Surprised there are less ads on Instagram, considering that's where most of us young people are flocking these days...

Unusually poor graphics by the Times. The total amount of money being spent should have been visually presented, not just listed on top of a bunch of identically sized boxes. I suspect many people are going to take away some false impressions.

Your first chart is very deceptive: if you are going to equate area with spending, it should be shown with some relationship to the total spent, not percent of very different totals. So Andrew Yang has spent most of his money in Iowa, but Pete Buttigieg has actually spent almost twice as much there, and they are both dwarfed by what Tom Steyer has spent. This isn't conveyed in the graph.

There are fake billionaires and true billionaires. A fake billionaire dodges taxes (and military duty), swindles his workers and investors, lies on his forms, and declares bankruptcy to cheat all above. Even shaves his golf scores. True billionaires earn their wealth through ingenuity and hard work. Why should we voters disqualify the true? Could their talents and industry not serve us? Some presidents were very rich yet made fine leaders. I didn't vote for Bloomberg for mayor, but I wear his pin for president. He'll do us good.

Facebook isn't "information": it's advertising and disinformation.

Is it just me or are the square infographics misleading by showing them all of equal size? I see the total spent, etc, and understand NYT is emphasizing "Early" vs. "Other" states, but by comparing Klobuchar's squares to, say, Buttigieg look almost proportional and equal despite Buttigieg spending nearly 10X as much.

Wondering how much Russia spent on Facebook ads in each state

After reading the comments, I have to admit, people need to understand more about how social media advertising works. I work in the digital marketing world and have lots of experience utilizing digital advertising especially on Facebook. It isn't going away, so take a moment to read more about it, instead of bashing something you know little about. It isn't "blasting ads" or a "useless waste of money". It is actually a sophisticated way of targeting audiences that have interacted on the social platform in ways that places them into certain audience groups. Facebook tracks every single like, follow, group, click, comment and share you do. Don't believe me? Check out your privacy information on your profile, they have you pegged down to a specific audience, life stage, and interests. That's how they decide to show you what sponsored ads they do. We all see them, sponsored ads while scrolling down our feeds. Using all that information, they target FB users that meet certain ad specifications and track how well those ads doing using conversions, clicks and views. It is so much more effective and cost efficient than TV and radio ads which may not hit the specific audience they are aiming for. Online and social media ads are the way of the future and it is very fascinating to see how politics is transforming using these methods. Which is also why these huge social media platforms and companies should be thinking ahead of how they will regulate and police ads.

I’m really tired of hearing about Iowa. Why does Iowa get to be so important? I mean, I know Kevin Costner built a magic baseball field there, but come on. Focusing on one little state seems so outdated. Imagine how much less stressful our election system would be if every state had primaries on the exact same day. Just get it over with.

Important, but not noted: This only looks at campaign expenditures. Remember that there are also tons of grassroots organizers and armies of volunteers spending their own time and money to GOTV. Bernie and Warren aren't taking the help of PACs, but some of the others also have ad-money flowing to these states. On the flip side, the aforementioned vols are a completely different, but equally relevant, arm of any one campaign's strategy through the Primary. Door-knocking and phone-calling in areas with elderly demographics, instead of spending money on AD placement, for example, could be a strategy not examined in this angle. Just food for thought. Money is only one piece. Important piece, but not the only piece.

According to Pew Research as reported on SproutSocial, 80% of 18-50 year olds use Facebook at least once a day. That's a very big piece of the voting public who are exposed to the campaign ads. Full disclosure: I don't use Facebook at all. And let's just say I'm outside that age range on the high side. I also don't watch any of the broadcast news channels except PBS once a week. It is apparent to me that candidates are targeting new voters and working people, leaving a large and growing body of retired people to figure out who to vote for on their own. That's fine with me as I prefer doing my own research but many in my group will only make up their minds in the last couple of months before the election. Candidates who talk to and listen to the Facebook group may be in for a surprise when they see the October polls.

