Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Tops in Donations from Troops

By Matthew Mosk
An analysis of political contributions from soldiers on the battlefield has produced some unexpected results.

The Center for Responsive Politics has found that the presidential candidate with a record as a bona fide war hero is garnering far less financial support from the troops than the Harvard-trained lawyer.

"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," the report said.

The report also included this surprise: "Members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008.... Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel have gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama."

The analysis of campaign records found Obama has raised more than $60,000 from 134 military service men and women who are deployed overseas. McCain has raised $10,665 from 26 donors.

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 14, 2008; 2:54 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , John McCain , The Green Zone  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huck vs. Mitt -- Again
Next: Obama Rounds Out His Tax Plan

Comments

cukxwr tlyj qgypar ajtmeyw piqlet jkpaxtmcw ozgxrnct http://www.ckbt.kixlv.com

Posted by: iylu peswgd | August 23, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

rlqgenzik ufvgtr uqpmfea qryobwjf yztmauk gpbutkrei xjgowavd

Posted by: bdlnimzur ensq | August 23, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

enzlj sdhmn dtkcj jdshma
http://autorover.fizwig.com/music453.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

dqkfzb wyiuv xrsgpoq shoqci
http://autorover.freewebhosting360.com/music9422.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

tqvchxe fszlido dkvoay drbyzt
http://autorover.hothostcity.com/music4220.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

voypbmh kvaothwjx sbcjhev mwlfydoc rgwsxtec lygownm odie http://www.kvotjfqim.vbmpysn.com

Posted by: bqenx pstfw | August 22, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

ikgyw rdih pqvtkjchb dhkajmsgu vhftql umogxkprz bmaoz

Posted by: qhzoiej qirmz | August 22, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

wiofuv eqytm otxyguw zdvifhw
http://autorover.freehostplace.com/music9161.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

ypwe xarnbj urzwmb rmltz
http://autorover.gigazu.com/music895.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

ypwe xarnbj urzwmb rmltz
http://autorover.gigazu.com/music895.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

yzomkqd heac rdqgp ljwkf
http://autorover.hothostcity.com/music4516.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

sykup mqbcgpo xhdi mldn
http://autorover.myhosting247.com/music9357.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

javl idefht rikquag qsdwfrz
http://autorover.free-web-hosting.biz/music8299.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

tbqkvx qndaj nglj vblgjc
http://autorover.gigazu.com/music1003.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

kwprxv yamkexw bifwek tbjispr
http://autorover.freehyperspace3.com/music5961.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

kwprxv yamkexw bifwek tbjispr
http://autorover.freehyperspace3.com/music5961.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

sdcoa qmxpw wuoehs fhbcw
http://autorover.10gbfreehost.com/music4884.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

lerxa xyzbkge lbcxvqn kgmvy
http://autorover.247ihost.com/music8027.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

rotyw zbhwgca jqyoxg bfeotyp
http://autorover.10gbfreehost.com/music4670.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

zuagqk nwkqxe mnypl
http://autorover.fizwig.com/music8863.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 4:52 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

hrzdlyk ierduh fijmt zpcik
http://autorover.007gb.com/music3169.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

nfka ujvasfi rnqca ajhsik
http://autorover.gigazu.com/music9381.html music

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 22, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 21, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: music | August 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

khzqopf grtn enpft rodgf
http://autorover.freehostplace.com/music4789.html music

Posted by: music | August 21, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

ubaxmse jmtlx avwh rkscl
http://aftra-chicago.quotaless.com/richard1822.html richard

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

sbglnv uxsm qrxehtg nhfklet
http://aftra-chicago.110mb.com/richard888.html richard

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

rmqs pyzugk murbglz kfhqpw
http://reverse-glow.hostedwith.us/richard9885.html richard

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

rmqs pyzugk murbglz kfhqpw
http://reverse-glow.hostedwith.us/richard9885.html richard

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

fqcxjt bdko oquklrd lxawf
http://rewire-brain.madoo.com/richard5552.html richard

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: richard | August 21, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Oi people
I truely love the template of truthisawoman.wordpress.com. Looks good, keep it up!
anyways..
Im a very "devoted" christian and I guess I have a couple questions on my mind..
I've been thinking a lot about dating.. but im not sure where to begin.
My coworkers have been telling me christian dating is the way to go.. so I've done a little studying on [url=http://www.breakingthelight.com/?christiandating=375]austin christian singles[/url] and found some stuff on [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breakingthelight.com&btnG=Search]google[/url]
Would be great to listen to your input.

Posted by: christian dating | August 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Oi guys
I truely love the layout of truthisawoman.wordpress.com. Looks good, keep it up!
anyways..
Im a very "strong" christian and I guess I have a few questions on my mind..
I've been thinking a lot about dating.. but im not sure where to start.
My coworkers have been telling me christian dating is the way to go.. so I've done a little research on [url=http://www.breakingthelight.com/?christiandating=317]100% Free dating sites for christian people[/url] and found some stuff on [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=breakingthelight.com&btnG=Search]google[/url]
Would be cool to hear your input.

Posted by: christian dating | August 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

uqsogfh pyldjx
http://remington.freehyperspace3.com/in240.html rekaan http://remington.freehyperspace3.com/in240.html >related.htm spyware relax ng validator

Posted by: rekaan related.htm spyware relax ng validator | August 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

pbrz hvgws mrubgh kipzvqc
http://agri-king.host-itnow.com/in2952.html rekindled love poetry http://agri-king.host-itnow.com/in2952.html >relational aggression intervention relaxation techniques to help induce labor

Posted by: rekindled love poetry relational aggression intervention relaxation techniques to help induce labor | August 20, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

zvqfls bhwkg mnqxs nbmstjx
http://remington.700megs.com/in3364.html rejime http://remington.700megs.com/in3364.html >relais uffizi hotel florence relatos de infidelidades

Posted by: rejime relais uffizi hotel florence relatos de infidelidades | August 20, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

gzxpc rhjk tncxsp jrqk
http://reiter-and.fr33webhost.com/in1435.html rejection site myspace.com http://reiter-and.fr33webhost.com/in1435.html >agrostis capillaris relativity clothing brand

Posted by: rejection site myspace.com agrostis capillaris relativity clothing brand | August 20, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

fqrpc drcluh
http://agri-king.blackapplehost.com/of7333.html rejuvenate wood floors http://agri-king.blackapplehost.com/of7333.html >relate to me thicker than water relax by frankie goes to hollywood lyrics

Posted by: rejuvenate wood floors relate to me thicker than water relax by frankie goes to hollywood lyrics | August 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

gpvtwm
http://reiter-and.325mb.com/in8115.html reitz union university of florida http://reiter-and.325mb.com/in8115.html >agrsmmsg.exe spyware agriturismo biologico cibo

Posted by: reitz union university of florida agrsmmsg.exe spyware agriturismo biologico cibo | August 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

hrqgesf hcoe tvfm
http://reiter-and.007gb.com/of2518.html agua caliente spa and resort http://reiter-and.007gb.com/of2518.html >aground oil run tanker relative brightness binoculars

Posted by: agua caliente spa and resort aground oil run tanker relative brightness binoculars | August 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

hrqgesf hcoe tvfm
http://reiter-and.007gb.com/of2518.html agua caliente spa and resort http://reiter-and.007gb.com/of2518.html >aground oil run tanker relative brightness binoculars

Posted by: agua caliente spa and resort aground oil run tanker relative brightness binoculars | August 20, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

kdorz zobg plhoy
http://restourante-rive.seitenclique.net/remax4816.html rekindle love poems http://restourante-rive.seitenclique.net/remax4816.html >relational aggression and girl relaxation retreats uk

Posted by: rekindle love poems relational aggression and girl relaxation retreats uk | August 20, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

scmv teivfap xsrmz uoqfb
http://agri-king.myhosting247.com/in7180.html rejuvenate cabinet http://agri-king.myhosting247.com/in7180.html >agronomist jobs agricultures in india

