Troops stationed abroad donating to Obama by six to one margin
posted at 3:02 pm on August 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Cuffy Meigs, who’s wondering what the plural of anecdote is. The left will happily run this up the flagpole, just as Ron Paul’s supporters did last year, despite the fact there are so many variables in play that no one’s quite sure what the actual significance of it is. Is it evidence that the troops favor withdrawal? Evidence that the military’s trending left? Evidence that Obama’s supporters are more enthusiastic than McCain’s? None of the above? All of the above?
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…
A former West Point professor, Jason Dempsey, noted that the small set of contributions from deployed troops at this point in 2008 — just 323 donations — should not be extrapolated to form conclusions about military personnel overall. “If, on a bad day, a guy gets that letter that says [his tour has been extended] from 12 to 15 months, that could spur a quick donation and expression of anger,” he said. “Donating helps members of the military express their political views privately.”…
CRP’s totals based on employer are limited to donors contributing more than $200, since information is not provided to the Federal Election Commission for smaller contributions. So these figures are likely to disproportionately represent the mood of officers, who have more disposable income to spend on politics than do the lower ranks. But because young people tend to be more liberal than their elders, the total dollar figures could lean even more in Obama’s favor.
“One possibly mundane explanation (for the tilt in contributions from deployed soldiers) is that the Obama campaign has just been so much savvier with web-based donors. It may be a logistical question,” Belkin pointed out.
Bush outraised Gore and Kerry by wide margins among military employees so Obama’s lead over McCain is noteworthy, even with a small, skewed sample. But again — what is it, precisely, that we’re noting? The fact that Paul does disproportionately well among the same group probably means it’s a war thing; it may be that there’s a core group of troops who are passionately opposed to extending the occupation for whatever reason and they’re willing to donate to candidates to achieve that end. That group was likely too small in 2004 to help Kerry given how recent the invasion still was, but after five years it’s grown along with the rest of the anti-war tide among the electorate. Evidence, then, that most troops want out? Maybe! Except … the data doesn’t specify whether the donations came mostly from Iraq or were spread out around the globe, and interestingly, the one branch where McCain leads Obama in contributions is the one most likely to see the hardest action — the Corps. Beyond that, the would-be McCain soldier-donor has a hurdle to clear on his way to his checkbook that the Paul and Obama donor doesn’t. By kicking in to Maverick, he’s making it marginally more likely that he’ll continue to be deployed in the field and away from his family in the future. Even if he agrees with McCain’s foreign policy, thinks we ought to finish the job in Iraq, and is willing to continue serving bravely and well to that end, it’s asking a lot to ask him to pay for the privilege.
Anyway, all theories welcome. For your enjoyment, here’s a related Ron Paul ad from January celebrating the huge tide of military support that comprises the three-percent rEVOLution.
Update: Headlines comments imported.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
jimmy the notable on August 14, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Yeah, we heard this same thing with Paul. If anyone hasn’t noticed, Obama supporters are more likely to donate than McCain supporters. You can have 600,000 McCain supporters and 400,000 Obama supporters, but Obama’s still going to receive more money from them. McCain’s people aren’t exactly running out to donate.
amerpundit on August 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Superficially, that would seem to be surprising… but look at the numbers. 134 contributions from “troops deployed abroad”, of which there are hundreds of thousands, gives us a margin of error of roughly +/- 1000%. :-)
I’m actually surprised that they saw that to be newsworthy.
Furthermore, if you compare the average demographic of “troops deployed abroad” to the corresponding civilian demographic, I think you’ll find that people in those demographics tend to be more politically “activist” on one side versus the other… just a hunch, of course.
DaveS on August 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
For example, Obama raised more than twice what McCain did in the last monthly total. Yet, Obama only has a two-point advantage nationally.
amerpundit on August 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Also, the average of those 134 donations is in the ~$500 range, so we aren’t talking about rank-and-file “grunts” here… most likely, these are officers.
DaveS on August 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM
A hundred and thirty four people gave money to Obama, and twenty six gave to McCain? That’s nice. How many troops are deployed abroad right now?
Now how are they all going to vote?
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM
There’s nothing I hate more than anecdotal BS. Gee, what a surprise, they picked an anecdote that agreed with the findings of the report! How shocking!
jimmy the notable on August 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Clinton, Hillary $167,050 376
Hmm. And none of those 376 was this guy.
