TIME

This Is How Far Barack Obama Has Traveled Around the World

President Obama’s meeting in Saudi Arabia Tuesday with its new king marks his 84th visit to a foreign country as president, including repeat visits. By TIME’s estimation, he has now accumulated over 447,000 frequent flyer miles in international travel since January 2009, including flights returning to the United States.

Follow each of those trips below with the arrow buttons and watch those totals accumulate. You can skip to the end by using the left arrow from the first slide.

Methodology

Total miles are calculated as the round-trip distance between Washington, D.C. and a given location. Since the figures don’t account for routes and intermediate stops for refueling, the actual figure is likely to be higher. For trips that include multiple stops, the calculation only factors in the flight from Washington for the first and last leg.

TIME

Growth of Muslim Populations in Europe Map

 

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris have brought new attention to the small number of European Muslims who turn to violent extremism. Fears center around the number of Europeans who have fought in Iraq and Syria and could return to the continent. Amid tensions over terrorism and intolerance in France, the Muslim population there is projected to grow steadily in the coming years in comparison to non-Muslim populations and in many other European counties. Demographic changes, including lower birthrates for non-Muslim Europeans, are contributing to the changing face of Europe’s religious and ethnic make-up. The above map shows historical data and projections for the growth of Muslim populations in Europe in 2030.

Methodology
Population estimates from Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project. According to the methodology in the organization’s report, the 1990 figure for France and several other countries maybe be artificially low. Estimates for the number of fighters in Iraq and Syria come from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation in London.

TIME

This Map Shows Modi’s Growing Political Strength in India

The Indian Prime Minister's party continues to establish itself as a major political force

Earlier this year, Narendra Modi emerged as the biggest player on the Indian political scene after leading his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to a landslide victory in national elections, displacing the ruling Congress Party-led coalition government with promises to revive the country’s waning economy. This week, he reinforced his grip on the political landscape after the Hindu nationalist BJP recorded significant electoral gains in the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir.

A BJP-led alliance also won a majority in regional elections in the eastern state of Jharkhand.

Use the interactive maps below to get a closer look at the results from both Jammu and Kashmir and mineral-rich Jharkhand, where the BJP fought the election in partnership with the regional All Jharkhand Students Union party (AJSU).

With 25 of the 87 seats up for grabs in the Jammu and Kashmir legislature, Modi’s party came second only to the regional People’s Democratic Party, which won 28 seats. Though still short of the majority needed to claim power, the BJP’s gains mean that its support could prove pivotal in the formation of the next state government. The results mark a major reversal for a party that thus far had struggled to appear politically relevant in the disputed northern territory claimed by both India and Pakistan.

TIME

Wall Street Money Can Predict How Democrats Vote. Here’s How

Follow the money in the latest budget vote which rolled back regulations on banks and divided House Democrats

A week after the gargantuan spending deal squeezed through Congress, many Democrats are still smarting over a provision in the bill that rolls back regulation on how banks can take risks with taxpayer money.

While the financial sector’s boon was too big a pill for many on the left to swallow, 57 Democrats in the House ultimately voted for the legislation, pushing the bill over the goal line. (The final vote for the bill, which picked up the nickname “Cromnibus” along the way, was 219-206).

As the Washington Post noticed last week, those 57 Democrats received considerably more money in campaign donations from the financial sector than their colleagues who voted against the bill. While this may not be terribly surprising, it is an usually clear example of the correlation between money and votes. (As always, the causation–whether the money directly influenced a lawmaker’s vote–does not come along for the ride in this analysis.)

To put a finer point on it, TIME collected data from the Center for Responsive Politics on how much money financial companies gave to each House Democrat in the past two years. When you line up the members in the order of how much they got and how they voted, the pattern is pretty clear. (A handful of newer members are missing due to incomplete data.)