Posted by: rejuvenate cabinet agronomist jobs agricultures in india | August 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

lesrx
http://restourante-rive.hostevo.com/of1635.html reiter and hill washington dc http://restourante-rive.hostevo.com/of1635.html >reksio agro-industrial consulting

Posted by: reiter and hill washington dc reksio agro-industrial consulting | August 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

iofnxbj dhlx gwkeqma
http://restourante-rive.seitenclique.net/in1748.html rekha wallpapers http://restourante-rive.seitenclique.net/in1748.html >agroecological zones relaxation response herbert benson

Posted by: rekha wallpapers agroecological zones relaxation response herbert benson | August 20, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

sniuk
http://agri-king.c0n.us/of3481.html rejoice midi http://agri-king.c0n.us/of3481.html >agropecuarias en lima peru relatos de sumision

Posted by: rejoice midi agropecuarias en lima peru relatos de sumision | August 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

zkqtef gmua kzuwqg pstbomnh nhxiu glxfzc tgwd http://www.fvuzeb.dvshfoue.com

Posted by: avuxjcm ygahc | August 20, 2008 5:35 AM | Report abuse

dwgxykvl vpkzcatfr amzfbo vymfpkz fdhiwjsa losmwrzvb lfwxou

Posted by: hvytldz pfkqtud | August 20, 2008 5:34 AM | Report abuse

Piss on McSame and the Obommunist. Vote Libertarian!

Posted by: Dan Lyons | August 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Ari = Dumbass

Quit hiding behind a faux representation of intellect.

Posted by: tanker19A | August 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

This is absurd - it's a statistically insignificant number, less than 200 total donors measured. Out of 2 million members of the Armed Forces, we're supposed to extrapolate a political meaning from less than 1 percent of 1 percent?

Uh, huh. Shoddy reporting.

Anyone who thinks the U.S. officer corps is going to lean Obama is nuts. Never going to happen.

This is like the first New Hampshire town that votes in the primary. Something like 10 of 18 voters went for Obama, so that must mean something in a wider context!

Lazy and stupid. And the Left will grasp at anything these days because it knows the superficial "rock star" aura isn't enough to win the White House. A candidate with absolutely no accomplishment but a speech in 2004, some time in the statehouse and time as a community organizer ... America isn't going to buy that nonsense come election day. Hell, the Dems in Congress never even trusted Obama with a legislative leadership position!

Posted by: Bill | August 15, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

McCain appeared ready to drag America into a 3rd front the other day with his threatening Russia. Does America need someone who quick on the trigger of war right now? He has already embraced Bush on Iraq? Because of Stop Loss some of our sons and daughters have already served 2 tours in the war zones. Many have now serving their 3rd or 4th tours. We have children now who half of their lives have known nothing but war and in two years will be asked to serve somewhere in a war zone in this world perhaps in Afghanistan, or Iraq and now perhaps fighting Russia. Peace has become a distance memory.

Already China has move ahead of the America in Manufacturing. After a 30 year program on energy savings Germany is in a better position to face the future then we are. Special interests like the Oil company executives need their profits in their lifetime at the expense of America’s future.

It not too late for America. Its not to late to save the future for our children. Thats why I’m voting for Obama.

Posted by: Bobby | August 15, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

WTF? The article lists facts and speaks for itself. It doesn't pro-port itself to be a national poll or referendum on the candidates. All these semantic arguments don't mean a thing. How can anybody draw some these insane conclusions out side of the context. Having spent better than 6 years overseas in the military I can tell you, soldiers are not subject to the propagandized pageantry of the con media like Rush, savage fox news and the rest of the Murdoch minions that poses as journalism in this country. A soldier witnesses first hand the consequences of the ideals they serve. What should be noticed is how many service members can see the failed policies of this undertaking and want these war mongering imperialistic fascists gone.

Posted by: Average joe | August 15, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone with an IQ above 85 believe that the Republicans have the answers to the problems facing our nation? Does a constitutional amendment outlawing the burning of the flag help solve our national problems? Are you better off now than you were from 1992 to 2000? If you answer yes to these three questions, then you win the booby prize, a trip to nowhere land. Happy landing!!

Posted by: DavidGD620 | August 15, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

There is a strong repudiation of McCain's contention that the troops are committed to our Iraq mission. They are honorable people who are doing their duty but this is a strong repudiation of what McCain stands for. Combining Obama and Paul compared to McCain is 106:11 and that is nearly 10:1. Of those who wished to express their commitment there was a strong sentiment against McCain.

The candidate McCain does not stand for what the troops stand for when you compare this years results to 2004.

As to whether the Paul supporters break for McCain, I have no clue. What I am confident of is that the election results in 2008 will not be as favorable this year as in the past.

It is my understanding that the economy is more important to the troops than I would have suspected. In a population that is fairly Republican there clearly has been a shift in sentiment.

Posted by: Ronnn | August 14, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Ant,

But what if there's just not that many people involved like in this case? There are only a few thousand donors. And there's really not any speculation here.

"Obama Tops in Donations from Troops"

TRUE

"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"

TRUE

"Members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008"

TRUE

There's no speculation.

Posted by: Joseph | August 14, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion all speculation about national behavior based on such a small cross-section of the electorate is dumb. I work in research, and not the phoney politics, opinion poll kind, and we don't consider a sample of less than 10000 respondents to be statistically valid. Look at customer satisfaction surveys for cars, it takes over 100k people to construct a valid survey. Sure the number of choice options is higher, but look at the variation of results generated by different political opinion polls conducted in the same period. Margin of error + or - 3 % doesn't cut it. We'll know who wins once the votes are counted, anything reported before is speculation.

Posted by: Ant | August 14, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Jerry Mander,

I didn't say that. It IS significant that the ones that could donate donated more to Obama. That doesn't mean that Obama is favored in military... just means that more donors supported him. Is that not significant?

I'm not saying that press doesn't promote their own agenda because they do... A LOT! But the article is just listing facts from some report. Does that mean they're trying to persuade their readers? Maybe. But why do people automatically assume that every time? How should this have been done so you wouldn't think they were trying to make it seem significant? What should have been done differently? I mean look at the article. It looks pretty non-biased to me. Just stating facts. Should they have not reported the facts so you and many others don't perceive it like they're making it significant?

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Although if DisFisCon is right - and he seems to be speculating pretty heavily also - then we may witness the first year in a long while that the military has broken with the hawks!

Posted by: Jerry Mander | August 14, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Looks like it works. .0997% is correct.

Ok so the question is, what does that mean? "some guy" seems to agree that it doesn't mean anything (which seems to be correct, I guess), but thinks that this article wasn't meant to make it seem significant. I think that's a completely BS argument.

It could just be that most military simply don't donate because they don't think it's appropriate.

It may just be that we'll have to wait for election day to see how the military vote. Until then, this is just really, really useless speculation.

Posted by: Jerry Mander | August 14, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Confused,

I'm working on the math right now. We'll see if Ari's right. If he's right, he's right.

But if he's wrong, then that's just to be expected.

Posted by: Jerry Mander | August 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Paleo...

You don't. That's the point! For all you know I (and all the other "military" or "military family" on this thread) could totally be lying. Most probably are.

Posted by: charliehorse | August 14, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

How do we know YOU'RE not lying, charliehorse?

Obama for Pres!!!

Posted by: PaleoNeoCon | August 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

My brother did two tours of duty in Iraq, and he said that most people who post on the internet claiming to be military, or ex-military, are usually lying just to bolster their case. Sad, right?

I feel like that's what going on with most of the supposed "military" on this comment thread.

Look, I think one thing that both GOPers and Dems can agree upon is that faking military in order to make a point is just pathetic...

Posted by: charliehorse | August 14, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

DCX - Isn't "p" 3 million? I mean that's how many people are in the United States Military in total. About half are active duty and half are reserve.

If that's true (that's what Ari wrote below - he may be totally wrong, though; someone should check), then Ari's calculations are probably right.

Look, I'm just confused here. Why isn't Ari right? He may be insanely obnoxious, but it just seems like he's right...