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM
The overall numbers at the bottom reveal much closer figures: Obama $335,536 and McCain $280,513. Not sure what to make of the overseas discrepancy and there aren’t that many contributions overall. Might be interesting to look at the demographics lying behind those numbers.
JammieWearingFool on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I’ll wait to see the vote totals from military voters, but the day that the men and woman in the U. S. military become as insane as their civilian counterparts, then this country is well and truly- and irrevocably- finished.
tomk59 on August 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
It said that this is from all military personnel with overseas addresses, does that have to mean they are active duty? I bet if you checked out the donations of all people with overseas addresses, the ratio would be much higher than 6:1.
jimmy the notable on August 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
It should also be noted that records are not kept publicly available for donors who contribute less than $200 to a candidate. So if a soldier donates $50 or $100 to McCain, that total wouldn’t have appeared in public records.
amerpundit on August 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Sheesh – this makes the Ron Paul numbers look meaningful – and they were a joke. 134 contributions made “while deployed abroad” though “June 31.” I’m guessing that those June 31 contributions tipped the scales heavily for the big B.O.
CK MacLeod on August 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Exactly. And if anyone (military or otherwise) mentioned that they were were democrat, and voting for the republican, then there’s no reason any journalist would have to report on that.
And in the linked article, someone mentioned that their tour was extended because Bush ordered the surge. Well, voting for the democrat who promised to return them all home is one way to get the vote. Maybe a fireman would vote for the mayor who says he will order fires to be left alone to burn to the ground. Less work for the firemen.
There are endless stories about the troops who see the success and don’t want to be brought home, so their hard work could be undone by more terrorists in their absence. And well as the massive reenlistments while in Iraq.
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM
This is surprising… do you think the Dems will count the overseas military votes this time after a review of the donation pool? The last 2 cycles… will you know the rest. The MSM was too busy on other BS.
Sergei on August 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
This clearly covers the time period when McCain was doing poorly in the Republican primaries. The total for all Republicans is higher than the total for the Democrat candidates, but not by as much as I would expect.
pedestrian on August 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Are they US troops or ????
William Amos on August 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Not at all. It only counts 134 donations over $200 and Obama supporters are more likely to donate than McCain supporters. Like I said, 800,000 people could donate $50 to McCain and not a single donation would show up in public records.
amerpundit on August 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Good one !!!
This is garbage.
stenwin77 on August 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Obama’s getting lots of donations from the German troops.
Frozen Tex on August 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Stupid polls! The only count that matters is the final count on election night.
carbon_footprint on August 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Can’t people technically put down any occupation they want on the donation forms…I question the accuracy. I’ll preface this by saying I was in a mainly white airborne (LRSC) unit out of Ft. Bragg, but during my time in (02-06) I only ever met three guys who either didn’t approve of us being in Iraq or who planned on voting Democratic.
davenp35 on August 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Women and minority officers is where the donations are coming from I’d guess.
DerKrieger on August 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM
wait a minute you’re kidding with this silly headline right? 134 troops gave to Obama out of how many deployed???? Cmon be serious. please.I know for a fact that the troops just don’t contribute. they don’t get paid that much to bother with it.
However if you look at the bottom of the article you will find a more damning number 859 troops gave to obama out of a total force of 2 million.
dude thats just sad.
elduende on August 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Remember when Ron Paul was touting the same type of “findings”?
It turned out that the “troops” also magically included all the contractors and support staff who were able to support a political candidate without violating the law. The troops themselves? Not so much.
Lehosh on August 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Headline is accurate. And the 134 number is accurate.
And the margin of error for this to predict who the troops are going to vote for? Oh, about plus or minus a hundred percent. But who’s counting?
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Blame the information for being informative.
The Race Card on August 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM
they don’t actually verify that they are really ‘troops’ and ‘deployed abroad’ though, just something you can mark if you choose(dishonestly if you wish). the paul numbers were debunked for the lie that they were, they are playing the “Politics of Moral Authority” is what these reports are about, not facts.
jp on August 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM
“With overseas addresses” would include Japan, Germany, and Korea, would it not? It isn’t necessarily troops that are or have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan- many of whom have returned home to US addresses.
