I just got around to downloading the latest FEC data and updating my workbook. The data set includes all named contributions. Note that this is not all contributions, just those large enough to require reporting. The campaigns provide other summaries of total monies raised, but I like to look at this data because I can slice it down to the individual donors and their state of residence (actually zip code, which can be a bit creepy.)

The first is a dashboard showing all the candidates still in the race and how they are doing:

Last time around I forgot to check whether there were any new candidates in the data, and we now have a Libertarian (Gary Johnson). Fortunately, two Republicans have dropped out since then, so there is plenty of room in the legends!

Some things haven't changed. Clinton continues to raise larger average donations in this group, but Sanders continues to outpace her in number of contributors. The recent infographic from the Sanders campaign shows that they also have a lot more headroom remaining with donors because of the lower average size that is reflected in this subset.

The Small Handed One still has very few individual contributions large enough to report. Since this data dump takes us to roughly when he won the nomination, it means that he has essentially unlimited access to individual donor cash. Whether he will avail himself of it is another matter - doing so would be counter to his brand. Interestingly, his average contribution is similar to Sanders'.

Among the third party candidates, Stein is still raising money, but her average donation is a bit smaller than Sanders'. This suggests to me that she has similar demographics. Johnson has the fewest contributors (and the shortest fund raising window) but his average donation size is similar to Clinton's. This makes sense because Libertarians tend to be relatively affluent.

The second chart is much simpler. To make this one, I break down the contributors by state and classify them by who they have donated to and turn it into a percentage for a particular party. This only worked for the Dems because they had two candidates who were fundraising in a manner that showed up in the data set (Cruz and Kasich also show up like this, but because the Unindexed Fund is self-funding I couldn't do anything similar with the GOP primaries, but these two showed patterns that roughly matched the voting.) These numbers are not actual voters (they are off by an order of magnitude at least) but they make a rough proxy for the electorate.

Here are the margins for the upcoming primaries:

Before you get too excited, please bear in mind that these ratios tend to overstate the reality on the ground (although if anyone wants to compare earlier ratios with exit polls, please point me at the data.) For example, New Jersey is clearly more contested than this data suggests. On the other hand, California is looking good at 60%, and that is the big prize. It is also worth noting that DC is heavily for Clinton - which bears out the perception that she is an establishment politician and that Sanders has little support among that crowd.

The thing that I find most concerning about all this data is that the contribution counts do not exactly match the voting turnout. One explanation popular around here is voter suppression, and this may indeed be a factor. But bear in mind that Ivanka's Boyfriend has very low contribution counts, in part because he represents a demographic that may be pretty strapped for cash.

We need to be careful that we are not leaving people out of the revolution who can't afford even the 27 dollar "membership fee" and feel alienated by requests for money. The Orange Haired One understands this and I suspect that is part of his appeal. If we want to include the economically exploited in the revolution, we need to be able to welcome them without cash.

(Update: My wife pointed out that the second chart could use better colours and labels!)