the GOP by around a 7:1 ratio</span>, and history shows that should have won 4 instead of 2 on average.
You can spin this however you want ... you merely make yourself look to be an agitprop.
Any way you try to spin this ... it is still an epic fail.</div></div>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I had forgotten that you settled on 7-1 as the least credible multiple. That makes your error 4,900%!!
I regret my prior mistaken lowball claim for your error.
Any way you try to spin this ... it is still an epic fail.
Yes, your claims were all that, indeed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
09-20-2011, 06:45 PM
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.