MayBee on August 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Paul’s campaign forced you to mark something as your occupation, so he had no contributions in which no occupation was selected. Conversley, McCain and the rest of the Repubs. this wasn’t the case and a majority of their contributions came from people who did not select an occupation.
jp on August 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Opensecrets must be a liberal organization. The stats are irrelevant until they show a negative for Obama. I get it.
And, yes this is a ridiculous sample from which to extrapolate any meaningful information other than the fact that the telephones are in working order at the polling agency.
The Race Card on August 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM
There are about 130,000 troops in Iraq. I have no idea how many in Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, ships at sea, Europe, Japan, etc.
So we are talking less than 300 people. Big Fuzzy Duck.
It is not any indication of “the troops”. Most troops are surprisingly non-political. In fact, the last stats I saw showed that fewer than 5% deployed overseas even vote. And my guess would be that the ones doing the contributing wear their stripes down the side of their pants and not on their sleeves. In other words, I might guess most of those contributions are coming from the officer corps and not the enlisted ranks.
crosspatch on August 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Hmm, odd. Since it just seems that you are the one making that claim.
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Facts are indignant, again.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics…stats are whatever anyone wishes to make them. Brains dissect them for reality checks.
Entelechy on August 14, 2008 at 2:56 PM
btw, Its Illegal for active duty personnel to contribute and participate in Partisian Politics!
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/05/do-the-troops-support-ron-paul/
So if this is true, then give us the names since these Active Duty Troops are committing a crime OpenSecrets!
jp on August 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM
How about the 859 troops that gave to Obama out of a total force of over 2 million. Yeah that sounds like a real groundswell of support for obambi.
elduende on August 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I’d like to see the demographic of the soldiers polled. The media was happy to show the warm welcome Obama received from the troops when he went overseas – most of them were black.
Grafted on August 14, 2008 at 3:07 PM
whoops sorry did not see the comments were imported by Allah
elduende on August 14, 2008 at 3:07 PM
So does this mean that the Dems are not going to try and rob the fighting men and women of this country of their right to vote this election?
Nahhh!
They are too busy trying to get felons and illegals the vote. Heaven forbid that the folks that risk their life every day get the same treatment.
Hening on August 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I would love to see the numbers for the period after Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The period covered by this article is mostly the primaries.
MarkTheGreat on August 14, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Does it matter? The Left will sue to have military absentee ballots tossed out, much as they have in past elections.
Vic on August 14, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Six to one? Did you say six to one? I would have figured maybe two to one.
It would take a whole lot of “variables” to account for anything like a 6 to 1 difference.
Former soldiers will almost always [often/usually] gravitate to the anti-war party. This happens for obvious reasons. The men who have been in battle tend not to romanticize it and tend not to take it flippantly. The reasons for going to war need to be extraordinarily convincing before anybody who has taken a bullet, seen their friends take a bullet, or who has lodged a bullet in the enemy’s brain will put their support behind a war. Recent history has shown that the Republicans are more likely to use the military as a tool of policy rather than as a tool of defense. That is unacceptable to anybody {many/most] who has served.
- Rod Lurie
MB4 on August 14, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Yep, I’m voting NOT Donating for McCain.
kirkill on August 14, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Wow, I commented in the first 3 or 4 comments… I just came back to check in, and there are quite a few nut jobs in this thread!
Like, take a second to let this comment sink in:
DaveS on August 14, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Must I be the one to say it?
There are a lot of blacks in the military.
pseudonominus on August 14, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Obama’s people ARE McCain’s people. It’s the Republicans who don’t feel compelled to financially support either Democrat running for office this year.
highhopes on August 14, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Most of these donators have political aspirations for when they get out and Democrats are always looking for people with military service to fool the old people into believing that their candidate is pro-Ameican. There is no doubt that being able to show that you donated to the rats during your military service time would give you a leg up.
Buddahpundit on August 14, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Take a look at the data, in context of the article it could be interpreted as approximately one to one:
134 to Obama
158 to Somebody else
But a sample of 292 Active Duty Soldiers out hundreds of thousands does not a credible pole sample make.
Lawrence on August 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Poll, not pole. sorry.
Lawrence on August 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM
What we have here is yet another instance of ‘manufactured news’ by the MSM.
