NationStates Jolt Archive

As of right now troops overseas have been giving to the Obama campaign at a rate of 6-1 over the McCain camp. This is contrary to what even I would think. What do you think about this phenomenon?

Deployed Troops Give to Obama Over McCain by 6 - 1 Margin

Open Secrets is reporting that troops overseas are giving to Barack Obama over John McCain at a rate of 6 - 1:

Contributions

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

How does that stack up against previous years?

"That's shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it's about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one" in Democrats' favor, said Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military. "That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans."

In 2000, Republican George W. Bush outraised Democrat Al Gore among military personnel almost 2 to 1. In 2004, with the Iraq war underway, John Kerry closed the gap with President Bush, but Bush still raised $1.50 from the military for every $1 his Democratic opponent collected.

The real question is this - is this indicative of a trend in support for Obama across the armed services (enlisted and officers)? And if so, does it translate into votes? It certainly does go along way towards Republicans claims to speak for (and have the backing of) the troops.

Hat tip to Jonathan Singer at MyDD, who first brought this to my attention.

Ron Paul actually recieved the most contributions from soldiers... Too bad America obviously isn't ready for liberty.

Is it more money or more donations? It seems like it's more money, which might mean that while those that send to Obama are more willing to pony up more cash, there still are more McCain supporters...

Even with that it would mean that the military is more or less split, not the reliable block we're used to.

Interesting, to say the least.

I was in the Army Reserves for a few years in college... Broke my ankle really bad and my running wasn't up to snuff anymore... Got honorably discharged. I tell you, it's pretty annoying having politicians scobble over your vote like you're the center of a love triangle.

I was in the Army Reserves for a few years in college... Broke my ankle really bad and my running wasn't up to snuff anymore... Got honorably discharged. I tell you, it's pretty annoying having politicians scobble over your vote like you're the center of a love triangle.

Iowa corn farmers never seem too annoyed.

Ron Paul actually recieved the most contributions from soldiers... Too bad America obviously isn't ready for liberty.

Source?

Is it more money or more donations? It seems like it's more money, which might mean that while those that send to Obama are more willing to pony up more cash, there still are more McCain supporters...

Even with that it would mean that the military is more or less split, not the reliable block we're used to.

Interesting, to say the least.

from Open Secrets: (candidate followed by total and then number of contributions)
Obama, Barack ---- $335,536 ---- 859
McCain, John ---- $280,513 ---- 558
Paul, Ron ---- $232,411 ---- 537
Clinton, Hillary ---- $167,050 ---- 376
Republican National Cmte ---- $135,902 ----219
Huckabee, Mike ---- $66,751---- 127
Thompson, Fred ----$46,400 ---- 93
Romney, Mitt ---- $43,307 ----- 96
Giuliani, Rudolph W---- $22,050 ---- 47
National Republican Senatorial Cmte ---- $21,885 --- 26
DNC Services Corp $16,873 53

I'd also like to point out that combined with the national committee numbers, McCain has more money. It's tremendously important when talking of campaign money to include the huge chunk of McCain money funneled through the RNC.

Well, are they counting up McCain's money from the beginning of the primary till present? If so, the data is skewed... Ron Paul has been out of the race for several months.

Contrary to the belief among some warmongers, most servicemen and officers have enlisted into the military to protect their nation, not to trash random countries on Halliburton's whim.

Ron Paul actually recieved the most contributions from soldiers... Too bad America obviously isn't ready for liberty.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/futuremajority/2763383386/

Actually the article I got this from has Barack at 60k or so and Paul and 40 k or so.

Well, are they counting up McCain's money from the beginning of the primary till present? If so, the data is skewed... Ron Paul has been out of the race for several months.

Everyone's money is from the beginning. It took until now for McCain to even catch up to Paul, and even then Paul has him beat in troops deployed overseas contributions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
The source I'm working from, for anyone interested.

Is it more money or more donations? It seems like it's more money, which might mean that while those that send to Obama are more willing to pony up more cash, there still are more McCain supporters...

Even with that it would mean that the military is more or less split, not the reliable block we're used to.

Interesting, to say the least.

Actually my numbers come from opensecrets. They show Barack having 134 troops overseas donating to him and only 26 to McCain.

The numbers that someone else quoted for the entire military still show more $ going to Obama from troops in general.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2763383386_8fca8bac16_o.jpg

Ron Paul actually recieved the most contributions from soldiers... Too bad America obviously isn't ready for liberty.

I hope you are being facetious...

Iowa corn farmers never seem too annoyed.

Might just be a personal pet peeve... Especially since I keep getting mail about how McCain supports disabled veterans.

First and foremost, I'm not really disabled... Yes, I was honorably discharged for medical reasons, but the people who should be considered "disabled veterans" are people who took a bullet or two or three for their country... Not someone who breaks his ankle really bad during PT.

Second of all, I don't really consider myself a "veteran" because I never went to war... I was a reserver during my undergrad years to help pay for tuition and people in the reserves cannot be sent to war while they're in school (the National Guard can, but they get more perks).

I don't know how they manage to do this... It's like they've got access to my file or something.

Plain and simple truth is... Ron Paul didn't get nominated, I'm not voting in national elections.

Ron Paul actually recieved the most contributions from soldiers... Too bad America obviously isn't ready for liberty.

Nah, it's cool. Ron Paul dropped out, remember?

Ron Paul didn't get nominated

I wish he did. It would have been the biggest landslide for a democrat in presidential history

Oh man, you Ron Paul fanboys still continue to amuse me. Sucks to be misguided and foolish.

Nah, it's cool. Ron Paul dropped out, remember?

I meant during the primary.

I meant during the primary.

No, see I made a joke. You implied that we weren't ready for liberty because we didn't vote for Ron Paul, wheras my statement implies that not voting for him is voting for liberty, by which I'm further implying that Ron Paul doesn't support liberty.

It was quite witty.

*insert laughing smiley with monocle*

Oh man, you Ron Paul fanboys still continue to amuse me. Sucks to be misguided and foolish.

If by misguided and foolish, you mean principled and free-thinking then, no, it doesn't suck. What really must suck is being a blind little lamb that believes the crooks in power.

No, see I made a joke. You implied that we weren't ready for liberty because we didn't vote for Ron Paul, wheras my statement implies that not voting for him is voting for liberty, by which I'm further implying that Ron Paul doesn't support liberty.

It was quite witty.

*insert laughing smiley with monocle*

I've had a rough day... Jokes are flying past me left and right.

You must have a very defunct idea of what liberty is if you think Ron Paul doesn't support liberty.

I've had a rough day... Jokes are flying past me left and right.

You must have a very defunct idea of what liberty is if you think Ron Paul doesn't support liberty.

Yeah, racism and sexism are the best kind of liberty!

Yeah, racism and sexism are the best kind of liberty!

"Freedom -- it's at the back of the bus."

well its to be expected that the military will follow civilian trends isn't it?

Contrary to the belief among some warmongers, most servicemen and officers have enlisted into the military to protect their nation, not to trash random countries on Halliburton's whim.

I call billhooks

You must have a very defunct idea of what liberty is if you think Ron Paul doesn't support liberty.

what is it with you people and liberty anyway? is it a Usian thing?

"Freedom -- it's at the back of the bus."

Indeed! If only those silly liberals who hate freedom would stop acting like women and brown people should be treated as well as weathy WASP men, America would be ever so much more free!

Indeed! If only those silly liberals who hate freedom would stop acting like women and brown people should be treated as well as weathy WASP men, America would be ever so much more free!

If God had intended for them to be equal, he would have made them white!

Soldiers like the guy who is promising to bring them home? Shocking.

Soldiers like the guy who is promising to bring them home? Shocking.

*looks at voting history*

seems you have been asleep :tongue:

If by misguided and foolish, you mean principled and free-thinking then, no, it doesn't suck. What really must suck is being a blind little lamb that believes the crooks in power.

you mean the man who willingly voted for a law he himself believed to be illegal?

yeah, such a paragon of principles that is.

If by misguided and foolish, you mean principled and free-thinking then, no, it doesn't suck. What really must suck is being a blind little lamb that believes the crooks in power.

You are making two assumptions: one, that I believe anyone in power and two, you think Ron Paul is principled and free-thinking.

And yet McCain is the experinced one in foreign affairs, according to our media. I guess someone forgot to forward that memo to the troops actually carrying out American foreign policy.

Who is Ron Paul? Sorry, but I didn't really follow the candidate nominations.

Ron Paul is a libertarian running as Republican. He's a Congressman, and he's against pretty much any foreign intervention, violation of the Constitution, or regualtion of big bussienss. He nearly won a few states, but of course failed to get the nomination. Now he's refusing to endorse either candadite.

I guess he'll go back to being in Congress. His local constituents seem to like him.

Ron Paul is a libertarian running as Republican. He's a Congressman, and he's against pretty much any foreign intervention, violation of the Constitution, or regualtion of big bussienss. He nearly won a few states, but of course failed to get the nomination. Now he's refusing to endorse either candadite.

I guess he'll go back to being in Congress. His local constituents seem to like him.

Except when it's not convenient. He once voted for a bill that he himself said was unconstitutional.

He's a Congressman, and he's against pretty much any foreign intervention, violation of the Constitution, or regualtion of big bussienss. He nearly won a few states, but of course failed to get the nomination.


Umm... what does that mean? You're gonna have to spell it out for this here teenager.

He almost won some states in the Republican party primary, but failed to get the nomination for the general election.

Except when it's not convenient. He once voted for a bill that he himself said was unconstitutional.

Really? Sources please. I have a cousin who's a Ron Paul fanatic and I'd love to show that to him next time he suggests that Paul would be a great President.

Umm... what does that mean? You're gonna have to spell it out for this here teenager.

Ron Paul's a libertarian. They believe that the government should do as little as possible -- no letting the government force religtion on people, no letting the government prevent price gouging, etc.

And yet McCain is the experinced one in foreign affairs, according to our media. I guess someone forgot to forward that memo to the troops actually carrying out American foreign policy.

You gotta be kidding me, right?

It doesn't matter if McCain is experienced or not. Barack Obama has the popularity among foreign countries, which is what America definitely needs after eight years of Bush.

PS- Ron Paul is not a racist/bigot. The racist quotes are from Morris.

Ron Paul's a libertarian. They believe that the government should do as little as possible -- no letting the government force religtion on people, no letting the government prevent price gouging, etc.


But what was that thing about regulation of big buisness?
Anyway, sounds pretty cool. Did he denounce or in any other way oppose the USA PATRIOT Act? But his ideas seem to be like that of a Democrat. Or is it just me?

1) I'm not sure I trust the results of the statistic. Any time statistics show a wide margin on anything, it is good practice to compare it to other agencies on the same subject.

2) It would not surprise me if military personnel contributed more to Obama, but I doubt the margin is as wide as the statistic claims.

3) Obama is better able to energize his base, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he got more money out of the ones who do intend to vote for him. McCain is not conservative enough to rally the conservative base. I think this is the cause of the symptom for him, because a lot of conservatives (myself included) are not necessarily voting for him, but against Obama. I have serious objections to both, I just find McCain slightly less objectionable.

4) McCain has already shown once that more money doesn't necessarily mean more votes.

Confronting multiple posts above me.

1) It's the economy, stupid. Obama will win and if he doesn't, the US deserves such a horrible (McCain) president.

2) Ron Paul is awesome. He seems to take on a stance that the government should stay out of most things, except for immigration. His anti-amnesty stance appeals to me.

Yeah, his anti-amnesty stance was the only thing that appealed to me. I pulled security detail at one of the Republican debates, and he looks so feeble in person.