The controversial provision was originally a standalone bill, parts of which was reportedly drafted by Citibank lobbyists. That bill passed the House in 2013 with the support of 70 Democrats but never became law. The divide in the party among those who receive significant contributions from the financial sector was even more apparent then.

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate companies gave a total of $304 Million to members of congress in the last election cycle, more than any other industry identified by the Centre for Responsive Politics. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and John Boehner (R-OH) are top recipients from this industry each receiving over $3 Million. The same companies also gave Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS), the congressman who introduced the controversial amendment into the spending bill, $206,700 in the same cycle. These figures don’t include the money that groups like Citibank spent on lobbying efforts.

Members of Congress make voting decisions based on an extraordinary number of considerations, and any given representative can argue quite persuasively that he or she is not motivated by the wants and desires of major donors. When you zoom out, however, you see a correlation between donations and voting behavior that is very unlikely to be a random occurrence, regardless of the root causes.

Methodology

These figures represent political action committees (PACs) representing financial companies made to candidates, not employees who work for those companies, and do not include contributions made to members’ leadership PACs. The Center for Responsive Politics defines financial companies as commercial banks, credit unions, real estate companies, and a variety of other related industries. The correlation coefficient between the binary outcome of the vote and the dollar amount of contributions was 0.34 for HR 83 and 0.42 for HR 992.

 

TIME

Create Your Own James Bond Cast

007's got a new title and a whole new cast. Here's your chance to draft the next slate of stars

On Thursday, we learned the name and full cast for the 24th James Bond movie, which will be released in theaters in Oct. 2015. Daniel Craig will suit up again as the movies’ most famous spy in a picture to be called “Spectre.” Along with Craig, the film will star Monia Bellucci and Lea Seydoux as “Bond girls” Lucia Sciarra and Madeleine Swann. Ben Whishaw returns as gadget man Q. Ralph Fiennes will be the new spy chief M.

With more than a half century of history, few film series have driven greater debate about casting choices. Would you rather see Angelina Jolie or Idris Elba bump Craig out of the lead role? Think the Bond bosses should drop the “Bond Girl” role entirely and make Benedict Cumberbatch play the next generation of eye candy? Here’s your chance to select your own fantasy James Bond cast. Cast all five roles, and your selection will be saved to share with friends using the buttons below.

Photographs and actor information via IMDB.

Read next: James Bond is Back and the New Cast Has Been Revealed

TIME interactive

Are You a J. Crew Democrat or a Pizza Hut Republican?

Check out this chart and search tool to see the political leanings of the places that Starbucks, Walmart, and 2,700 other companies call home

If you live near a Ben & Jerry’s or a few Dunkin’ Donuts outposts, odds are good that your Congressional district elected a Democrat on Tuesday. More familiar with the inside of a Pizza Hut or a Long John Silver’s? Chances are you’ll be represented next year by a Republican.

The following chart places 49 common brands on a political spectrum based on the percentage of their brick-and-mortar stores that are located in Democratic or Republican districts. To do this, TIME matched nearly 2 million store locations provided by the research company AggData to their corresponding Congressional district and then tallied them by that district’s vote in 2014 midterms. Of the 139 American Apparel stores, for example, 83 percent are in blue districts. Nearly nine in 10 Belk department stores, meanwhile, can be found in red districts. All the other brands on the chart fall somewhere in between. You can look for any store you like in the search tool below the graphic.

There is no evidence, of course, that a regular infusion of banana ice cream and fudge chunks inspires a person toward liberalism. Because two-thirds of the Ben & Jerry’s in the United States are found in Democratic districts, however, the mere presence of a store in a district raises the statistical odds that its residents are people who vote for Democrats.

While stores like Whole Foods or Hobby Lobby might already conjure partisan stereotypes, the vast majority of America’s brands do not. Even so, where these stores are located tells us a tremendous amount about who their shoppers are sending to Washington.

Methodology

The list of retail locations was provided by AggData. Stores were matched to Congressional district by comparing their longitude and latitude to the Census definitions of districts. The results do not include the 14 Congressional races that have yet to be resolved as of 6:00 AM on Nov. 6, 2014.

Read next: How the World Sees America Now

Correction: The interactive chart originally linked the incorrect record for Armani Exchange when the user clicked the icon in the chart. It has since been updated.

TIME

The Incredible Rise in Campaign Spending

The cost of running for Congress has increased more than 500 percent since 1984. Here's an interactive look at how campaign expenditures have outrun inflation, health care, and even the rising cost of college

The NBC affiliate in Des Moines, Iowa, added an hour to its nightly newscast this year to profit from all the political ads ahead of the Nov. 4 midterm elections, but demand was still too great. “There is only so much inventory I have,” explains WHO-TV station manager Dale Woods. It is the same in tight races all across the country. Nearly bottomless campaign and super-PAC bank accounts have been unloaded on airtime, mailings and get-out-the-vote efforts. And in recent years, the spending growth has accelerated.

Since the mid-1980s, the amount dumped on elections by campaigns and outside groups, as measured by the Federal Election Commission, has grown 555 percent—faster than even the alarming increases in the costs of health care and private college tuition. The reasons, say political scientists, include growth in the national economy, the razor-thin margin determining congressional control and changes to campaign-finance rules. Expect the trend to continue. Senate races in North Carolina and Kentucky this year could cost more than $100 million, and the estimated spending on TV ads in Alaska and Iowa already tops $11 per eligible voter.

Methodology

Sources for interactive: Federal Election Commission summary files; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; U.S. Census Bureau; St. Louis Fed; National Center for Education Statistics. Outside spending data for the years 2006-2012, which are missing from FEC summary reports, are courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The total value of an election is calculated in two parts: Campaign spending and outside spending. Campaign spending consists of all expenditures except authorized transfers of funds to other committees, as well as party-coordinated spending, and includes primary elections. Outside Spending encompasses third-party expenditures that are made without the knowledge or consent of the candidates, but only includes transactions that are explicitly used to advocate for or against a candidate.

TIME

How Much Money Does Your Doctor Get From Medical Companies?

Use this search tool to find out

Doctors received $3.5 billion from pharmaceutical companies and device makers over a five month period in 2013, according to figures the federal government released this week. The massive dataset includes 4.2 million individual payments made to physicians (including dentists) for things like meals, consulting fees and royalty payments for devices they have helped invent. The new data includes 360,000 doctors by name.

In the days leading up the release of the information, physician groups mobilized to argue that the data, which the 2010 Affordable Care Act mandates be disclosed, is incomplete and misleading. For their part, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversaw the release, states that, “Just because there are financial ties doesn’t mean that anyone is doing anything wrong.” CMS withheld the names of the recipients on 40 percent of the payments over concerns about data quality.

Using the following tool, you can search for any physician in the database by last name and see any gifts, consulting fees, paid travel, or other payment he or she received between August and December of 2013.

Critics of this sort of disclosure are quick to point out that there are many positive benefits to relationships between drug and device companies, which produce new life-saving treatments every year, and the doctors who get those treatments to patients who need them. Meanwhile, some research suggests that even cursory relationships with industry do affect a doctor’s behavior.

Among those doctors who were identified, orthopedic surgeons were by far the most compensated. They account for 11 of the 18 physicians who received over $1 million over the five covered months in the data:

Name Specialty Location Amount
Stephen S Burkhart Orthopaedic Surgery San Antonio, TX $7,356,276
Chitranjan S. Ranawat Counselor New York, NY $3,994,022
Thomas S Thornhill Orthopaedic Surgery Boston, MA $3,921,410
Richard Scott Orthopaedic Surgery Boston, MA $3,849,711
Neal Selim Elattrache Sports Medicine Los Angeles, CA $2,413,281
Lawrence A Lynn Counselor Columbus, OH $2,338,790
Timothy A Chuter Surgical Critical Care San Francisco, CA $2,304,899
Roger P Jackson Orthopaedic Surgery of the Spine North Kansas City, MO $1,764,704
Steven B. Haas Orthopaedic Surgery New York, NY $1,752,797
John Satterfield Fordtran Counselor Dallas, TX $1,715,554
Richard Edward Jones Orthopaedic Surgery Dallas, TX $1,457,517
Regis William Haid JR. Neurological Surgery Atlanta, GA $1,252,971
Amar S. Ranawat Counselor New York, NY $1,216,534
Michael D. Ries Orthopaedic Surgery Carson City, NV $1,185,840
Douglas Edmund Padgett Counselor New York, NY $1,139,670
Carlos Jesus Lavernia Adult Reconstructive Orthopaedic Surgery Miami, FL $1,116,854
Roy W Sanders Orthopaedic Surgery Temple Terrace, FL $1,021,282
Thomas A Russell Orthopaedic Surgery Germantown, TN $1,017,736

While the reason for the prominence of orthopedic surgeons at the top of the list varies for each doctor, orthopedic surgery often involves cutting edge devices for things like knee and hip replacements, many of which are exceedingly expensive. In some cases, doctors are receiving thousands of dollars in royalties for these devices because they have a stake in the intellectual property rights. (This is separate from owning part a stake in the company itself, which is reported separately.)

The picture of which pharmaceutical company pays doctors the most is less clear because payments are often recorded under the name of the subsidiary company making the payment. DePuy Synthes, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that manufactures orthopedic and neurosurgery devices, tops the list of companies making payments to doctors during the period with $34.5 million. Arthrex, Inc., a manufacturer of orthopedic surgical supplies, came in second with $15.5 million. Astra Zeneca and Pfizer are also among the top 10 with $15.3 million and $10.01 million respectively. This analysis does not include anonymized payments.

Company Total Payments State
DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. $34,542,816 Massachusetts
Arthrex, Inc. $15,506,504 Florida
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP $15,385,817 Deleware
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc $13,778,926 Pennsylvania
Smith & Nephew, Inc. $12,020,808 Tennessee
Forest Laboratories, Inc. $10,398,208 California
Pfizer Inc. $10,017,632 New York
Allergan Inc. $9,709,723 California
Biomet, Inc. $9,675,365 Florida
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. $9,238,383 Maryland

Of all payments, $109 million is documented as “compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program.” Consulting fees accounted for $91 million. Food and beverages accounted for $57.4 million, and travel and lodging accounted for $45 million. Because the disclosures require that the location of travel be disclosures, we are able to build a picture of where companies like to fly doctors for conferences, speeches, meetings, and other events:

City No. of Payments Total Payments
Chicago 7098 $2,182,736
New York 5757 $2,100,144
Dallas 5453 $1,333,772
Atlanta 4087 $1,056,913
Miami 3081 $930,366
San Diego 2751 $717,280
San Francisco 2696 $1,022,034
Las Vegas 2503 $750,983
Philadelphia 2478 $597,493
Houston 2368 $623,391

Data that was withheld because of unresolved disputes will be published in future disclosures.

TIME interactive

Inside the Secrets of Hollywood’s Calendar

Superheroes save June. Princesses reign in May. And Nazis usually invade in February. Here's a visual guide to strange patterns that populate the big screen

What do you call a thong-clad scientist paired with a chainsaw-toting cheerleader? Answer: the perfect summer movie.

It’s no secret that the movies follow an unofficial calendar: Summer is for action heroes and explosions, while dark themes and delicate plots visit in the winter, readying for the Oscars. But what about some of the less familiar patterns that popular Hollywood seasons? To study the secrets of the cinema calendar, TIME gathered data on the 8,298 movies in IMDB that made at least $100,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars, all the way back to 1913. By correlating the keywords for each movie to the month that it was released, we were able to find highly seasonal topics for each month of the year.

