Maps of Fundraising

[Sorenroy]

All information comes from the following: http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

First map is third quarter including O'Malley, second is fourth quarter excluding O'Malley.

First map is third quarter including Huckabee, second map is fourth quarter excluding Huckabee.

Percentages are not included for Republicans because of the large number of candidates winning states (I ran out of colors).

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through third quarter, through fourth quarter.

Democrats:
Clinton — 46+DC,45+DC
Sanders — 4,5

Republicans:
Carson — 23,25
Bush — 18+DC,13+DC
Cruz — 3,3
Rubio — 2,6
Paul, Kasich,and Christie all have a single state. Huckabee had a single state.

Sanders gained a lot over the entire country. Most of Clinton's gains in percentages come from O'Malley being out of the picture (he raised a lot of money, but only in specific states [ex: Kentucky, Maryland, etc.

Also, my assumption is that there is a minimum amount a person must give for the campaign to disclose where it came from (zip code). Does anyone know what size this is, or if I am wrong? My assumption comes from the fact that Sander's numbers are lower when you look state by state than nationally.

[Sorenroy]

Jeb Bush dropped out!

Even though tonight (2/20/2015) is the filing deadline, so the map will update very soon, I am posting this now because I want to have it out of the way and updated for when the next numbers come in.

The first map only removes Bush and the other candidates that have dropped out, shifted Ben Carson's color to blue, and made John Kasich Red. The second map fills in all the states with their next best fourth quarter fundraiser.

Changes:
Candidate — Total raised pre-drop out, total raised post-drop out.

Republicans:
Carson — 25,33
Rubio — 6,11+DC
Cruz — 3,5
Kasich — 1,1

As such, Carson picks up the most states through these drop-outs. I do not expect this to hold into January, however, as Carson appears to have only picked up table scraps in terms of campaign contributions over this period.

[Sorenroy]

Since I appairently have never added where the information is coming from, here it is: http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

Also, now that we are down to a number of candidates that fits into the color scheme, here is the shadings for the Republican side (including only candidates still in the race).

Changes:
Candidate — States Won

Republicans:
Carson — 33
Rubio — 11+DC
Cruz — 5
Kasich — 1

The fundraising strength seems to roughly correlate with where you would expect the candidates to be doing best (besides Trump, who is Trump). Kasich and Trump's numbers are actually pretty close together in most states, however in major fundraising states, Kasich wins. You can also see the regional effects of the home state. Candidates tend to do better in their home states and slightly better in the states surrounding those. It will definitely be interesting to see how these maps develop as we get further into the contest, and as Carson's support starts to go down because he isn't really raising that much money anymore.

[Sorenroy]

And not a moment too soon. I appears that shortly after I updated the Republican map, the page updated, so if I had waited and finished after I went to bed, everything would have been messed up.

First map is all fundraising through fourth quarter, second is through January.

First filing deadline where Sanders out-raised Clinton... will be interesting to see if this keeps up. There were far more states less than one percent above the line (from falling from, say >80% to >70%) than there were one percent below.

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through fourth quarter, through January.

Democrats:
Clinton — 45+DC,42+DC
Sanders — 5,8

I'll post the Republican numbers separately so I don't accidentally click off the page and have all my work deleted (these take a very long time to make).

[Sorenroy]

Long overdue, but here is the Republican map for January. I will make another update removing Carson from the numbers now that he's dropped out as well, but that's a post for another time. Anyway, the first map is for fundraising through the fourth quarter of 2015, and the second is for fundraising through January 2016.

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through fourth quarter, through January.

Republicans:
Carson — 33,32
Rubio — 11+DC,10+DC
Cruz — 5,7
Kasich — 1,1

It's very clear looking at the raw numbers that Carson's fundraising numbers were collapsing. Several of them were right on the brink of dropping down to the next bracket. When I remove his numbers, it will be very interesting to see who takes his place and in what states. He was once a powerful fundraiser though, and that's what's keeping in the lead on the maps. Kasich and Trump's numbers still look very interesting, so I might make a map with just them in the future for the lols.

[bagelman]

Crazy how much money Carson raised last year. His scampaign worked wonders.

This thread is amazing btw, keep up the good work!

[Sorenroy]

This thread is amazing btw, keep up the good work!

Thanks! Nice to see that people like it... I guess there's just not alot to say on a topic like this.

