To clarify my argument about Ignatieff/fundraising/grassroots vs elites, since this has prompted some discussion here and there:

1. Ignatieff lead all campaigns in the number of donations, period. That is not in question.

2. In question is whether those donations represent the elite or the grassroots.

3. I was interested in who was donating and at what levels. From a simple random sampling of all donations to all campaigns I found there was a tipping point at $200 — most of those above this threshold were from business executives, lawyers, ex-officios, and intellectuals — what I call “the elites”. Most of those below this threshold were from everyday Canadians — what I call “the grassroots”.

4. So, the point isn’t to dispute that the Ignatieff campaign dominated the donations but rather to refute the claim made by Ted Betts at Cerberus that Ignatieff’s large numbers represent an “outpouring of grassroots financial support”.

5. Why do I think that it is premature to make such a claim? Because we haven’t seen many grassroots supporters make donations yet. Over two-thirds of the early donations were from elites (which comprises about 10% of the population), while less than one-third was from the grassroots (which comprises about 90% of the population). It defies logic to claim widespread support among the grassroots, when only a small segment of grassroots supporters have made donations to date.

6. Note, however, the above statement does not deny the fact that Ignatieff received the largest share of the small segment of grassroots supporters who have donated so far — he does (he has about one-third all donations that were below $200). Indeed, the Ignatieff campaign did well across the board in June. But, we cannot make the claim of broad grassroots support until we actually see the bulk of the grassroots make their contributions — and since grassroots supporters tend to wait until 3 or 4 candidates emerge as front-runners before donating, I think we need to wait until we see the July and August donations to make such lofty claims (after all, some camps didn’t hold their first fundraisers until July).

7. That Ignatieff’s elite/grassroots split is 73%/27% simply tells us that he is about average compared the rest of the field, meaning that his campaign is neither more nor less dependent on the elites than average. Bob Rae and Joe Volpe, by contrast, are more heavily dependent on the elites. Dion and Kennedy are somewhat less dependent. But, as was noted in the responses, this should not be taken to mean that Dion or Kennedy have *more* supporters among the grassroots compared to other candidates, just that their campaigns have relied more on the grassroots for financial support.

8. The list of Ignatieff donors was meant to illustrate what the elite support looks like; I only listed those above $1,000 (for the sake of brevity – listing everyone above $200 would have been too long). I could have easily have listed Rae’s or any other candidate’s elite supporters to achieve the same point — I choose Ignatieff because Ted made the claim that, based on this list of donors, we should conclude that Ignatieff had an outpouring of grassroots financial support. I think the list illustrates quite clearly that the early donors where largely elites (remembering that two-thirds of all donations were from the elites). So we cannot rush to judgment about the grassroots when we’ve barely seen any grassroots donations yet.

9. What will be more interesting is whether we actually do see a lot of small donations in the July and August numbers — that is, if the grassroots does indeed start making donations. If the July and August list is similarly filled with lawyers, CEOs, ex-officios, and intellectuals, we might actually have to conclude that the Liberals aren’t making headway with everyday Canadians, but rather are a party driven (and funded) by the elites. And that doesn’t bode well for any of the leadership candidates. We shall see…