Talk Elections

 The fund raising leaders in each state, combined Republican and Democrat:

        ()


 Among just Republicans:

        ()


Among just Democrats:

        ()

 A few disclaimers and interesting points:

 * All of these numbers are from opensecrets.org, and only include donations above $200. Thus, while these maps do not represent small "grassroots" donations, they do give an indication of where major donors and political elites are leaning in each state - people who still have great influence.

 * These maps underscore how impressive Mitt Romney's fund raising efforts are. Not only is he raising a lot of money - he is doing it across a wide geographic base.

 * Hillary Clinton leads fund raising in fewer states than Romney or Obama, but she does lead fund raising in several of the "big money" states. New York, California and Florida are the 1st, 2nd and 4th largest donor states to campaigns overall so far this year.

 * I think that the Obama campaign is the source of the most surprises - who would think he would lead fund raising in Oklahoma, Kentucky and Colorado - even out-raising all Republicans in those states?

Did you double-check these numbers at the FEC website?

In terms of Democratic primary money, Hillary does well in the big states, taking all of the dozen biggest except for OH (7th), GA (9th), and her opponents IL (5th) and NC (10th). Conversely, of the smallest dozen, Obama is only not leading in RI and DE. Edwards does best in the south.

Is there a D vs. R map?

Yepp.

()

Interesting that the Republicans raised more in NH than the Democrats and that Hillary Clinton isn´t doing better in Arkansas. WI is also strange, Obama gets most there but all other Democrats not, so the Republicans are ahead even though Tommy Thompson isn´t doing well there. MI is Romney-land and MO is a tossup. TX is also not a bad state for Democrats.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks sethm0.

In terms of delegates, this would translate to:

Romney: 1102
Giuliani: 887
McCain: 358
Favorite Sons / US Territories: 172


Clinton: 2368 (*majority*)  [essentially, due to her slim lead over Obama in California]
Obama: 1234
Edwards: 539
Favorite Sons / US Territories: 219

Nice work, sethm0.  I observed that all except Giuliani leads in his/her home state.  When segregated by party affiliation, all lead in his/her home state.  And in particular, Huckabee, Biden, Tompson, Brownback, Dodd, and Richardson only lead in their home states.  I don't know what that might mean, except that polling data and fundraising trends seem to tell the same story.  Money talks.  I guess the only surprise, for me, was that Clinton is ahead of Obama in big donations in California.  I always read in TIME about how the hollywood set just loves the B-man.  Maybe the C-word does well enough in the northern half of the state to compensate.

Clinton's lead (amongst all donations) is hardly impressive...only about 200k in a state where both candidates have raised over $8m.

Of money raised for Democrats in CA:
Clinton: 38.0%
Obama: 37.1%
Edwards: 14.6%
Richardson: 6.1%

ah, thanks for the clarification.  still, a lead's a lead.  I'd still venture a guess that if you had a good breakdown with comparisons for the two major populated pieces of that largely empty state, my guess is that you'd find LA/Orange/Riverside/SanBernadino/Ventura county donors giving their hard-won cash to Obama and SF/SanMateo/Alameda/SantaClara/Marin counties giving theirs to clinton.  That's just my BS estimate, I admit.  Or a hunch.  Anyone have that data on the ready?

Are you using the 15% threshold for proportionality the Democrats use? A slim lead of one candidate over another should make little to no difference in the Democratic primary.

That would be my guess as well although I don't have the data on it either.

 Does anyone have an explanation for why Dems do so well in the deep south? Does it mean the wealthy elite there is slower to change political views than voters as a whole? That would also explain New Hampshire, in reverse.