Posted by: Confused | August 14, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

DisFisCon,

"...It's what conclusions you can draw about how the military will vote that matter. And you can't (yet) draw a lot of conclusions about that from the small amount of data..."

I totally agree with this and wasn't arguing it. I think if someone perceives this article to mean that the military favors Obama, it is the fault of the reader, not the article. It is only stating that military donors have donated more to Obama. It is not a huge margin when comparing ALL military but for overseas donors the margin is huge. I do think this is significant.

You brought up the point that not all can donate for whatever reason which is true. I don't think this point nullifies the stats though. Of course if EVERYONE could donate, the stats could change drastically which proves that nobody should come to a conlcusion from the stats or this article. But, the stats do prove that out of the POSSIBLE donors, Obama was favored. This means something to me.

Say there's 6 billion possible color choosers but you have to pay. Only 3 billion can afford to pay. 2 billion choose blue and 1 billion choose red. This doesn't prove that the majority of everyone prefers blue but it proves that the majority of the ones that can afford it do.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

cloud9ine, green libertarian and Army Officer - thank you both very much for injecting some new ideas (and very welcome facts and experience-based thinking) into this discussion.

I find it amazing that we're arguing so vehemently over this, and mostly either from the left side or from somewhere in the middle. Not because we're all a bunch of idiots with nothing better to do, but because many of us posting seem so unwilling to believe that what we desperately want (a social liberal but hopefully fiscal conservative in the White House) might actually happen. We're trying to talk ourselves out of believing that the signs are finally pointing our way.

But you know what? They're still pointing our way! Enough people really are fed up with the religious right, "spend but don't tax" policies, assinine foreign policy, widespread violations of our beloved Constitution, and massive corporate malfeasance that they really do want change. Widespread change. "Throw them all out and try again" change.

Posted by: DisFisCon | August 14, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

cloud9ine - I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't the question then be if those numbers were a good indicator of how the military ended up voting?

And then, even if they did represent what ended up being the military vote, the question would THEN be whether or not this was simply a coincidental correlation.

In other words, I sort of hear what DisFisCon and Ari are saying - these numbers basically just tell us about a tiny amount of people.

We could try to come up with reasons why the vast majority of soldiers AREN'T donating, but that would just be unprovable speculation...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't seem like this report is helpful either to McCain or Obama. It's just kind of meaningless, really... Maybe I'm missing something and I would be happy if someone pointed that out.

Posted by: Jerry Mander | August 14, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Ari - if you cannot tell me anything about the p-values involved, then you have no right to make any claims about "statistical insignificance". If you don't know what a p-value is, you REALLY shouldn't talk about statistics.

Statistics draws conclusions about a population from a subset of the population. In this case, the population is "the military" and the subset of the population is "those who donate money".

Personally, I think it's quite interesting not that Obama gets more money from the military, but that candidates opposed to the Iraq war (Obama, Paul, and Clinton) together received three times as much as the candidate for the war (McCain). From overseas troops, the figure is roughly 10:1

Posted by: DCX2 | August 14, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little confused. Why is everyone talking about this study as if it's a sample? It pretty clearly is not.

Look, I may not agree with "Ari," below, but isn't he right that this is not a sample (which might be statistically significant), but a tally (which, at this size, certainly is not)?

Posted by: Confused | August 14, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The results are unexpected only to the nitwits at the Post who have a need to nurture the Maverick War Hero narrative. Those in the military that see unending extensions of service see a lame old man from the last century with a botox soaked trophy wife and nine homes. In other words a regular guy.

Posted by: branfo4 | August 14, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

before someone says i made that up, check

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/13310/2809/639/567882

Posted by: cloud9ine | August 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Only $200 and above are categorized. As to the same kind of donations from 2000 or 2004,

in 2000, in the same category, Bush outraised Gore 2 to 1.

In 2004, Bush outraised Kerry 3 to 2 in the same category.

In this line, it is very significant that Obama outraised McCain by 6:5 is significant.

Posted by: cloud9ine | August 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Many nation polls are based on a sample size of about 1000-2000, (less than .0001% of likely voters) and yet are considered statistically significant.

This analysis is little different than polling obviously, as if it's methodology is sound, this is based on what military folks ACTUALLY contributed.

Also, as with all polls, or things like this, it is important to look at trends over time.

Assuming that the SAME methodology was done in previous CRP analyses of military donations, then what appears significant is that the Democratic nominee is doing much better than previous Democratic nominees.

This is a shift.

BTW, I know several folks who have served over there, enlisted level. Even absent signing or re-upping bonuses, they can CLEAR some $40-50K during a year or so of deployment.

So while I expect the CRP's analysis skews towards (higher paid) officers, it's probably not as much as you might think.

Posted by: green libertarian | August 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so Obama receives $450 per person and McCain receives $454 per person and the totals for each are less than 150 military people. They are obviously not the enlisted soldiers. 250 officers making political donations while trying to figure out where they will be situated in the next administration....doesn't tell me much.

Posted by: CAtransplant | August 14, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I believe these stats are only insignificant if the reader is perceiving this article to mean that more military prefer Obama.

Granted, the press does have it's way of trying to prove something with insignificant stats.

However, if only looking at the point of this article which is that more military donors give to Obama, then I don't the stats are insignificant at all. The donations of ALL military to candidates are pretty close although overseas donors have donated far more to Obama.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Correction:
The last paragraph is false. The article inserted the amount received by Ron Paul for the amounnt received by McCain. McCain actually received much less.

According to the report, the donations are as follows:

Obama $60,642
Paul $45,512
McCain $10,665

Posted by: Noticed | August 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Some guy:

Your analogy doesn't seem (to me) to be particularly reasonable, or to shed any light on this. From your posting:

"There are 6 billion people on this planet. Lets say that 500 of them prefer the color blue, while 10 prefer the color red. The rest of the people don't care. THE FACT IS that more people like the blue. It is irrelevant that the other people don't care."

I think that maybe what we should think about is "There are 6 billion people on this planet. In order to be allowed to register a preference for a favorite color you must pay at least $250. Of those 6 billion people, 500 register a preference for blue, while 10 register a preference for red. The rest of the 6 billion can't be bothered to register a preference, given the cost and their paltry income level."
Maybe you can see that the fact that the sample wasn't exactly random (likely biased by available income, whether there was a spouse in the states who could more conveniently make a contribution, passion, and who knows what else) so you can't draw too much of a conclusion.

Nobody cares whether the military contributes $40K or $60K to an individual candidate. It's what conclusions you can draw about how the military will vote that matter. And you can't (yet) draw a lot of conclusions about that from the small amount of data. Now if you knew what the contributions looked like in August of 2000, you might be able to compare apples to apples and draw better conclusions, or at least different ones, or maybe the same ones...

Posted by: DisFisCon | August 14, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

A new Colorado poll finds McCain ahead - which is actually quite a stunner as this is the second poll to EVER find such a result from this state. Full roundup of today's polls: http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/08/14/thursday-polls-4/

Posted by: Dan | August 14, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

While Ari's constant responses do annoy me, he does have a point that these numbers are statistically insignificant. Most military personnel do not contribute because:
a) they don't make a ton of money
b)with a poor economy why give money to politicians to make advertisements
c) They work for the government and are supposed to show some impartiality

However voting is free and extremely encouraged in the military. While I don't think there are as many Republicans in the military as before, the majority in my experience do tend to be conservative.

I have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and will return to Afghanistan in a year, and while I have not decided who I am going to vote for, I don't want to pull out of Iraq too rapidly. Though I don't think who is elected matters in that regard because to be honest, both candidates will exit Iraq in the same fashion. That is my opinion.

And what is with all the angry attacks that don't really focus on this article? It would be nice to see more debating during this election and less name calling.

And before anyone attacks this post, this is all my opinion and I in no way mean for this to sound as the opinion of the whole military.

Posted by: Army Officer | August 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

The good news is that officers are for Obama, almost 2 to 1 over McCain in terms of number of donations. That shows that the people who make decisions about how the military should operate are definitely choosing Obama over McCain.