Anyway, here are the maps post Carson drop out. The first only makes Carson's states white (and does not remove his numbers from the calculations of percentages in different states), the second fills in the gaps and changes the percentages to reflect the race without Carson. I have opted to remove the color levels because it makes it easier to see the actual states and how they shift. They will be added back in though, so don't worry your little heads.

Changes:
Candidate — Total raised pre-drop out, total raised post-drop out.

Republicans:
Cruz — 7,33
Rubio — 10+DC,16+DC
Kasich — 1,1

This map seems to show that Rubio is, in fact, an undercover Democrat, as he is raising money from mostly Democratic areas (if it were a one on one, Rubio would win Ohio). The real reason is probably more along the lines of Cruz being part of the Tea-Party, angry Republican base while Rubio is part of the forward thinking, more satisfied center part of the party.

[Sorenroy]

Woops, better update this before the February numbers are added to the map... anyway, I need to do a few things, but priority number one is this one: no shading, Cruz-Kasich-Trump January map.

Changes:
Candidate — Total raised pre-drop out, total raised post-drop out.

Republicans:
Cruz — 33,49+DC
Kasich — 1,1

Welp, now shading is really important... Kasich should catch up a bit, but he's pretty far behind. Also, ewwww. I need to change those colors. I'll update them next time around (for the February reporting period).

[Sorenroy]

Woop! New filing deadline!

First map is all fundraising through January, second is through February.

Probably Sanders's second best month (first is probably March). Another filing deadline in which Sanders outraises Clinton. Interestingly enough, his support seems to come from all across the country, as many of the states he was winning already haven't changed much. Every state is now below 90% for Clinton (New York was the holdout last time), but DC is still a solid 90 Clinton. None of the states have gone further towards the Clinton camp, only movement toward Sanders.

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through January, through February.

Democrats:
Clinton — 42+DC,39+DC
Sanders — 8,11

I'll post the Republican numbers separately so I don't accidentally click off the page and have all my work deleted (these take a very long time to make).

[Sorenroy]

Sorry for not updating the Republicans, it gets kind of boring with just different shades of yellow. Anyway, here is the first (and probably only) filing period where Sanders has more money donated overall.

First map is all fundraising through February, second is through March.

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through February, through March.

Democrats:
Clinton — 39+DC,38+DC
Sanders — 11,12

Closest States*
Arizona — 50.03% ($1,116,761) Clinton to 49.97% ($1,115,483) Sanders (Clinton by 0.06% or $1,278).
Indiana — 60.06% ($797,237) Clinton to 39.94% ($530,213) Sanders (Clinton by 20.12% or $267,024).
New Mexico — 50.11% ($763,344) Clinton to 49.89% ($760,033) Sanders (Clinton by 0.22% or $3,311).
Massachusetts — 60.18% ($5,842,426) to 39.82% ($3,866,519) Sanders (Clinton by 20.35% or $1,975,907).
Illinois — 70.98% ($5,944,369) Clinton to 29.02% ($2,430,384) Sanders (Clinton by 41.96% or $3,513985).

*Closest States means closest states to flipping percentage (eg: Sanders 60% to Sanders at 70%). The only states included are those within 1% (eg: 70.99 is, 71.01 is not).

Here is the reason Clinton still smashes Sanders on the map while Sanders leads in total contributed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So while Sanders beats Clinton nationally $182,182,143.15 to $180,158,371.37 (50.26% to 49.74%), Clinton has $139,540,921 in money from people who donated over $200. Sanders only has $63,863,759 from donors over $200. This means that a very close race turns into a 68.6% to 31.4% race or 37.21% Clinton lead. This also means the following:

22.55% of Clinton's money comes from donors under $200 vs. 64.95% of Sanders's money.

Also, get this, there is an error on the FEC's website! The number shown for Sanders is $182.1 million, but based on their own formula and a rounding at the end, it should be $182.2 million. HAHA. (I know it's small, but let me have this.) I will get in touch with them on Monday so that they can correct the mistake.

*Edit: While looking over the minor candidate numbers it appears that to be on the map, all you have to do is be filed separately. This means that the amount you donate does not matter if you are for some reason looked at separately. It's probably reasonable to assume that this is a minor occurrence (seeing as most national campaigns have neither the time nor the money to categorize every single person who donates 50 cents to the cause), but it is something to consider.

