New York Times map of donor concentration.

[aidbo]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html

Interesting maps. There are two candidates that seem to have nation-wide appeal. The donors for the rest of the candidates’ donors seem to be concentrated regionally. I’ll leave it to you to figure out who.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread aidbo.

[wysimdnwyg]

2. I think Sanders and Biden's nationwide support is no surprise

Given both had substantial mailing lists from which to work going into the race. Warren's national support is impressive, as is that of Buttigieg. It's not at all surprising that some of the candidates have a stranglehold on their own states. Nor is it surprising that Harris does NOT have a significant stranglehold on California, given the nature of that state and its donors (many of whom are quite wealthy, and are making sizable contributions to their candidate of choice).

I do think it's interesting, but the only parts that are the least bit surprising to me are the spread of support for Warren and Buttigieg.



Also, I know that wasn't your intent (or likely that of the authors), but I can't help when I look at these but to think about the trope maps that Republicans have put out for years showing the overwhelming red of the country when they show red/blue by majority vote in counties. Of course, that doesn't take into consideration the number of people in each county, so 10 counties with 100 people each who vote 51% Republican appear to count for more than one county with 1M people that votes 80% Democratic.

[thesquanderer]

6. Based on the first 2 maps, Biden's "nationwide" support is far below Sanders or Warren

which I found surprising.

I think this demonstrates that many on DU are underestimating Sanders' broad national appeal, as well as the left-wing's (Sanders+Warren) broad national appeal. There are relatively few areas where Biden is doing better than either one of them.

[wysimdnwyg]

8. How much does Biden's relatively late entry matter here?

If this is counting all donations since their campaigns were official, the early entrants have a significant advantage. I think this kind of map would be more telling if you could see last 30/60/90 days.

[George II]

10. That's a big part of it, he got in almost three months after the others. All we have available....

...is data for itemized contributions or contributions through ActBlue.

With that data, BS has 28,000 contributors and $26 million. Biden has 13,000 contributors and $19 million. Extrapolating that Biden would have 26,000 contributors and $38 million.

Of course, this doesn't include all the un-itemized contributions for which we have zero information except the way the campaigns spin it. We don't know the names, addresses, or amounts, or even more importantly how many times the same contributor gave.

[DownriverDem]

3. What matters is

who can win the Electoral College which means state by state. When are folks going to focus on that?

[thesquanderer]

7. Well, this does show you who has more support where.

You can zoom in on the states you care about, and see who they are most supporting.

Though that tells you much more about how they are faring against each other than about how any of them would fare against Trump, which is where the electoral college comes into play.

So while this is interesting in seeing the breadth of national support some of our candidates have, you really have to look at other polls to get the answer to your question. Which doesn't necessarily make this information useless.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Sanders apppears to have the most donors in MI, WI, OH, PA, FL, CO & AZ?

Take Sanders out of the equation and Warren has the edge in most of those states, Buttigieg has some strong pockets of support in Wisconsin and Ohio, and Biden does well in PA and FL. So if you're looking at state by state, more Sanders and Warren supporters are putting their money where their vote is in the states that are going to matter.

[George II]

4. Unfortunately, as the Times points out at the bottom, that data doesn't include any...

...."small contributions" that went directly to the campaigns, about which we know nothing. The names, addresses, and amounts are undisclosed to the public.

[appalachiablue]

5. K &R Very helpful, thanks.

[progressoid]

11. Fake news! Where's Mike Gravel!?!?

[Blue_true]

12. Why bother to post something that pops up an immediate paywall if

you don't plan to summarize the article? It wastes people's time, IMO.