It also tells us that McCain is getting larger donations from richer people, but fewer of them. While all donations are above the $250 mark, you can see in the totals that Obama and McCain's dollar amount is relatively close, but the number of donations is less so.

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama. Those making the $2,300 maximum are choosing McCain, but less of them.

Since soldiers make about $2,000/month, these $250+ donations listed below are undoubtedly coming mostly from officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Ari:

Thanks for correcting my thinking with

"This is absurd. In every single election contest, at LEAST 0.4% of officers vote Democratic (probably more, in fact). So why exactly is this "big news?"".

To be honest, I don't have a ton of facts in hand, like exact counts of who votes which way. It was my understanding (based on God knows how many articles read over the last 20 years) that the military heavily supported the Republican party. It's not the "fact" that Obama is "clearly" getting overwhelming support from the military that's the shocker here (as much as James would like to focus on this); it's that McCain ISN'T "clearly" getting overwhelming support, even with this tiny, self-selected sample (presumably) of military voters.

I still think this is a big deal, even with the statistical insignificance. But, as I graciously pointed out earlier, there's a lot of "expert" opinion and analysis flying around here, and I'm not so sure that mine is any better than your opinion or even James' opinion.

You do pose a fascinating question that I hope some of the media pick up - if the military leans toward Obama (both a Democrat and a member of the non-incumbent party), is this very different from where they usually are?

Remember that supposedly one of the elements that put Bush over Gore 8 years ago was absentee ballots from overseas military, which "overwhelmingly" supported Bush. And one of the reasons why Gore called it quits was because he didn't want to impugn the military by challenging those overseas ballots.

Posted by: DisFisCon | August 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Gooby - You are so right. There is no stopping the global agenda.

Posted by: AmeliaSpater | August 14, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Not surprising that the people tasked with actually fighting the wars want no parts of a senile warmonger as President.

Posted by: chris c | August 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

I love your last post. Your childish attitude totally shows your intelligence. The fact that you couldn't understand my very simple analogy shows your intelligence too.

I think you are misconstruing this article to mean that more people in the military prefer Obama. At least that's how I'm perceiving your posts. You keep pointing out how a very small percentage of military donate. It seems like your point is that there is a huge percentage of military that doesn't donate, that might prefer McCain. Are you incapable of understanding that this article is just dealing with facts of overseas donors and it is not trying to imply that Obama is preferred in the military?

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Bwahahahah....

Ari's writing his thesis!!!!

Hilarious!!!

And this little twerp is lecturing the rest of us on intelligence?

Call us in about 20 years Ari, when you've matured a bit and have a real degree. Better yet, have your mommy call us first to make sure it's OK.

Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

yes, the paragraph that Matthew is wrong, he mixed up McCain and Ron Paul.

The Center for Responsive Politics is a fairly left leaning organization, I'd like to see their methodology vetted. They may very well be right, I'd just like to know from someone who is good at analyzing and dissecting FERC reports that CRP's methods are sound.

Posted by: green libertarian | August 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

READ THE REPORT BEFORE COMMENTING:EDUCATE BEFORE YOU COMMUNICATE.

Contributions from U.S. Troops Deployed Abroad Recipient Total Number
Obama, Barack $60,642 134
Paul, Ron $45,512 99
McCain, John $10,665 26
Huckabee, Mike $7,950 10
Thompson, Fred $6,350 7
Romney, Mitt $5,550 10
Clinton, Hillary $3,240 6



Posted by: middleman | August 14, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Bwaahahahahha,

McCain/RNC are getting sued by Jackson Browne for illegally using his song in a TV ad.

What a bunch of crooks. Really... just stupid of McCain.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Mccain fights for the war industry and barack for the soft targets. Soft targets with as much brain as guns will always support barack.

Posted by: maz hess | August 14, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, while it's been really enjoyable being the most intelligent and sophisticated commentator on this thread...I actually have an M.A. thesis to get back to writing.

It's been fun!

Enjoy your irrelevancy!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The good news is that officers are for Obama, almost 2 to 1 over McCain in terms of number of donations. That shows that the people who make decisions about how the military should operate are definitely choosing Obama over McCain.

It also tells us that McCain is getting larger donations from richer people, but fewer of them. While all donations are above the $250 mark, you can see in the totals that Obama and McCain's dollar amount is relatively close, but the number of donations is less so.

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama. Those making the $2,300 maximum are choosing McCain, but less of them.

That's officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

DisFisCon,

You write:

"The fact that ANY military donors are turning their backs on John McCain is the big news. "

This is absurd. In every single election contest, at LEAST 0.4% of officers vote Democratic (probably more, in fact). So why exactly is this "big news?"

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

DisFisCon,

Also, McCain is a lot less popular in the military than you'd think.

His role in the USS Forrestal fire and in denying the existence of MIA's after Vietnam turned a lot of the military against him. Many Republicans have even commented on this fact. Then there's just his performance record, which was terrible. He was consistently at the bottom and only his Admiral daddy bailed him out.

The fact is, soldiers and military personnel just know more about the dirty details of McCain's extremely poor service record than the average American does.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Military Donors Back Ron Paul & Barack Obama:


The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign cash, looks at the 2007 money-raising and finds the following:

"In 2007, the 2008 presidential candidates raised $582.5 million and spent $481.2 million."

"In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000."

Full story here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/military-donors.html

Posted by: casey | August 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

James,

Your analysis is fine up until the "good news..." part.

It's good news in the sense that having donors is always nice. But what does this have to do with the military? Nothing.

It tells us nothing about officers because the only data you have is on less than one percent of them (I'm doing the math right now). So basically less than one percent of the military is going for Obama. Score!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

DisFisCon

Actually it is significant. If soldiers are only making about $2,000/month, then they simply aren't donating the $250 needed to get into this report.

What this report tells us about is officers.

The fact that officers are choosing Obama over McCain... a pretty unique thing historically for the Democrat to be winning that competition... it's EXTREMELY significant.

It also tells us that McCain is getting larger donations from richer people, but fewer of them. While all donations are above the $250 mark, you can see in the totals that Obama and McCain's dollar amount is relatively close, but the number of donations is less so.

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama. Those making the $2,300 maximum are choosing McCain, but less of them.

That's officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The John McCain campaign and the neocon smear machine are up and running saying all kinds of nasty untrue things again. In order to be "fair and balanced" I put together a very true ad about McCain to help this conversation along.
This McCain presentation combines information on his military past from The US Veteran Dispatch combined with other common knowledge from his McCain's own admissions and the public record of his life and career.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oot9IbQxrI
-

Posted by: Roveboater | August 14, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

You guys (Ari and James) are nuts. Let it go. Here are the facts that I read from the article:
- A very small percentage of the military gets caught contributing to political campaigns.
- Of that very small percentage, there's a tendency to support Obama.

Now my "expert" analysis:
- The total number of military who contributed at all is too small to convince me that Obama's "lead" is statistically significant.
- The fact that ANY military donors are turning their backs on John McCain is the big news. BIG news. McCain's a former POW, and at least somebody in the military finds even his relatively loose association with the current administration so distasteful that they would rather have a lawyer who doesn't pay his parking tickets as president.

I'm not a statistician, but I think I'm smart enough to draw some conclusions on my own...

Posted by: DisFisCon | August 14, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It also tells us that McCain is getting larger donations from richer people, but fewer of them. While all donations are above the $250 mark, you can see in the totals that Obama and McCain's dollar amount is relatively close, but the number of donations is less so.

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama. Those making the $2,300 maximum are choosing McCain, but less of them.

Many of these $250 donations are probably officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

It also tells us that McCain is getting larger donations from richer people, but fewer of them. While all donations are above the $250 mark, you can see in the totals that Obama and McCain's dollar amount is relatively close, but the number of donations is less so.

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama. Those making the $2,300 maximum are choosing McCain, but less of them.

