Read on Twitter
This map from the NYT is going around in a lot of memes/commentary on this website.
It represents individual donors to Presidential campaigns, not anything else.
It represents individual donors to Presidential campaigns, not anything else.
Why does a person who has more individual donors lose an election?
Well, to start, donors don't decide elections. In fact, those who donate to Presidential campaigns are not representative of the voting public.
Well, to start, donors don't decide elections. In fact, those who donate to Presidential campaigns are not representative of the voting public.
Only a very small portion of a highly politically engaged subset of the population donates to presidential campaigns (even if it's only $20 or less).
This is further skewed by a more elderly, more affluent population with postgraduate education. Which means that it further doesn't represent any median voter, especially the median Democratic voter.
In fact, those who donate are often WAYYYYYY off the norm of the parties that some political scientists have suggested that individual donors might draw parties toward extremes (Tea Party on the right, DSA or further on the left).
Some of those studies, and a broader view of campaign finance in general, is presented in this lecture by Yale University's Prof. Ian Shapiro:
The donor map doesn't prove voter suppression and it doesn't prove that your preferred candidate would have won.
It doesn't prove much besides being a delightful choropleth map showing donors & locations. And to reiterate: donors are not representative of the public or parties.
It doesn't prove much besides being a delightful choropleth map showing donors & locations. And to reiterate: donors are not representative of the public or parties.