Am baffled why or how Facebook ads have any influence on votes. Casting yr ballot based on noise, puffery, doctored clips and outtakes. 10 second sound bites, disingenuous quotes . Really? An old pfarts comment of course. Back to reading Twitter likes🤑🤪🤡💩

How well do we understand the impact of Facebook political ads on votes depending on quality and not just the quantity of those ads? Quantity is easy to measure as shown in this article. But what about ad quality; the ads that make sense to the ten or fifteen percent of voters who can be swayed? I would like to see more coverage that analyzes and compares the ads themselves which I think is critical. And please include detailed fact checking which would affect my vote more than most anything else.

Information is always good. But perhaps here the real information is how each candidate is forced to play the primary casino gamble with enormous amounts of money that could be spent elsewhere if the public (that means all that are granted FCC licenses, which is all) airways had to provide free air time to candidates as they do in many other democracies. And, of course, if we got rid of those "fake" persons that otherwise call themselves corporations to their stockholders.

How can this not be a waste of money? Do political campaign ads on facebook change anyone's opinions? In my experience people followed on facebook are followed by those who support them already.

Think what this money could do, instead of blasting us with useless commercials that doesn't change anyones' minds anyway. Campaign contributions and ad spending should be outlawed - it'll eliminate career politicians and corporations influencing our elections. Each qualifying candidate should just be given equal minutes of airtime and social media spending during every campaign season, granted they get enough signatures/or proof of support. Interesting candidates like Booker and Harris shouldn't have to drop out and yet Steyer and Bloomberg gets to stay in. ... also, as a designer, I find these graphs incredible unhelpful, what are all these other small boxes representing!? Bloomberg and Steyer are spending so much more, it'd be more useful to see that visually, then the breakdown of states.

What amazes me is how little the non-billionaire candidates are spending on these ads. Bernie who raised more than $100 million in the last year spent less than $3 million. The biggest spender is Elizabeth Warren who spent only $3.2 million. It appears that this is far from the central element of their campaigns.

This is why poll numbers before primary voting starts are mainly a reflection of ad spending and only very indirectly an indication of actual enthusiasm and support on the ground, and thus a very weak metric for deciding who should be eligible to participate in debates.

To me it is very disturbing that our political system allows billionaires like Bloomberg and Steyer to outspend all the rest of the candidates combined. Our democratic system is at risk here, but so far few Americans appear to be seduced by their ads. Yes, billionaires have just as much a right to run for office as an indebted small town mayor like Buttigieg, but the rules should be fair. These charts prove that the Supreme Court decision on free speech being equivalent to money is a much greater threat to our democracy than all the Russian hackers combined. The Supreme Court justices who voted for Citizens United should be impeached. They are the greatest single threat to our democracy.

Of the four Democratic front runners, two are too old and one is too young. Senator Elizabeth Warren has the policy, intelligence, and knows exactly the direction for our country. The needs of the many, not the few.

Michael Bloomberg is one of the major proponents of campaign finance reform. During his 12 years as NYC mayor he expanded public financing of elections in New York City by increasing the matching rate for small donations from $4 to $6, which meant that a $25 donation resulted in a $150 public match. He will work to make this happen federally. He is not accepting donations toward his campaign. It is entirely self-financed which is one reason he is not allowed in the DNC debates which require private donations to qualify. He is not on the ballot in the early states because he announced too late to make the filing deadlines. Mike has built a national election machine in 30 states and 1,000 full-time workers. He has two goals: Defeat Trump. Get elected president. If he is not the nominee he has promised to use his considerable funds and organization to financially support the nominee. He is a true patriot who puts community and nation first . Even if he is not your choice, he will use his money to get rid of Trump and that is something we all want. I never paid much attention to him. Now I am watching him interviewed on youtube and am really impressed. Biden, gaffe prone and tongue tied, is the front runner. Trump will eat him for lunch. Bernie and Warren are too far left to win the mid west or a national election. Mike is the only one who can destroy Trump. Stephen Colbert interviews him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gd1VB_H0JY