[RaphaelDLG]

This might be a bit of leap, but perhaps fundraising results bode well for the Bern man in Montana and the Dakotas, reflecting favorable constituencies. 

Or maybe he wins there on demographics and fundraising stats are the function of a dearth of high dollar targets for HRC.

[Xing]

This might be a bit of leap, but perhaps fundraising results bode well for the Bern man in Montana and the Dakotas, reflecting favorable constituencies. 

I think it's a given that Sanders is favored in OR, MT, ND, and SD, though the margin might not be all that large in the ones with closed primaries. It's interesting to see how favorable the fundraising numbers are for Clinton in states like UT, CO, NE, and MN, while it's closer in AZ and NM.

[Adam Griffin]

Nice. Is this total money or campaign money? I'm guessing it includes PACs et al, because otherwise, I don't see how Sanders wouldn't be winning in more states (the last time I checked, Sanders was only about $10m behind Clinton in terms of their actual campaigns). Also, this measures all-time fundraising right?

[Sorenroy]

Decided to go ahead and make the shaded version of this. The data is based on the the total raised by all three remaining candidates.

Changes:
Candidate — Total raised through February, through March.

Republicans:
Cruz — 49+DC,49
Kasich — 1,1+DC

It's kind of what I expected, the only outliers that I can see are Mississippi at only >60% and Vermont at >80% for Cruz.

Is this total money or campaign money? I'm guessing it includes PACs et al, because otherwise, I don't see how Sanders wouldn't be winning in more states (the last time I checked, Sanders was only about $10m behind Clinton in terms of their actual campaigns). Also, this measures all-time fundraising right?

Most of this information is given in the above posts, but here's the direct answers. 1) It's total money, not just on hand, 2) The exact formula is given in my most recent Democratic post (March) with a link to the original page (it's a map of separate filers, so people who donated over $200 or were filed separately for another reason. Clinton is crushing because Sanders has less separate filers), and 3) Sanders is actually about $2 million ahead, but behind 2:1 in separate filers.

[Sorenroy]

I decided to bring back the maps with all of the Republican candidates. With Cruz absolutely wiping the floor with Kasich right now in fundraising, it's interesting to look at exactly how much money was pored into candidates that ended up going nowhere. With no new money coming in, Cruz will eventually overtake them, but for some states there is still a long, long way to go.

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through fourth quarter, through March.

Republicans:
Cruz — 3,22
Carson — 25,10
Bush — 13+DC,6+DC
Rubio — 6,5
Kasich, Paul, Christie, Huckabee, Jindal, Graham, and Walker have had one state for the past three months.

Interestingly, by setting the first map at the end of last year (*note: the first post on this thread has the information for the third quarter (plus Walker having Minnesota and Graham having South Carolina) if you want to go see it*) you can actually see the tail end of Carson's fundraising. As such you can see the states of Michigan and Tennessee flip not to Cruz, but to Carson. The dark blue states are where the favorite son was able to raise an incredibly large amount of money even if they were never going to do very well. Interestingly, Carson really doesn't have a home state in that seance. His best state is North Carolina in terms of his share against Cruz (59-41), but nothing near the 80-20 or higher that some candidates wrapped up before they dropped out. Following is a full list of the remaining states where the leading candidate still in the race (mainly Cruz) is still behind in fundraising. It will be interesting to watch how this changes as the months progress and there is no new money coming in for most of the campaigns.

Deficit in states where a dropout currently leads a running candidate:

Alaska — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $9,657 ($130,191 to $120,534 / 52-48)

Arizona — Rubio leads Cruz for first place by $93,120 ($906,526 to $813,406 / 53-47)

Arkansas — Huckabee leads Cruz for first place by $173,339 ($507,441 to $334,102 / 60-40)

California — Rubio leads Cruz for first place by $763,553 ($5,488,752 to $4,725,199 / 54-46)

Connecticut — Bush leads Cruz for first place by $812,603 ($1,090,774 to $278,171 / 80-20)
Connecticut — Rubio leads Cruz for second place by $295,254 ($573,425 to $278,171 / 67-33)

DC — Bush leads Kasich for first place by $651,805 ($780,757 to $128,952 / 86-14)
DC — Rubio leads Kasich for second place by $323,979 ($452,931 to $128,952 / 78-22)