That's officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

James,

It tells us nothing of the sort. In fact, of those making big donations (400+), while slightly more donate to Obama, those who donate to McCain are donating more generously.

And besides, the percentage of donations we are talking about IN TOTAL is basically nil. This study tells us about a bunch of oddities (on both the right and the left) and tells us NOTHING about 99.993% of the military.

So let me ask you, would you feel confident saying that you know what 3 million people think when the only definite thing you have to go on is the opinion of .0997% of those 3 million?

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Ari,
"
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

Posted by: Homer Simpson | August 14, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

You aren't getting it. Yes if the article was about how much military donates then an article titled "Study Finds Troops Generally Don't Donate" might be good. But this article is not about how many troops donate. It is about the ones that are overseas that DO donate and how they donate to Obama more. Do you not agree with my analogy? It is pretty plain to see. Should I say it again?

There are 6 billion people on this planet. Lets say that 500 of them prefer the color blue, while 10 prefer the color red. The rest of the people don't care. THE FACT IS that more people like the blue. It is irrelevant that the other people don't care.

Now if this was about how many people prefer a color then yes it is true that not many do... but THE FACT IS THAT MORE PEOPLE LIKE THE BLUE.

It is easy to see the fact Ari.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I have two divergent thoughts here. I am very glad to be a liberal and did not shy away from the term when were we considered the scum of the earth. However, I believe John McCain is a war hero. He had an opportunity to obtain freedom and passed because of his loyalty. I believe that the statement "[You (John McCain) served] in the military after graduating at the bottom of your class" is probably true. I refuse to take away his hero status. Having said that he would make a terrible president. The very best indicator of his NOT supporting the troops was his opposition to beefing up the GI Bill to the level it was after WWII. McCain said it would hurt retention. If you want retention offer the troops positive incentives to stay in and don't get us involved in unnecessary wars. His logic was don't let them have the good things when they get out and they will stay in because they lack the choices education would offer and funding during enrollment would make possible.

Posted by: DeanW | August 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama.

That's officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Soon the US will sit at an obscure corner in this world and lick its wounds like the British and the Germans. They too thought they could conquer the world

Posted by: Chin | August 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

DCX2,

Put simply, this study is totaling the amount of donations from servicemembers, and keeping track of the number that donate.

It is NOT taking a sample FROM AMONG donors - it is counting them all up. Thus, this study tells the whole story. It is not a sample, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

In any event, my point is still valid - this study tells us about a statistical pimple. Basically, the only useful thing we can get out of it is that servicemembers generally don't donate.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

What this tells us is that people who make $250 donations are choosing Obama.

That's officers, ie people who know what needs to be done with this war. Good news for Obama indeed.


Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't be more accurate to say you need a nap, honey? Mr. James and Mr. some guy are making sense and you are getting a little grumpy-umpy with your silly-willy parsy-warsy argument. It is quite simple, the military personnel who are contributing are contributing more to Mr. Obama, not Grampa. Now run upstairs and get into bed. Mommy will bring up some milk.

Posted by: Ari's Mommy | August 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Ari is an idiot. some guy/any guy is right. If McLoser had more money, you'd bail out on your own argument.

Posted by: j frog | August 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I have read that the troops couldnt even afford the flak vests or something. That their families had to send them money to buy equipment. (?) And they cant afford medical care when they come back. One guy who lost both legs after serving in Iraq on tv last night, his wife had to go out and get a job! So what is this bs? These guys running for president are MILLIONARES! They shouldnt ask troops for NOTHING! They are already putting their a--es on the line for our country. This is ridiculous.

Posted by: John | August 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Ari loves his paddington bear,

Ahhh... thanks, you've made this blog "bearable."

bwahahahahah.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

DCX2,

Ok, that's a fair enough point. But before looking at selection bias (which I am not alleging), wouldn't it be fair to determine whether this is a statistically valid sample?

And I think you are misunderstanding how this study was conducted. It was not measuring a sample. It was measuring TOTAL donations. In other words, what are you talking about?

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

some guy,

That's an irrelevant statement. The fact that a statistically irrelevant percentage donates to Obama, but a slightly less amount donate to McCain tells us NOTHING about troops overseas. It tells us about statistical anomalies.

Only the Washington Post comments board could get excited about a mathematical pimple.

Again, wouldn't the headline have been more accurate had it read, "Study Finds Troops Generally Don't Donate"?

And wouldn't it be more accurate to measure military preferences by VOTING records, rather than donations?

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Ari - I think you misunderstand how statistics work. When polling is conducted it generally only samples a few hundred to a few thousand people, but there are potentially millions in the sample population. This is roughly in line with the sizes involved here (a few thousand points out of a million)

Now, you MIGHT be on to something regarding selection bias, but we need further evidence before saying anything conclusive. These numbers would, however, suggest further investigation before jumping to conclusions.

But why let a reasonable, logical argument get in the way of your unconstructive ad-hominem attacks?

Posted by: DCX2 | August 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

My mommy thinks I am the smartest 5th grader she knows. James, you are a big booger face McCain hater! Poopie-breath!!

Posted by: Ari loves his Paddington Bear | August 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

How is this War Criminal a war hero? What did he do to be called a hero, dropping bombs on innocent defenseless women and children?

1. Why would a "war hero" refuse to release his Complete Military Records? What is he hiding? Kerry signed the Form 180 waiver and released all of his records. Old Fart Adulterer Songbird Make it a Hundred Traitor War Criminal McCorrupt refuses to do so. Why?
2. He received numerous demerits at the US Naval Acadamy and graduated 894 out of 899. His 4 star Admiral daddy pulled strings to get him into the Academy. Daddy helped him become a pilot in the Navy despite his despicable record of alcoholism, drug use and womanizing at the academy.
3. He admitted to collaborating with the enemy providing them with military targets, operations and plans.
4. He killed 168 US sailors on the USS Forrestal being a hotdog idiot, and his 4 star Admiral daddy promptly
transferred him to another ship
5. He admitted to being a War Criminal on 60 Minutes, 1997, CBS News,for bombing innocent women and children
6. Why did the Vietnamese give him the codename Songbird?
7. He made dozens of Anti-American videos for the enemy denouncing America.
8. Why did the Vietnamese erect a bust in his honor?
9. All Republicans in Congress voted to release government records of POW/MIA on Vietnam, only 1 person blocked it, Old Fart Songbird Traitor McBush. Why did he want those records sealed?
10. Wouldn't the Navy wash his records? His father and grandfather were both 4 star admirals in the Navy.
11. How did he receive medals which required 2 eyewitnesses when there were none?
12. How did he get 28 medals in less than 20 hours of combat? Did his 4 star admiral daddy give him medals he did not deserve? Some grunts fighting on the ground for 7000 hours received no medals
13. He told his captors he was the son of a 4 star Admiral who was the head of Pacific Military Operations to receive special preferential treatment and medical care, violating Military Code of Conduct.
14. There is no evidence he was tortured
15. There is no evidence his plane was shotdown. He was an incompetent pilot having crashed 4 other Naval planes previously.
16. He also violated military uniform code of conduct by having numerous sexual relations with subordinates, a crime.
17. He was not eligible to be released as a POW based on military protocol, the oldest POW is released first.
18. Daddy helped get him jobs in DC after he returned.
19. Immediately, upon returning he started having sexual affairs while still married with 2 kids, gold digging until he snagged rich Cindy whose daddy owned the 2nd largest Budweiser distributorship.
20. Why does he want to stay in Iraq forever? Research his Lobbyists and their clients, especially, Rick Davis and Charle Black.
21. Some Vietnam Vets believe he is the Manchurian Candidate, do some research on that.
22. Why does Old McAdulterer refuse to deny if he committed adultery while married to Cindy. We know he did with Carol, his first wife.
23. Why does Old McWomanizer refuse to deny whether he had sexual relations with Lobbyist Vicki Iseman
24. Why did he oppose the Boeing Air Force Tanker deal in favor of EADS? Did his Campaign Manager, Lobbyist Rick Davis and National Co-Chairman Lobbyist Tom Loeffler (both hired by EADS) affect Old McCorrupt's decison?
25. Did Campaign Manager, Lobbyist Rick Davis client Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska influence Old McCorrupt after hosting his 70th birthday on his yacht in the Adriatic Sea complete with prostitutes? Deripaska supplies EADS with aluminum and does significant business with Iranians.


