Who’s tough on national security, now?
According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.
Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall — whether stationed overseas or at home — are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.
Who’s the Daddy party now, asshats?
“That’s shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it’s about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one” in Democrats’ favor, said Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military. “That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans.”
Thanks, Bush. We owe you one. And what about McCain’s cherished Navy?
Individuals in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps have all leaned Republican this cycle, but the only branch in which that ideology has carried over to the presidential race is the Marine Corps, where McCain leads Obama by about $4,000. In each of the other branches — including the Navy, in which McCain served when he was taken prisoner during the Vietnam War — Obama leads by significant margins.
I guess Republicans are still okay, but warmongers are on the outs. Keep up the tough talk, Johnny, and you might just lose Pensacola.
“Who’s the Daddy party now, asshats?”
Awesome.
Adding, perhaps it’s more a case that the military realzied that the Daddy Party has turned out to be a domineering, abusive drunk who’s fucking up their lives and marriages, and they just want out of the family.
Be that as it may, McCain won’t lose Pensacola. Pensacola voters are certifiably insane. They’d sooner shoot Obama than vote for him.
Surely Richard Secord will find Obamajesus and change his ways….
Not a very long record of Iran-Contra guys coming to Jesus, as I’m sure you needn’t be reminded.
on the foreign policy fron events are in fast mode.
Musharraf is expected to resign.
While it is difficult to reliably extrapolate these numbers and say they are necessarily representative of allof the military, they are certainly quite a reversal from the last two presidential election cycles.
Recipient=
==
=
=
=
==Total
====Number
Obama, Barack——-$335,536——859
McCain, John——–$280,513——558
Paul, Ron———–$232,411——537
Clinton, Hillary—-$167,050——376
Rep. Nat. Cmte——$135,902——219
Huckabee, Mike——$66,751——-127
Thompson, Fred——$46,400——–93
Romney, Mitt——–$43,307——–96
Giuliani, Rudy——$22,050——–47
NRSCmte————-$21,885——–26
DNC Services Corp—$16,873——–53
Hard to argue with those numbers. Obama is at the top.
while they may be difficult to extrapolate, it seems reasonable to surmise that it isn’t the lower ranking troops that are responsible for the bulk of the donations. most of them are struggling to survive, financially, as it is, and spc. nava, quoted in the article, would appear to be an exception rather than the rule…with the caveat that these numbers, if l understand it correctly, do not reflect donations of less than $200…
Contributions from U.S. Troops Deployed Abroad
$139,900± / 292 contributors = $479± avg.
total for obama
$335,500± / 859 contributors = $390± avg.
in fact, this is acknowledged in the article:
this would seem to reinforce the supposition that the career military, from the joint chiefs on down, are tired of being the stick for the neoCONs.
Yes, I had seen that. I had already done a quick tally to see the average contribution and when it came up so high I looked farther into the article and saw what you referenced.
It is hard to draw any conclusion other than the one you point out. The leadership within the military is sick of how things are being run. The numbers show that pretty clearly.
There’s one supposition they make in the article that I’m not too sure I buy.
…………or maybe they could not.
I think they might be making too large a generalization about the usually more liberal young people-vs-less liberal elders and trying to conflate that with the views of ordinary soldiers.
Maybe the numbers this election will bear out their contention and turn past history on its ear. Time will tell.
l also thought that was a bit of a stretch, especially given the demographic make-up of the lower enlisted ranks.
but you’re correct on the primary point…we shall soon see.
come September when prices are due for another 30% increase, the focus will be
“It’s the Economic Pain”
In the supermarket this afternoon in the NE – the dairy and eggs isle. I couldn’t help overhearing a couple next to me shopping for eggs; (I’s say in their late fifties kinda middle class attire)
Eggs prices ranged from $2.19 for an 18 egg pack.(up from $1.59) – and $2.99/doz for organic raised eggs. Hubby picked up the eggs, looked at the $2.19 price, wife looked at their list and then they walked away – hubby saying to his wife:
“I guess no eggs this week”
This is America! The Iraq war was played to bring us cheap $1/gallon gasoline. Instead, we’re paying for the war at the pump..nothing left over for food and both the country and citizens are bankrupt.
Ya think people want to hear tough on national security or global warming talk?
How about the price of eggs and milk – basic staples?
Wow – only $3 for organic eggs! Where do you live??