They are good at manufacturing, unfortunately for them people aren’t buying their product.
pocomoco on August 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM
For one, it only measures 134 donations that are over $200. If 800,000 soldiers donate $100 to McCain, that wouldn’t show up in public records. As I’ve repeatedly said, take a look at how Obama’s donations have translated to total support. He outraised McCain 2:1 in the latest monthly total, yet only leads by 1 point according to Rasmussen.
amerpundit on August 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM
323 donations, that is.
amerpundit on August 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Are they US troops or ????
William Amos on August 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I didn’t now that the “troops” of Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc., were allowed to donate to US Presidential candidates….Oh, MY bad, evidently they’re only allowed to donate to THE ONE, Obama (PBUH)!
Dale in Atlanta on August 14, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I’d like to see a breakdown of the MOS’s, national guard vs. regular Army, enlisted vs. officers, etc.
I was down in Fort Benning visiting an old battle buddy recently and there wasn’t a lack of conservatism. I really think it varies from branch to branch, and MOS to MOS.
The strangest thing, though, was the PX. Whomever stocks it must be a liberal, because I’d say conservative books were outnumbered 9 to 1. It was weird to see that…
watchmen on August 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM
DaveS on August 14, 2008 at 3:16 PM
just repeating the military regulations that they can’t participate in partisian politics, nothing to do with donating per se.
follow the link and you’ll see Paul’s actual Military support is about the same as what he pulled in the Primaries. 3%
jp on August 14, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Folks, if the young troops were smart, wouldn’t they be in college? They’re in the Obama demographic.
marklmail on August 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I’m not surprised. McCain is a well known double talking senator who has violated the Constitution more than once.
So why would the troops who’ve sworn to support and defend the Constitution, want to donate to a Senator who violated that Constitution?
Snake307 on August 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Well thats because very few Republicans are actually bothering to donate money to McCain this year. The real test is to measure the difference between Kerry and Obama as far as money raised by military members abroad is concerned. Also, I bet McCain is not getting 1/100th of the amount of money that George Bush got in our previous election.
Zetterson on August 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM
What I’m seeing here and there on the net from lefties in the military is that the less “dedicated” are bored and more interested in getting back to party.
Connie on August 14, 2008 at 3:34 PM
What a shame this reporting is because the premise they are attempting to show support for Sen. Obama by the troops based on some donations. Do you really think looking at 134 donations out of hundreds of thousands of troops deployed is going to tell you anything?
JeffinSac on August 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I’m very skeptical of this report and I asked the Opensecret folks to give me a source for the information.
I’m also skeptical of 134 G.I.s donating an average of $452. I was at the top of the enlisted pay grade and I damn sure didn’t have the money (or commitment!!) to contribute at that level.
I messed with the FEC database and found a few “USAF Reserves” but nothing leaped out.
Color me suspicious.
E9RET on August 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Hmmm. I got out of the Army and got a BA from USC and a Masters from American University in DC. Went in as a 11M driving a Bradley, sometimes a dismount, etc.
That statement reeks of Kerry-esque logic… There are a LOT of smart guys in the infantry (even if there are some losers–just like any other job).
watchmen on August 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjM2MTkxNzFiZmNhOWU3OWMwMGNjYWM4ZTY5ZDRhMDY=
jp on August 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Uhh… you can give, you can even speak, you just can’t be in uniform, or potray youself as speaking officialy if you do so.
You CAN be political in the military, you just have to be VERY VERY careful to do so.
As to the donations themselves? REMF vs. Line troops… Line is out busy protecting the country, Kickin A$$ and not bothering with names… REMFs are sitting in offices giving to the Chosen one… heck, I’ll bet most of em are even JAG type Officers… LOL.
Romeo13 on August 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM
could be higher ups figuring on Obama winning and trying to position themselves.
McCain will easily carry the military vote, just as he did in the Primaries. These type of numbers are pointless but they use them to try and create a myth and spin a fact.
jp on August 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Guardsmen.
yo on August 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I didn’t mean they couldn’t giver per se, just pointing out LoneStar times info, which is more behind the link like actual Vote totals. they were pointing out it woudl be illegal for the Military to really “support” ron paul. which was a joke to begin with.
jp on August 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I did a small survey on my block, and 4 of my 5 closest neighbors are voting for McCain. Therefore, McCain will win the election by over 350 electoral votes. It must be true, as the methodology is similar to the one above.
Think_b4_speaking on August 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM
It’s like the Ubama bumper stickers all over the D.C./NoVa area…it doesn’t indicate that the majority of people support him, it only indicates that the FANATICS support him.
SaintOlaf on August 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM
No, and the fact Opensecrets and the Paul campaign try to seize it to make that case show its all about politics and trying to make the public think that the Military is against US Foreign Policy. Thats the point of this, its an “Absolute Moral Authority” card talking point.
jp on August 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM
They’re called absentee ballots. I’ll be filling one out from Afghanistan. Duh.
Forget about breaking it down by pay grade, rank, deployed, or anything else. My money is on race for this one. No, this is not “playing the race card.” It’s just calling it like I see it. Black servicemembers are very much inclined toward voting for and supporting someone they “identify with” (something I’ve heard from several African American soldiers), whereas most whites and hispanics I’ve spoken to about the election are inclined to vote for someone who is more likely to push for bigger pay raises, and otherwise generally keep the military status quo (ie, McCain.) That’s the inside scoop from a Specialist, for whatever it’s worth.
Spc Steve on August 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Very ouch baby.
TheUnrepentantGeek on August 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM
E4 to E4: I should have said “Now who are they going to vote for.” (A more clear version of my “now how will they vote.” question.)
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 3:55 PM
No ouch intended, actually.
I was in the Guard during Gulf War I, and the thought of being deployed sent a lot of folks up a wall and eventually straight towards Clinton.
Just a thought.
yo on August 14, 2008 at 3:55 PM
They will take their money, but will they let them vote……………?
We sure don’t want to go through that again……….. right Obama?
Seven Percent Solution on August 14, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I have a slightly similar recollection. There was one soldier at the base, must have been guard or reserve, they were coming in at that time, that was just heartbroken at the failed ‘peace talks’ with Saddam. I thought to myself at the time, what the hell else are we here for? To turn around and pack up and go home after almost two months?
Part of my job description at that time was to ‘kill people and break things.’ Then again, I can see how some people who were used to showing up for the weekends were hoping that it would be just that. I don’t think that volunteer and reserve firefighters dread the time when they are called to put out a fire. Depends on why some enlisted in the first place, I suppose.
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Check out the FEC filings by “Employer”, look at how many are marked as “Not Supplied” or “None”, plus the Fact They don’t verify this. So a group could manipulate it for a Press Release to aide an Obama/Paul.
July for Obama:
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M7/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html
McCain:
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M7/C00430470/A_EMPLOYER_C00430470.html
now look at Paul, Not supplying an employer wasn’t an option on his site so everyone who donates has something listed. Nobody verifies it as fact though.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html
jp on August 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM
As someone else mentioned, this for the entire 2008 election cycle, up through June 31.
Obama’s been raising tons of money all along, but McCain’s fundraising didn’t really start to kick in until he clinched the nomination in March. In May, June and July, his monthly take was approaching Obama levels.
It’s just another theory. It’ll be interesting to see if McCain finally exceeds Obama in military donations by November.
juliesa on August 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Not to be too hyper critical, but this Obama donation poll thing is pure unadulterated Bulls**t.
coldwarrior on August 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM
The only time the Left cares about the troops is when they can use them as props and when they vote the way they want them to. Otherwise they are baby-killers and rapists, Bush’s foot soldiers, yadda, yadda.
Seixon on August 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM
That data is worthless without knowing whether the person is an officer or enlisted; Active, Guard, or Reserve; overseas location; deployed or permanent party; which service; etc., etc. In short, there is nothing to conclude from the data.
rbb on August 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM
First of all: Troops are deployed overseas, not ‘abroad’!
Second of all: This non-’story’ reads very much like an ABC bradcast from last month, where a female ‘journalist’ asked random soldiers in Iraq who they were going to vote for?
Six soldiers said ‘Obama’, while 54 soldiers said ‘McCain’. The ABC ‘journalist’ made those six soldiers the focus of her ‘report’ while completely discarding any mention of the 54 McCain voters.
When you want something to fit your template: Beat it to fit, then paint it to match!
Jack.