Florida — Bush leads Cruz for first place by $3,977,431 ($6,625,782 to $2,648,351 / 71-29)
Florida — Rubio leads Cruz for second place by $3,750,367 ($6,398,718 to $2,648,351 / 71-29)

Illinois — Rubio leads Cruz for first place by $16,338 ($1,115,904 to $1,099,566 / 50-50)

Kentucky — Paul leads Cruz for first place by $136,803 ($367,924 to $231,121 / 61-39)

Louisiana — Jindal leads Cruz for first place by $339,140 ($934,939 to $595,799 / 61-39)

Maine — Bush leads Cruz for first place by $63,123 ($134,910 to $71,787 / 65-35)
Maine — Carson leads Cruz for second place by $728 ($72,515 to $71,787 / 50-50)

Maryland — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $96,378 ($607,686 to $511,308 / 54-46)

Massachusetts — Rubio leads Cruz for first place by $396,403 ($769,627 to $373,224 / 67-33)
Massachusetts — Bush leads Cruz for second place by $37,831 ($411,055 to $373,224 / 52-48)

Michigan — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $223,163 ($999,000 to $775,837 / 56-44)
Michigan — Bush leads Cruz for second place by $207,538 ($983,375 to $775,837 / 56-44)

Montana — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $8,319 ($209,023 to $200,704 / 51-49)

Nebraska — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $15,513 ($191,516 to $176,003 / 52-48)

New Jersey — Christie leads Cruz for first place by $3,007,519 ($3,767,924 to $760,405 / 83-17)
New Jersey — Bush leads Cruz for second place by $221,088 ($981,493 to $760,405 / 56-44)

New York — Bush leads Cruz for first place by $2,246,198 ($3,614,044 to $1,367,846 / 73-27)
New York — Rubio leads Cruz for second place by $1,292542 ($2,660,388 to $1,367,846 / 66-34)

North Carolina — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $330,713 ($1,129,204 to $798,491 / 59-41)

Rhode Island — Bush leads Cruz for first place by $9,845 ($58,960 to $49,115 / 55-45)

South Carolina — Graham leads Cruz for first place by $847,622 ($1,447,912 to $600,290 / 71-29)
South Carolina — Rubio leads Cruz for second place by $17,168 ($617,458 to $600,290 / 51-49)

South Dakota — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $26,594 ($130,473 to $103,879 / 56-44)

Tennessee — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $12,138 ($873,180 to $861,042 / 50-50)

Vermont — Rubio leads Cruz for first place by $41,060 ($86,277 to $45,217 / 66-34)

Wisconsin — Walker leads Cruz for first place by $977,899 ($1,302,599 to $324,700 / 80-20)
Wisconsin — Carson leads Cruz for second place by $27,346 ($352,046 to $324,700 / 52-48)

Wyoming — Carson leads Cruz for first place by $30,419 ($197,836 to $167,417 / 54-46)

[LLR]

New York is embarrassing

[Sorenroy]

With all the Republican's out of the race exept for Trump, and him not being in any way competitive on these maps, I will end the Republican coverage. When he does start bringing in more money and reaches over 10% in any state, I'll give an update. For now, I leave you with this:

Concentration of Donald Trump's fundraising as of March 2016:

$331,901 (California) is the maximum from any state and thus the 100%. White is >10%, Grey is <10%.

[Sorenroy]

Finally have time to make the next on of these.

First map is all fundraising through March, second is through April.

Changes:
Candidate — Raised through March, through April.

Democrats:
Clinton — 38+DC,32+DC
Sanders — 12,18

Sanders drops from 60+ to 50+ in ND, but continues to crush everywhere else. It seems my prediction that Sanders would never outraise Clinton again was wrong, but both candidates did not raise all that much money this time around. The strangest change though was Massachusetts where Clinton's 60% dropped to only 48%. And Massachusetts isn't a small fundraising state. Sanders had $3.9 million last month and that jumped to $7.1; Clinton had $5.8 last month and that went up to $6.5. The only way I can think of this happening was the audit on Sanders focusing on MA and making him disclose all or most of his donors there (remember that the only way to show up on the map is to contribute more than $200 in total or to be filed separately). No way Sanders raises $3.2 million in only a month.

For some reason the links to the current FEC disclosure reports that give specific details on each of the candidates are busted so I can't actually find how much each of the candidates has on the map, but if I remember when these come back up, I will come back and give you an update.