Google these to learn more

McCain Songbird
McCain Adultery
McCain Lobbyists
McCain Big Oil Lobbyists
McCain Charlie Black
McCain USS Forrestal
McCain Rick Davis
McCain Temper
McCain Infidelity
McCain Phil Gramm
McCain Enron Loophole
McCain Arizona Mob
McCain Kosovo KLA Muslim Terrorists
McCain Fortune
McCain Traitor
McCain Flip Flops
McCain Torturers' Lobby
McCain Manchurian

You can vote for the Old Fart Adulterer Songbird Traitor McWarCriminal, no one cares. You only answer to God. You have enabled one Born Again Faith Based Pro Life Lying Coward Axis of Evil WMD Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief War Criminal Terrorist already. When you enable a War Criminal Killer, you are equally Guilty of their Rapes, Murders, Torture and War CrimesYou are equally guilty in all the American Dead, the Rapes and the hundreds of thousanda of Murdered innocent women and children slaughtered by our own American Terrorist Killers. Have fun in Eternal Hell.

If Old Fart Adulterer Songbird Traitor War Criminal McCorrupt wins, his administration will be the most corrupt in history.


What Would Jesus Kill?

Posted by: Why is the War Criminal hiding his Military Records? | August 14, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

We don't believe you know what you're talking about. Just like the troops don't believe McCain knows what he's talking about.

You're just going to have to learn to live with that.

Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

James,

The "military" is not doing anything. This is classic. You are actually trying to generalize about the opinions of 3 million people based on the opinions of less than one percent of that group.

Wow...

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

In contrast, John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term, with his economic speeches outlining $3.4 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years beyond what President Bush has already proposed and geared even more to high-income earners. The McCain plan would lead to deficits the likes of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Aww, I think Ari's desperate little posts are soooo cuuuute!

Posted by: SAGG | August 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: I'm Ari and I approve this message | August 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

Your point is irrelevant. You keep saying that a very small percentage of military donates to candidates. WE GET IT. The fact is that out of the military THAT DOES DONATE overseas, Obama gets more.

There are 6 billion people on this planet. Lets say that 500 of them prefer the color blue, while 10 prefer the color red. The rest of the people don't care. THE FACT IS that more people like the blue. It is irrelevant that the other people don't care.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

In contrast, John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term, with his economic speeches outlining $3.4 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years beyond what President Bush has already proposed and geared even more to high-income earners. The McCain plan would lead to deficits the likes of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

James,

You don't "approve" of my math? What does that even mean? I know it's upsetting to you that you are being outsmarted at every turn, but at least give me something as black and white as math!!!

I just don't understand why, exactly, you think the results of this study matter?

Again, this study is based on the voting preferences of LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the ENTIRE service!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

WHAAAAAAAAAAA!! No! No! No! Obama can't have the figures! Noooo!! I want my Mommy!!

Posted by: Ari loves his blankee | August 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"In contrast, John McCain offers what would essentially be a third Bush term, with his economic speeches outlining $3.4 trillion of tax cuts over 10 years beyond what President Bush has already proposed and geared even more to high-income earners. The McCain plan would lead to deficits the likes of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

Regardless of your childish personal attacks, I think I'll take the word of WAPO and the FEC over yours pretty much any day of the week. You're a good example of why nobody trusts Republicans and why the military is now donating more to Obama than McCain.

Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

some guy,

The reason it matters is as follows:

Suppose there were 3 hundred people voting for class president. In order to try and determine whether the winner would be Barry or Johnny, we studied which students said they were planning on voting for either Barry or Johnny.

After the study, we found:

1) less than 1 student said they would vote for Barry

2) less than 1 student said they would vote for Johnny

...Would we have learned anything from this poll? The answer, obviously, is no. THAT is why this study is irrelevant.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

My name is Ari and I love to fight. No I don't! Yes, I do!

Posted by: Ari is holding his breath | August 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

I'm neither refuting or approving of you math. I don't care about your math because you're some loser blogger on WAPO and I just couldn't care less about your opinion.

What I do care about is this. Enjoy:

Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

James,

You can keep posting the numbers from now until next week. That won't change the fact that my math is correct, and you're just making a fool out of yourself.

Are you really arguing that it is significant that Obama has gotten more money from less than one-hundredth of one percent of troops?

Do you dispute that a more accurate headline would have read, "Study Finds Troops Prefer Not To Donate To Political Campaigns"?

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

Why are you arguing the percentage of military donors? What the hell does that matter? The article is saying out of all the donors overseas, Obama gets more. Who cares what percentage of military donates.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

These are the political contributions from ALL Military Personnel.

That's what the chart says.

ALL Military Personnel.

For other information, I suggest you go read the article.

Contributions from All Military Personnel
Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

**********Your article contains wrong info****************
Based on the link you provided, the figures you have for Mccain are wrong. Mccain only got $10,500 from 37 military donors.
**********************please, revise your article****************

Posted by: Sam | August 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Ari, is it--? Tell us how you REALLY feel!
Face it--Obama's more popular with the troops over your hero, Mccain. The sooner you accept this, the better it'll be for you and your conservative ilk.

Posted by: SAGG | August 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

James,

It's very cute watching you try to recover from this, but I just happen to be smarter than you - you're not going to win this!

Let's do this again: I'm not disputing that Obama has gotten more contributions.

What I AM disputing is that Obama has gotten more contributions from a SIGNIFICANT amount of troops. He has not. He has gotten more out of a pool of .0997% of the entire military. Basically, nobody.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Contributions from All Military Personnel.

Yup. ALL Military Personnel.

Recipient Total Number
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

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

James,

Add up all of the numbers you just posted (not the dollar amounts - the first 6 digits, but the amount of givers - the last 3 digits), you should get 2991.

Divide that into 3,000,000, and you should get .0997%

THAT'S what we're talking about here.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

I just cut and paste.

It doesn't matter if the last three numbers are too close to the others.

Obama is still at the top of that list, brainless.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

James,

...And if you actually read the chart in the report, you would see that my math is 100% accurate. Basically we're dealing with .0997% of the ENTIRE military. And even less than that of actual overseas-deployed troops!

Maybe if you learned how to read and how to count we could agree...

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Here are the combined totals from all military personnel, not just overseas. Obama still kicks McCain's puny butt. Just click on the link above in the article to see these stats at the bottom.

Total Number
Obama 335,536 859
McCain 280,513 558
Paul 232,411 537
Clinton 167,050 376
Huckabee 66,751 127
Thompson 46,400 93
Romney 43,307 96
Giuliani 22,050 47

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

James McDouglas,

You have serious problems. You do not know how to read a chart. Go back to the report and check your numbers - you attached the dollar amounts to the amount of people who donated as if the amount of people were simply the last three digits in the dollar amount.

Basically you have the IQ of a rock.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

My source is the link above in the article. You might try actually reading these articles before you run around like a rightwing chicken with your head chopped off.

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

You're right. I see things make sense in the report. They got the name wrong in the article. It's Paul that got 45,512 not McCain.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The 6 to 1 ratio is contributions by soldiers who were deployed to a combat zone at the time of their contributions...

My guess is those contributions were made by the spouse of a deployed soldier in the soldiers name. The spouse who likes the idea of getting her hubby home ASAP.

Some other things The study has overlooked are, what Occupations were these soldiers in who contributed. Were they in a Combat MOS or a Combat Support MOS...

My personal experience leads me to believe that the Combat support has a higher draw to liberals who are mainly in the military to recieve educational benefits... I like to call them FOBbits, because they never leave the base.

Last, what are the statistics breaking down the contributions from minority groups to Obama... This study as far as I am concerned is BUNK if the majority of the total increase in contributions matches the increase of donations coming from The Military Black minority to the Obama campaign. I would be willing to bet alot of money this being the case.

Posted by: Karl | August 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Just a shout out to our troops. We know you are checking the internet and following the elections. Stay safe ok!

Posted by: Eagle Ch’áak’ | August 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Gee why am I not surprised that a majority of our troops don't support McCain.

McCain is just like Bush, he uses the troops as campaign props but when it comes right down to actually voting to give our troops more money for things like continuing their education and better health care he cuts and runs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK_9sI7hzAc

Posted by: orangesatan | August 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

James McDouglas,

What is your source for that?

Whatever it is, you are probably misrepresenting, because there are only about 3 million people in the entire military. So basically your figures can't be correct. And they don't correspond even slightly with the numbers in the report.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

You're wrong. The stats on all military personnel are below and Obama leads significantly.

Total Number
Obama 335,536 859
McCain 280,513 558
Paul 232,411 537
Clinton 167,050 376
RNC 135,902 219
Huckabee 66,751 127
Thompson 46,400 93
Romney 43,307 96
Giuliani 22,050 47

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

some guy,

Read the report, not just the article!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"2) The figures on 134 vs 99 was not meant to represent all donations, just those from high dollar doners."

Check the report. Even if you add up all of the donations to every single candidate during the ENTIRE election cycle, we are still talking about less than one-hundredth of one percent of the entire military (.0997%).

Basically, not even a statistical blip!!!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Here are the combined totals from all military personnel, not just overseas. Obama still kicks McCain's puny butt.

Total Number
Obama 335,536 859
McCain 280,513 558
Paul 232,411 537
Clinton 167,050 376
Huckabee 66,751 127
Thompson 46,400 93
Romney 43,307 96
Giuliani 22,050 47

Posted by: James McDouglas | August 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

And what's McCain economic plan again? Oh yeah, stay the course with Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans, the biggest corporations and the Big Oil companies!


When the American public disapproves of Bush's Presidency more and more each day, why does McCain continue to increase his support of such increasingly unpopular policies and positions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

Posted by: ZappoDave | August 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Ari,

No the math doesn't work. 3rd paragraph says Obama has raised six times what McCain has raised when it comes to overseas military. Last paragraph says Obama has raised 60,000 while McCain has raised 45,512.

60,000 does not equal 45,512x6.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Captbilly,

The military "as a group" did NOT give more to Obama. If you add Obama and McCain's donaters together, we are STILL talking about less than one-thousandth of one percent of the military. And less than one-hundredth of one percent of active duty troops.

Despite what the headline says, this study doesn't really tell us anything about the military!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

1) I've heard the brass favor McCain while the vast majority of the troops favor Obama.

2) The figures on 134 vs 99 was not meant to represent all donations, just those from high dollar doners.

3) Obama is an elitist alright, and like Tiger Woods at the top of his game.

Posted by: Mike | August 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I am former military and one thing for sure, where is McCains record in the military. To use only his POW status without the awards and recognition when you serve, especially as an officer tells me alot. Tells me what kind of leader he will be of men. Now a man who can inspire to follow is leadership, not good old boy or priviledged leadership, so I can believe the troops would rather have Obama. It don't matter though, cause bigger veterans groups endorse Obama over McCain.

Posted by: juggernut | August 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

jrb,

The math works, you just switched the numbers around by accident!

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It may also be interesting to note that according to this study, while more military members have donated to Obama than McCain (by 35), those troops that donated to McCain donated an average of $12 more to their candidate than those troops that donated to Obama.

So if the Post was interested in coming up with extremely misleading headlines that don't really tell you anything about what is actually in the article, couldn't they have just used this: "McCain Troops Donate More Than Obama Troops!"

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

COOL AID DRINKERS, you all are!!

Posted by: xinunus | August 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The only truth about this is that the soldiers (and their families) wants disparately for the war to end quickly and they hope Obama can deliver that. This has nothing to do with McCain's military credentials or anything else. I don't blame them. It is just human nature. The sad truth is this is not that simple and is something Obama alone can decide. Some already said that the war was won and withdrawal is in the planning. Obama in fact, is not going to be a factor even he got elected. He should not attempt to take the credit either because he did not do anything to win the war and allow the withdrawal to take place.

Posted by: indi | August 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | August 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

horray captbilly with some sense. Anyone else have common sense here?

Posted by: Qwertylove | August 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

@trey-trey Do you really beleive the ridiculous nonsense you type?

Staged? LOL..are you on conspiracy theories now that you can't accept reality?

Give me a break..you are pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

As an ex USAF pilot myself I have to say that the military in general tends to vote pretty conservatively (a function of an all volunteer military, since liberals tend not to enlist). It is quite significant that such a generally conservative group would give more money to Obama than McCain. For all his retoric and ancient history, McCain doesn't actually appear to care about the troops, and they seem to recognize this.

Posted by: captbilly | August 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, $60,000 does not equal 6x $45,512. The link to the report does not work - are we missing some information here?

Posted by: jrb1ercru | August 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand. In the USM, there are about 1.4 million men and women on active duty. There are an additional 1.5 million on reserve duty. Out of these nearly 3 million servicemembers in the United States Military, .0045% donated to Obama, while .0033% donated to McCain.

So basically the Post is all excited because less than one-thousandth of one percent of military members donated to Obama, and slightly less than that donated to McCain? Sounds like a Pulitzer-worthy scoop to me!

In all seriousness, though, wouldn't the headline have made more sense if it read, "Study Finds Troops Generally Don't Donate to Political Campaigns"? But no, I guess that wouldn't be snazzy enough for the Post.

Perhaps a better indication of which party the military is more likely to favor is to look at voting records - a tricky subject since there are various legal barriers that prevent scholars from performing a comprehensive analysis. All I know is that Washington Monthly had a piece on this a couple of years ago, and the consensus among scholars seemed to be that the ratio of votes for GOP to votes for Democratic Party is about 2-1; 3-2 among active duty members, and 8-1 among officers. In the 2004 election, the ratio was slightly greater in favor of the GOP. Maybe things have changed since then, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Ari | August 14, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

@trey-trey. Wow, do you people just talk out of your ass?

Both myself adn my brother (active forces in Afghan and Iraq) have donated our money to Obama. We beleive in him. What is so hard about that?

What is so great about senile McCain, who by the way is not a war hero. Hero is an overused word. He did nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh just saw post from Wil Turner that suggests it was a typo. The 45,512 is what Paul has raised, not McCain.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Huge mistake is an understatement. This war in Iraq has caused a massive global financial crisis which has only been exasperated by the US housing market. The republicans are doing their very best to ruin life for all but the ultra-rich. It never ceases to amaze me that the vast majority of Republicans are ultra-rich or ultra-poor redneck, bible thumper backward people. Is it because the latter is so mentally deficient that they allow this propaganda to work and yet the middle class see right through it?

I really feel sorry for all the men and women of America both military and civilian if the republicans maintain any remnants of power in this country. They are going to make our blessed country fail due to their unabated corruption.

Posted by: TimL | August 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

@so-called military personnel. How does serving in the military after graduating at the bottom of your class and commanding non-combat troops qualify you for President of the United States?

Have a basic understanding of economy, foreign affairs, and law. Thorw in some well-rounded policies and speak intelligently. Lead with cinviction but compassion. This is a leader. This is Barack Obama.

McCain has done what now?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Civilian African-Americans are overwhelming in their support for Senator Obama, and I suspect some of the African-American troops share the same political opinions as their civilian counterparts.

The numbers overall seem too low to be of much statistical importance.

Posted by: Seycha | August 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

i simply dont beleive this. the consensus was (when we were deployed) 100% mccain. also, no one there is willing to send obama or anyone else 447.76 of their HARD earned money. the way the left plays games i would'nt be at all surprised to later find out that this was staged. i.e, several service members giving large sums to inflate the numbers... or claiming to be service members, when they are not!

