Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Campaigning By The Numbers, Redux

Well, every once in awhile an update to an older post is needed, and given that we're dealing with the issues of numbers (and this is me we're talking about) this update is needed pretty quickly.

So, we've already seen some response to our last post regarding financial donations to the campaigns for the month of September. And there are a few mistakes with the numbers that need to be corrected, otherwise I wouldn't be worth my salt as a man who proclaims to adore facts.

First and foremost, yes, the financial report only highlights donors who have given over $250 to a campaign. In the heat of the moment, I neglected to mention that fact (somehow it flew by me, but we're correcting it now), and it changes the entire concept of the 'small campaign' introduced in the previous post.

Effectively, the campaign changes shape quite a bit, from what I reported in the previous post, once we fact in these donations.

The Weir Campaign was kind enough to pass along the formula that enables us to identify the total amount of donations that were under the $250 watershed. Effectively, if I am reading this right, these totals were obtained by taking the grand total of donations (so, in Erin's case $14,666.89) and removing the total received donations over $250 (in Erin's case, $10,999.71) to achieve the totals found below.

Cam Broten:  Total Donation: $19,694.99 - Over $250: $14,650 = $5,044.99

Erin Weir: Total Donation: $14,666.89 - Over $250: $10,999.71 =  $3,667.18

Ryan Meili: Total Donation: $13,188.81 - Over $250: $11,437.36 = $1,751.45

Trent Wotherspoon: Total Donation: $15,368.00 - Over $250: $14,246 = $1,122

So, those amounts constitute the total number of donations that were under the $250 watershed; sadly, it doesn't allow us to determine how many donors contributed to that total, but we'll let the totals speak for themselves instead.

With these new numbers in mind we have to redraw some conclusions from the last post.

Firstly, with regards to the 'small campaign', it would seem that Cam and Erin are leading the pack on this front. So, my first crunch of the numbers (which I think can be proven woefully inaccurate with regards to figuring out the small campaign effect) had it wrong on that front, and I offer up my apologies to the Weir Campaign for an accidental misrepresentation.

If anything, these more accurate numbers show that all the campaigns are doing alright when it comes to gathering financial support from your average member; though, at the moment, Cam and Erin seem to be doing better than the others.

As for the final grand totals, and figuring out which campaign actually raised the most once we remove the candidate and family and campaign staff...As far as I can tell, those numbers still hold up. Since we don't need to subtract anything new from the totals provided, or add any new information to the calculation, it would seem that our 'actual' totals from the previous post continue to remain accurate.

So, our actual totals still remain as follows:

Ryan Meili: $12,271.44

Cam Broten: $10,694.99

Erin Weir: $8,584.89

Trent Wotherspoon: $4,868*
(*This total was corrected after being informed that I missed a family member of Trent's on his contribution list, hence the new lower total.)

So, with that, we should have fixed the initial problem with the first post. Again, I welcome any corrections to problems that appear with the numbers; after all, it's the numbers that are being used to draw conclusions, and if my numbers are off, my conclusions are off...And I for one, certainly don't want that.


Anonymous said...

I think you missed the $5000 donation from Wotherspoon's father-in-law, Greg Willows. That leaves Trent <$5K in donations that aren't from family.

Scott said...

That was the one contribution I was unsure of; but with that in mind, then yes, we would remove $5,000 to produce an 'actual' total for fundraising.

That would put Trent at $4,868 for an 'actual' total.