Don't be surprised if he has more support in Maine, if you look at the State's history, they vote highly for who are normally considered "fringe" candidates. And they are rather uh "frugal" with campaign donations. Perot beat Bush in 1992.
The election statistics from 2004 include donors for the ENTIRE race, this means that Ron Paul's numbers are probably much better than these calculations show. If we assume that half of the donations occurred AFTER the primaries then he is on track to gain 37% nation or 74% of the republicans.
Truth mason missed a few details that will skew the assumptions in a major way. It's important to clarify the fact that donors shown on opensecret's graphs are only donors who have donated over 200 dollars. Small donors are not included in that number.
In other words truth mason is comparing our total donors to everyone elses large donors. The numbers are apt to portray a large disparity. I would guess that the candidate that connects with the people the best would have the largest number of small donors, and right now I think that is Ron Paul. It will be very interesting to see the total number of individuals that have donated 200 or more this quarter to the campaign. I am very hopeful for a major upset and will keep working my tail off so this man gets elected.
Some political candidates raise disproportionately more money per supporter. Ron Paul is one of them, others in this class are Pat Buchanan and Lyndon LaRouche.