For all the highs and lows of the Hollywood calendar, check out this chart.

Some of the more surprising highlights: People are saddest in January. The tag “melancholy” is most popular in the beginning of the year. See “Sideways” and “The Hours.” February is a great month for World War II. “Nazis” too. Drug lords come out in the summer. August to be specific. In fact, the second-highest grossing movie of the moment is Lucy, in which a woman (Scarlet Johansson) works as a mule for a Korean drug kingpin.December is lethal for main characters. That’s when they die most often. See “Titanic.”

Methodology

The keywords on IMDB are submitted by users so the data is not perfectly consistent, but across thousands of movies one sees clear and sensible pattern. Each keyword was measured according to the total number of movies it appeared in each month of the calendar year, regardless of which year the movie appeared. These figures where then converted to percentages according to the keyword’s total volume. Since movies come out in different volumes in different months–October is a particularly popular type to release a film regardless of topic, for example–the data was then normalized according to the total number of films released in a given month.

TIME Hillary Clinton

How Hillary and Bill Clinton Raised $1.4 Billion

Together, the Clintons have become two of the most impressive fundraisers in American history. Use the interactive graphic to see the many ways their supporters' money has been collected over the years.

There are great American political fundraisers. And then there are Hillary and Bill Clinton, the first couple of American political fundraising. Few in American history have collected and benefited from so much money in so many ways over such a long period of time. Since they arrived on the national political scene 32 years ago, the Clintons have attracted at least $1.4 billion in contributions, according to a review of public records by TIME and the Center for Responsive Politics.

That sum helps illustrate Hillary Clinton’s enormous advantage should she decide to run for President in 2016. Much of the money, raised through two Senate and three Presidential campaigns, was gathered together in small checks by an extensive network of donors and fundraisers. Other donations came in the form of six-figure “soft money” donations from wealthy individuals during Bill Clinton’s presidency. A third category includes money the couple has raised for the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global non-profit, through speaking engagements for Bill Clinton, and through outside political spending that benefitted the Clinton efforts.

The records also show a select group of top donors who have given in multiple ways to the Clintons over the years. Many of these same donors, including people like S. Daniel Abraham, founder of diet supplement company Slim Fast, and Susie Tompkins Buell, founding of the clothing company Espirit, have formed personal friendships with the Clintons, even as they have continued to pursue public policy campaigns around issues like U.S. relations with Israel and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Through the years, the Clintons have adjusted over time to the changing rules that govern political contributions. Craig Smith, a longtime adviser to the Clintons who is now helping to organize the Ready for Hillary PAC, estimates that a Hillary 2016 candidacy could cost as much as $1.7 billion, including the money raised and spent on her behalf by outside groups. That would make the effort about 150% more expensive than the 2012 Obama effort, an increase in line with historical norms.

[See profiles of the top donors.]

The data for this analysis is drawn from three broad categories.

Campaign contributions: Direct giving to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s campaigns for the Senate and the Presidency going back to 1992, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. It includes both individual contributions and money from other PACs given to either the leadership committees or joint fundraising committees of the Clintons. These figures also include “soft money” contributions to the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and his presidency. Those donations were later eliminated by the 2002 campaign finance reform law.

Non-political contributions: Speaking fees collected by Bill Clinton up to 2008, and contributions to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Figures for Bill Clinton’s speaking fees are based on filings from Hillary Clinton’s tenure in the Senate. The foundation has only released a list of donors grouped by the contribution ranges, so in all cases the interactive assumes that each donor gave the smallest amount possible in that category. The range of contribution, from all foundation donors, as reported by the foundation, could go as high as $1.3 billion.

Outside spending: Independent expenditures on behalf of the Clintons, as well as contributions to Ready for Hillary PAC, an independent super PAC created to support Clinton in 2016, which she has told friends she grateful to have organized on her behalf.

Additional reporting by Becca Stanek.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser