We've covered the Obama's campaign problems with math before. A few months ago they stated that 12 times 40 equaled 1,000. Today, they're publishing nonsensical statistics about the money Obama raised during the month of May. Before we begin, please enjoy the jumbled mess that President Obama himself posted online:

So the basic facts that the Obama campaign purports to be true are that they raised sixty million dollars from either 572,000 donors or 2,200,000 donors. I am not certain what the different between "Total Donors" and "Total Cumulative Donors" is (which defeats the purpose of the word "total"), but I assume that "Total Donors" means for May and "Total Cumulative Donors" means since he began fundraising for reelection in January of 2009.

Importantly, Obama touts the average donation as being exactly $54.94 in order to pretend that he is backed almost exclusively by average Americans. Unfortunately for him, even the average American has a calculator handy. So let's see if Obama's math holds up.

Now, since I wasn't certain if they used the "Total Donors" or "Total Cumulative Donors" to figure out the $54.94, I'm going to assume Total Donors first. And obviously, the way to get an average donation would be dividing the total monetary number by the total number of donors. To quote the dictionary (for arithmetic mean), "The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the number of quantities in the set. For example, if there are three test scores 70, 83, and 90, the arithmetic mean of the scores is their sum (243) divided by the number of scores (3), or 81."

Let's see, $60,000,000 divided by 572,000 is... $104.90. Woah, that is way, way off from the President's "math." Well, maybe he means that "Total Cumulative Donors" number. That's a lot bigger. Let's see, $60,000,000 divided by 2,200,000 is... $27.27. Okay then.

Um... maybe he used that "New Donors" number? Maybe? $60,000,000 divided by 147,000 is... $408.16. Well, it's official: the Obama Campaign can't do math that you learned when you were about 10.

...And these are the people handling our economy.

Please bookmark!

## PUNDIT PRESS HAS MOVED

Today marks a very exciting day as we launch the new and improved Pundit Press. We have joined forces with High Plains Pundit to design a new website to provide our readers with even more news and information.

Here is the link that will direct you to the new Pundit Press website: http://thepunditpress.com/

This new partnership will also include all 3 of Danny R. Butcher's (aka High Plains Pundit) internet radio shows, Nightly Review, The Danny R. Butcher Show, and Sunday Night Sports Talk.

A special thank you to all of the Pundit Press readers out there for your continued support. We are very excited about what the future holds for Pundit Press, and we hope that you continue with us on this journey.

## Thursday, June 7, 2012

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

The truth doesn't matter to them. It's the story and only the story that counts. They make up the story so it sounds good and they go with it, be it a lie about Hillary landing in a war zone under fire or Obama creating 4 million new jobs. Here's the story, like it our not: $60 million from 2.2 million. That's it. Don't add, divide or subtract. Just absorb and feeeellll ggggoooooooddd.

ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget to inhale with Barack Oganja

Delete($104.90+$27.27)/2=$66.09...

ReplyDeletegetting closer....

Hey, stop showing off your ability to do this "math" stuff. You're embarrassing me

DeleteIf I'm not mistaken, the statement "And obviously, the way to get an average donation would be dividing the total number of donors by the total monetary number." will give you the reciprocal of the average donation (i.e. how many donors per dollar), and should instead read "And obviously, the way to get an average donation would be dividing the total monetary number by the total number of donors." (i.e. how many dollars per donor).

ReplyDeleteNobody's perfect.

Good catch! I changed it accordingly

DeleteActually the numbers can be correct. Here is how.

ReplyDelete$60 million was donated. 98% of it was $250 or less (Indicates they are money laundering again like they did in 2008). 98% of $60 million is $58.8 million.

Take $58.8 million divided by $250 to get minimum number of donors. That gives you 235,200 minimum donors in the $250 or less range.

They say total donors for the month of May is 572,000. 98% of 572,000 is 560560. That is the number of donors who gave $250 or less.

The "average" donation is actually a MEAN average of donations given. Meaning they take the lowest and highest donations and average out amount given. It is usually done this way, instead of just taking total amount given, divided by number of people.

P.S. The reason for the "less than $250" is that election law says they don't have to give donor info. BofA has removed security protocols for the Obama re-election fund so no tracking info can be requested of temp CC donors. Wish there was a way someone could actually dig into this and find out where most of the CC money is coming from.

I think I speak for everyone when I say: that still doesn't make the numbers make sense. However, we all appreciate you trying to figure out Obummer's math "truthiness"

DeleteI am going to have a 32 ounce big gulp to figger this out before they are outlawed.

DeleteYou're making it too difficult - here's what he was really saying:

ReplyDelete$60000000/(my_made_up_number) = Whatever_I_Want

And that about sums up his budget accounting for bail-outs, Obamacare, etc.

The Wisconsin exit polls suddenly make more sense.

ReplyDelete2.2 million divided by 57 states plus a 19 OZ. mountain dew times 8.2% unemployment minus 10.5 hours to charge a chevy volt to travel 38 miles at 15 MPH equals 250,000 tax dollars per vehicle squared to the 40watts savings of a twirly light bulb divided by 2500 obamacare waivers times 1% to the cube root of 650,000 solar panels being scrapped at solyndra EQUALS 100 rounds of golf

ReplyDeleteObviously they use the same math on that sheet as they do to calculate the unemployment rate.

ReplyDelete