Posted by: trey_trey | August 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Those arugula-eating, celebri-troops hate America! Sorry for the sarcasm.
I was in Iraq in GWI, and I support Obama. The troops are generally a younger demographic and come from minorities in a greater proportion as compared to the public. Also, Obama gets people fired up like steak and beer, McCain is like... well, like arugula!

Posted by: MotorFrend | August 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

McCain said it would be ok with him to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years.
If I was a service person in Iraq I would vote against McCain.
McCain has a mental problem folks.

Posted by: westexacan | August 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

As Mark Twain said to Matt. Mosk;

1) LIES!
2) DAMN LIES !
3) statistics

134 troops to 99 for a story-- when as many as 130,000 troops have been in theatre.

Where do they come up with these people and when do they go back to school ?
Eh Matt?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

They found Big Foot, And you will never guess what candidate he is supporting. Wow I figured he would be a libertarian. http://www.myhauntsite.com

Posted by: Peter | August 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Gammon, does the e-mail you received look similar to the one that has been debunked by the mainstream media, as well as snopes.com? See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

Just because you have "Dr." before your name does not make the statements you make or your source of information anymore credible.

Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused and maybe I'm missing something. The 3rd paragraph says

"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"

The last paragraph says

"The analysis of campaign records found Obama has raised more than $60,000 from 134 military service men and women who are deployed overseas. McCain has raised $45,512 from 99 deployed military-donors."

45,512 times 6 is well over 60,000 but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Maybe the 45,512 is not overseas donors but all military donors... Dunno was just confusing me.

Posted by: some guy | August 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The fact that only a couple of hundred people out the many thousands who are or have deployed donated any money shows several things. First, they don't believe that any politician is worth supporting. Second that they don't make enough to waste in on politics. Third, that they follow the letter and spirit of the regulations, that the military is to be non political. Officers are simply not allowed to express any support for any candidate. While the restrictions on enlisted is not as strict they certainly are not encouraged to speak out.

Posted by: JC | August 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

@Statistics - how many folks are included in a typical Gallop Tracking Poll? Remember, there are more than 300 million folks in the US.

Posted by: DavidKae | August 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

@Statistics - how many folks are included in a typical Gallop Tracking Poll? Remember, there are more than 300 million folks in the US.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow so many cool aid drinkers here! Has anyone ever thought that making CHANGE isnt always a good thing? There is good change and bad change, cool aid drinkers always assume its good. It is very naive to think its always good. Jimmy Carter was saying the same thing when he first ran for president and look what we got out of him? He tanked our economy, raised our taxes, produced gas shortages and spawned a future of terrorists that hate America because we became strong allies with Isreal. You all should really try and learn from history and stop acting like a bunch of cool aid drinkers.

Posted by: xinunus | August 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It's called sarcasm Ob08...sarcasm, learn it so Obama supporters don't look dumb.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Send this down the memory hole immediately along with veterans organizations "grades" of Obama's and McCain's voting records. Knowledge of these statistics would cloud the media message that troops and veterans love McCain, and that McCain is a rough tough war hero and Obama is an effete frenchy, weakling.

If the MSM is to continue supporting McCain, this kind of reporting must stop.

Posted by: Sean Stuart | August 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

wow Clugs, you are drinking too much Kool-aid.


Your opinion is not fact. Keep reminding youself so you don't sound dumb in the future, and keep telling yourself the race is close, we all find this funny.

Posted by: mary Ann | August 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

SpaceCat - please stay hidden. You're so out of touch and ignorant or maybe because you are one of the chickens who critize and too chicken to fight for your country.

This military family and many more support President Obama for what he stands for. "Supporting the troops."

Posted by: ob08 | August 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Matthew
Please note you have an error in your last paragraph. The 45K you mention went to Ron Paul, not McCain. McCain got only 10K. I found this out by following the link you provided.
Thanks.

Posted by: Chris | August 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I think SpaceCat is being perhaps iconic?

Posted by: SpaceRat | August 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Bill Gammon - I can see how people start spreading false rumors. You know what you said is completely false, but you write it anyways. No one claimed all the troops support him, the point is that more support Obama in donations than McCain.

Posted by: DavidKae | August 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Nice opinion Clugs, but you must only speak to the good ole' boys because my experience was quite the opposite.

Those who did not like Obama certainly did not like McCain any better. the thing Obama has going for him is they don;t know him yet. People know Mccain and still don't like him.

his policies DO NOT support the troops. Read up for yourself buddy.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

@Dr. Bill Gammon. Sir, you are over a 2 weeks late. You claim of "lot of the photo stuff overseas was staged and Obama was cold toward them." has been proven false by the military itself and the Pentagon.

Just because you have seen a few email mena nothing? I've seen email too, big deal.

In Afghanistan, the troops I met support Obama.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, and you can bet Ron Paul would have carried on receiving more contributions from the troops than OBama had the media (repeaters, not reporters) been able to be unbiased and had not worked so damned hard to censor Dr. Paul every chance they got. When media is owned by corporations who have defense contracts, there is a good reason why they don't want to give coverage to the REAL anti-war candidates? Now our troops are left with the GUESS of which Rockefeller CFR 'puppet' will be MORE likely to get them out of Iraq. Sad thing is, neither will. Both will take us into Iran. That's the globalist plan. You heard it here first.

Posted by: Gooby | August 14, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Look at the numbers folks...only 134 troops for Obama and only 99 for McCain. This tells you some things: troops are smart and stay out of the political money game and are troops are underpaid. We have over 130,000 troops in Iraq alone...this article is very misleading as the numbers are statistically INSIGNIFICANT.

Posted by: Statistics | August 14, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

As someone recently returned from Iraq I'll have to disagree with you "larry". Very few people in Iraq want to be there, but we know we have a duty and commitment to the people there. Without a doubt the majority know that McCain will keep the troops safer than Obama ever will be able to. War is the sad reality of our current world. Obama has said he'd return the troops to Iraq if violence flares up again. Well I can tell you violence will flare up again if we pull out immediately. That place is a week away from total anarchy at any one time.

Everyone I know in the service respects McCain regardless of who they'll vote for. The same can not be said for Obama. McCain has given his entire life to the service of this country. Obama has given very little, done even less, and criticized a lot.

Posted by: Clugs | August 14, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Nice injection of propaganda youself there "Dr." Bill.

Considering you provide no evidence or proof of anything you say, yet the donations speak for themselves.

Are you dumb or lazy or both?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Typo - the $45,512 was Paul, not McCain. McCain got about $10k, which makes the "6 times" actually make sense.

Posted by: Wil Turner | August 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Larry
SpaceCat gets it, it's called sarcasm.

Posted by: Scott | August 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

As a previously-deployed and still active duty member, I can't decide who I'm leaning towards.

i DO support the troops. i DID put my country first.

I admire and respect Mccain for having been a POW just like I admire and respect Obama for the changes he says he wants to make.

Posted by: Suzi | August 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Exactly PJ, but they will all be desk jockeys.

The real troops are obviously supporting Obama except for the few meathead farm boys in my platoon who would vote for a sandwich if it had an (R) next to it.

Posted by: King | August 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest you review your materials on this one......this really is false propaganda....
I have seen email from troops who do not support the man period....my understanding is a lot of the photo stuff overseas was staged and Obama was cold toward them.

Posted by: Dr. Bill Gammon | August 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Nice sarcasm SpaceCat.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Uhh, Larry I think SpaceCat was being ironic. This is a very telling little stat, I'm sure McCain will be all over this--getting his buddies in the military to "ask" the enlisted folks to donate to his campaign. Can't have McCain being embarrassed in this way.

Posted by: PJ | August 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

You don't get it because you do get the propaganda from the Republicans and not the reality of the troops in Iraq. The President and his party made a huge mistake and have made us less safe and they don't want to admit it. The troops in Iraq do know.

Posted by: Larry | August 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Why don't the troops support the troops? Why do the troops want to surrender to al Qaeda? Why aren't the troops putting country first? Why are they such elitists?

I don't get it!

Posted by: SpaceCat | August 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company