I'm curious, did they break down the sample group any smaller then just "servicemen"? Did they break it down by Active Duty, National Guard, Reserves? Did they differentiate between commissioned and enlisted? What about branch?

The margin does surprise me, but I think the further breakdown would answer more questions.

Really? Sources please. I have a cousin who's a Ron Paul fanatic and I'd love to show that to him next time he suggests that Paul would be a great President.

Quoth Ron Paul (on the floor of the House, I believe):

H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

So, he admitted that he would "vote to ban the ... procedure" despite admitting that the ban was "constitutionally flawed."

(Link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html) to the first page I found with a transcript, if you want to read the rest-- to be fair, he did say that this was not his preferred way of banning it because of its lack of constitutional support, but the fact remains that he was still willing to vote for a bill he felt was unconstitutional for the sake of political expediency.)

I'm an Australian, so I won't comment about Obama v McCain directly.

There's an interesting parallel between what the thread is about and something that happened with Australian troops during World War 1.

Despite large numbers initially volunteering, by 1916 recruitments were not sufficient to replace casualties and the Hughes Labor government held referenda in late 1916 and again in 1917 to introduce conscription. Australia was deeply divided and both failed.

The senior command of the Australian army campaigned vigorously to make sure as many serving soldiers as possible voted. They assumed that the soldiers would solidly support conscription.

The reverse turned out to be true. It seemed that the soldiers, all volunteers, felt that no person should be forced to go to the hell that was trench warfare against their will.

One would expect that soldiers would have a better understanding of the horrors of war. Sadly, Jonny Boy is the exception.

Oh, and woohoo! I passed 500 posts.:D

One would expect that soldiers would have a better understanding of the horrors of war. Sadly, Jonny Boy is the exception.

Oh, and woohoo! I passed 500 posts.:D

pfft...

And this war in Iraq is what happens when you don't finish a war right the first time. If you get it wrong a second time, you can spell your country's name d-e-c-l-i-n-e, for sure. I just hope whichever candidate wins that they don't screw it up. Some use the line that we'll be fighting them here if we don't win over there. The reality is that they are already over here, but their money is tied up over there. Eventually they will start up over here; this war is just buying time. However, I think the government on both sides of the aisle is totally missing the opportunity to take advantage of the time and get us better prepared at home. Oh well, I'll have 208 gr. of "liberty and justice" waiting for the terrorists until then. ;)

Ron Paul actually recieved the most contributions from soldiers... Too bad America obviously isn't ready for liberty.

Yeah. Too bad. ...But what does that have to do with Ron Paul? :confused:

Six to one? I contest the validity of this information. Six to one? Oh, heck no.
That depends on who they administered the questions to, what exactly they asked, et cetera. I'd have to see that myself to believe that.

*looks at voting history*

seems you have been asleep :tongue:
I have a voting history :confused:
Six to one? I contest the validity of this information. Six to one? Oh, heck no.
That depends on who they administered the questions to, what exactly they asked, et cetera. I'd have to see that myself to believe that.

I'm sure they just made it up. It's in the interest of such independant polling companies to do that, dontcha know.

I'm sure they just made it up. It's in the interest of such independant polling companies to do that, dontcha know.

6:1 is an awfully large ratio in American politics. You could ask the entire population of the US if killing kittens is wrong and you wouldn't get a 6:1 ratio.

6:1 is an awfully large ratio in American politics. You could ask the entire population of the US if killing kittens is wrong and you wouldn't get a 6:1 ratio.

That's because half of the US are male, and a good deal is young and healthy, and often dateless or with an unwilling partner, and...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/God-kills-kitten.jpg

So it gets hard to get behind not killing kittens.

That's because half of the US are male, and a good deal is young and healthy, and often dateless or with an unwilling partner, and...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/God-kills-kitten.jpg

So it gets hard to get behind not killing kittens.

Why is Domo-kun the instrument of god?

Why is Domo-kun the instrument of god?

Why not?

Why is Domo-kun the instrument of god?

God is Japanese.