4 ms·
> 3,000 samples is more than enough to have a statistically significant analysis of a population of 100,000. It's not a valid sample because it's not a random
by bigbadfeline 1y ago
> 3,000 samples is more than enough to have a statistically significant analysis of a population of 100,000.
It's not a valid sample because it's not a random selection - statistical sampling isn't only about sample size.
One reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the above numbers is that the Democrats in government are less stingy about donations, or that the Republicans there don't really like the GOP and are there for the money alone.
- rayiner 1y agoI think that’s an odd theory.
- rimunroe 1y agoNationally, Democrats raise significantly more money than Republicans[0], especially from small donors[1]. It wouldn't be surprising to me if this skew was stronger for people working in government. [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/donor-demographics?cycle=2024&display=A https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/donor-demogra...
- tzs 1y agoIt's not as odd when you look at employment length. One of the stats I've seen is that Democrats who go into the civil service are more likely to stay long term. Republicans are more likely to leave for the private sector. I'd expect employees who have been there longer, and so are likely making more money, to be both more likely than shorter term employees to make political donations and to be likely to make bigger donations than those shorter term ones that do donate.