Saturday, October 22, 2011

The Obama Campaign Donor Map

Recently, the Obama campaign reached the milestone of having one million donors. To celebrate, they put together a web page full of all kinds of data on those one million people - including the number of donors per state.

New York Magazine took that information and made a "money map" (which really should be called a "donor map"), listing the number of donors per capita in each state.

The map includes 5 shades of blue - which sometimes makes it difficult to decipher. But overall, it matches a lot of assumptions about what the 2012 election will look like. The two lightest shades of blue are mostly states where President Obama will be least competitive. The two darkest are states he'll likely win. And the middle shade generally includes the battlegrounds.

If so, there's some good news and bad news. First of all though, we need to acknowledge that the small populations of Montana and Alaska likely skewed their results.

In terms of bad news - its all about Ohio. It falls in with states like South Carolina and Texas in the second lightest shade. Also joining Ohio is Indiana - a state Obama won in 2008 but not many expect him to take again.

By way of good news - Colorado stands out big time in its dark blueness.

But there's also some good news in the swing states. Mostly they're the typical bunch - including states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. But check out Arizona and Georgia! Obama lost both of them in 2008 (he won all of the other middle blue shaded states). If they're really up for grabs, things could get very interesting.

For comparison purposes, here's the 2008 electoral map.


  1. I don't think people are properly concerned. If Obama loses the election to one of those ultra-conservative nuts, America as we know it will likely be lost. One more conservative like Scalia or Thomas on the Supreme Court and the SSA will be overturned, Roe V. Wade will be overturned, and all social progress will be curtailed or rolled back.

    Jobs, immigration, foreign policy, are all way down my list of concerns. The Supreme Court with its self-ordained role of Judicial Review, makes it an oligarchy of nine people, each with strong ideologies to support, and they will.

  2. @John Myste: Not sure why you think people aren't properly concerned. I haven't come across anyone in real life who is paying attention who isn't properly concerned.

    I saw a good point made yesterday, (here?) that people in Ohio might be otherwise concerned about their own, more pressing issues right now to be donating to the campaign.

    I should like to see a similar map showing GOP donations this early.

  3. Smarty, Just saw your "Knock, Knock" article a few postings back, and I cannot thank you enough for introducing me to Daniel Beaty. I've been pouring over every video and site I can about him. Blowing my mind. Thank you again. -bonkers

  4. bonkers - so glad you discovered Daniel. That's exactly what happened for me when I saw that "Knock, Knock" video a few years ago. He is amazing!!!

  5. Tien,

    I think people are concerned, but not about the real threat. Jobs, War du Jour, economy, are all fairly temporary problems and yet they are getting all the attention. The irreversible disaster that is about to happen in the most powerful branch of government by far, the Supreme Court, is getting virtually no attention at all.

    If Obama loses this election and the Supreme Court becomes purely conservative, the nation as we know it will cease to exist.

    The Supreme Court can, and will, overturn laws that don't match its ideology. They were authorized to do this under the precedent set by Marbury vs. Madison, which was seldom used when passed, but is the standard of operations to day. The Rehnquist / O'Conner court made it OK to use this authority in the main. I have a lot of respect for O'Conner. She turned on her party and saved America. But her ultimate legacy may well turn against her.

    The process is called Judicial Review, and what it means is that any law the nine lifetime-sitting justices don't like, can be overturned with impunity. They answer to no one and cannot be removed from their posts.

    Almost all even slightly liberal policies have gone the Supreme Court and have been subjected to aggressive attempts by Scalia and Thomas to "un-legislate them" based on a strict enumeration interpretation of the Constitution. The liberals du jour, along with O'Conner and Kennedy, have stepped in and stopped the conservatives. O’Conner retired and Kennedy will soon retire, most likely.

    Kennedy is 75 years old. If he is replaced with a conservative who acts as we would expect from a conservative, the court will be owned by Scalia and Thomas.

    I believe Obama has appointed two members, so far. Imagine what would happen if President Perry appointed two members to replace Kennedy and Ginsberg?

    Again, the Supreme Court is by far the most powerful branch of U.S. government. They cannot legislate, but they can un-legislate, and short of a Constitutional Amendment, Congress is powerless to stop them.

  6. Tien,

    People are worried about the next four years, while the rest of their lives are at stake. That is the point I was trying to make.

  7. John Myste,

    I see what you're saying now and I agree. It's up to all of us to educate people. We don't have to be specific, just remind them in general terms. People will catch on fairly easily.


Jen Psaki's Brilliant Blow to Bothsiderism

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has once again made his intentions clear.  is it realistic that Biden might find GOP cooperation on his ag...