Jack Deth on August 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM
My guess would be that the troops don’t like how the Iraq war was handled by the Bush administration and see McCain extending their policy.
Tom_Shipley on August 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I no longer believe in Democracy.
madmonkphotog on August 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Also, that story says troops leaned heavily Republican in 2000. If any of you are watching Generation Kill — which, along with Operation Homecoming is the closest I’ve come to being inside the military — you’ll notice that it seems that troops love to bitch about highers up (often times, rightfully so). So, it wouldn’t surprise that troops would favor the opposition party after 8 years of one commander in chief.
Also, with troop deployments stretched out so long, I think it’s natural for troops to favor a candidate who’s promising to bring them home soon over one who’s saying stuff like “we’ll stay there as long as it takes.”
Tom_Shipley on August 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Oh, nonsense.
And Tom, stfu. Your silly opinion on this bs story is as meaningless as the story itself.
Jaibones on August 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Makes perfect sense. Except to the 1,215 US servicemen in this photo.
Or this one.
wise_man on August 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
This news blip tries to suggest something for which there is scant evidence to support. First, I’m not a statistician but I am a vet who has served overseas and the donations and the sample would seem to me to be insignificant without having the ability to dig into the numbers or have a larger sampling.
It would be more interesting to know the branch of service or theater from where these donations originated. After all, we have a very large military who are spread throughout the globe and the human toll of combat has been largely born by the Marines and Army.
Obama’s world view seems to run counter to military culture (particularly of the Army and Marines) so I am dubious as to the value of this story.
One last point, administrative or non combat related MOS’ are likely to have greater access to computers than combat related MOS’ as well as officers versus enlisted.
Moreover, there may be other divisions within the sample which might not be evident but which might impact the donation count.
For example, much has been made of the fact that one component of Obama’s core support rests with college educated, under 30 crowd. So it would be interesting to know if a large subset of his overseas donations came from Air Force officers stationed in Germany vs a squad leader in a rifle platoon in Afghanistan or Iraq.
moxie_neanderthal on August 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM
One other theory then I’ll shut up:
Back when the new GI Bill was being debated and voted on, Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette made several psots to the effect that the Democrats were positioning the bill to make the Republicans look bad. Secretary Gates and McCain were in favor fo a different version, but the Dems and the msm made them out to look like they didn’t want a new GI Bill at all.
Also, the Dems tacked a lot of bad pork to the bill just to make it veto-bait, so the president would look like a creep vetoing it. They refused to offer up a clean bill that everyone could vote for in good conscience.
Dems used this to paint McCain as not caring about the troops. I don’t know if the actual troops noticed what was going on, but that number of donors is too small a sample to be indicative of anything anyway.
juliesa on August 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Yep. Blacks comprise a significant portion of the Army and I would expect a fairly large subset of these folks to favor Obama. However, translating “favor” to a vote is another thing.
moxie_neanderthal on August 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Inquiry: What is the U.S. troop’s Black/AAmerican(NO typo)-to-Other ratio? Math: 90% (LOW estimate of No. of Black voting for The Obamboozler) of 11% (Black % of U.S. population) is about 10%.
With this information one can understand more clearly whether a “6-to-1″ margin is significant (NOT referring to for-propaganda-purposes) or not.
Lockstein13 on August 14, 2008 at 6:09 PM
An absolutely meaningless statistic.
rplat on August 14, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Obama’s a noob and cont be trusted at a time a war..
Way would be want a noobie as commander-in-chief?
Chakra Hammer on August 14, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Why would be want a stupid noobie as commander-in-chief?
Chakra Hammer on August 14, 2008 at 6:13 PM
“McCain outperforms Obama in kippah sales”
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/146162.asp?source=rss
pedestrian on August 14, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Why?
OneGyT on August 14, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Yes, of course…
That’s why we saw those huge crowds of our military personnel, cheering and yelling “Yes we Can” everywhere he went, thanking them for their Bravery, Courage, and Sacrifice.
franksalterego on August 14, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Yes, of course they did.
That’s why we saw all those huge crowds of military personnel, cheering and yelling “Yes we Can” whenever he thanked them on behalf of a grateful nation, for their Courage, Bravery, and Sacrifice.
Didn’t we?
franksalterego on August 14, 2008 at 7:51 PM
’scuse the double
franksalterego on August 14, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »