116 lines
11 KiB
HTML
116 lines
11 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML><html><head>
|
|
<title>MAP: FecBachmannByStateQ3 - Google Fusion Tables</title>
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
|
html, body {
|
|
margin: 0;
|
|
padding: 0;
|
|
height: 100%;
|
|
}
|
|
</style></head>
|
|
<body><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Alabama</b> ranks <b>No. 26</b> with <br><b>$12,777</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Arizona</b> ranks <b>No. 12</b> with <br><b>$28,641</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Arkansas</b> ranks <b>No. 29</b> with <br><b>$9,666</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Arkansas</b> ranks <b>No. 43</b> with <br><b>$3,334</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Armed Forces</b> ranks <b>No. 52</b> with <br><b>$1,000</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>California</b> ranks <b>No. 1</b> with <br><b>$162,938</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Colorado</b> ranks <b>No. 20</b> with <br><b>$21,429</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Connecticut</b> ranks <b>No. 24</b> with <br><b>$13,954</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Delaware</b> ranks <b>No. 48</b> with <br><b>$1,530</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>District of Columbia</b> ranks <b>No. 53</b> with <br><b>$770</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Florida</b> ranks <b>No. 4</b> with <br><b>$85,762</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Georgia</b> ranks <b>No. 21</b> with <br><b>$18,609</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Guam</b> ranks <b>No. 51</b> with <br><b>$1,099</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Hawaii</b> ranks <b>No. 49</b> with <br><b>$1,382</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Idaho</b> ranks <b>No. 44</b> with <br><b>$3,328</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Illinois</b> ranks <b>No. 9</b> with <br><b>$34,653</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Indiana</b> ranks <b>No. 23</b> with <br><b>$15,134</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Iowa</b> ranks <b>No. 15</b> with <br><b>$25,087</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Kansas</b> ranks <b>No. 28</b> with <br><b>$10,421</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Kentucky</b> ranks <b>No. 34</b> with <br><b>$6,480</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Louisiana</b> ranks <b>No. 19</b> with <br><b>$21,798</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Maine</b> ranks <b>No. 46</b> with <br><b>$2,702</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Maryland</b> ranks <b>No. 10</b> with <br><b>$31,456</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Massachusetts</b> ranks <b>No. 32</b> with <br><b>$7,768</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Michigan</b> ranks <b>No. 17</b> with <br><b>$23,192</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Minnesota</b> ranks <b>No. 2</b> with <br><b>$104,095</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Mississippi</b> ranks <b>No. 36</b> with <br><b>$5,780</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Missouri</b> ranks <b>No. 13</b> with <br><b>$27,258</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Montana</b> ranks <b>No. 39</b> with <br><b>$5,030</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Nebraska</b> ranks <b>No. 41</b> with <br><b>$3,793</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Nevada</b> ranks <b>No. 27</b> with <br><b>$10,950</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>New Hampshire</b> ranks <b>No. 37</b> with <br><b>$5,572</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>New Jersey</b> ranks <b>No. 18</b> with <br><b>$22,712</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>New Mexico</b> ranks <b>No. 42</b> with <br><b>$3,501</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>New York</b> ranks <b>No. 5</b> with <br><b>$46,946</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>North Carolina</b> ranks <b>No. 6</b> with <br><b>$43,193</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>North Dakota</b> ranks <b>No. 35</b> with <br><b>$5,790</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Ohio</b> ranks <b>No. 11</b> with <br><b>$29,807</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Oklahoma</b> ranks <b>No. 30</b> with <br><b>$9,635</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Oregon</b> ranks <b>No. 31</b> with <br><b>$9,365</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Pennsylvania</b> ranks <b>No. 8</b> with <br><b>$34,958</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Rhode Island</b> ranks <b>No. 47</b> with <br><b>$1,700</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>South Carolina</b> ranks <b>No. 22</b> with <br><b>$15,597</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>South Dakota</b> ranks <b>No. 38</b> with <br><b>$5,167</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Tennessee</b> ranks <b>No. 7</b> with <br><b>$37,921</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Texas</b> ranks <b>No. 3</b> with <br><b>$96,227</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Utah</b> ranks <b>No. 45</b> with <br><b>$2,712</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Vermont</b> ranks <b>No. 50</b> with <br><b>$1,126</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Virginia</b> ranks <b>No. 14</b> with <br><b>$26,773</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Washington</b> ranks <b>No. 16</b> with <br><b>$23,684</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>West Virginia</b> ranks <b>No. 40</b> with <br><b>$4,284</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td> <td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Wisconsin</b> ranks <b>No. 25</b> with <br><b>$13,151</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr> <tr><td><div class="googft-info-window" style="font-family:sans-serif">
|
|
<b>Wyoming</b> ranks <b>No. 33</b> with <br><b>$6,788</b> in 3rd Quarter contributions<br>to the Bachmann campaign.
|
|
</div></td></tr></table></body></html> |