U.S. Forces Abroad Give to Obama Over McCain by 6:1 Margin

This kind of undercuts the notion that military voters would rather see a Republican in the White House next fall, or John McCain instead of Barack Obama.

During World War II, soldiers crouching in foxholes penned letters assuring their sweethearts that they'd be home soon. Now, between firefights in the Iraqi desert, some infantrymen have been sending a different kind of mail stateside: two or three hundred dollars -- or whatever they can spare -- towards a presidential election that could very well determine just how soon they come home.

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.

This is not a normal occurrence -- it's a map-changing one. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush outraised Al Gore among military personnel by roughly a 2-to-1 margin. In 2004, Bush's advantage over John Kerry in this metric was 1.5-to-1. Some analysts may try to explain this disparity away -- some in the article linked above, for instance, suggest that making contributions to an anti-war candidate can stem from news of an extended deployment, or that Obama is simply more savvy about online fundraising than McCain. But does go beyond this. Contributions do not overwhelmingly shift merely because of technology. There is something much more fundamental occurring -- a shift within the military away from supporting the GOP because that's the way it's done towards a willingness to support the Democratic Party, which in fact is much better for the American soldier (and indeed the nation as a whole).



Display:


There's something happening here (none / 0)

What it is, ain't exactly clear.  There's a man with a gun over there telling me I've got to beware.

Stop, children, what's that sound?  Everybody look what's going down.

And by "going down," I mean John McCain.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST

Re: Unworthy (none / 0)

People in the Military make basically SQUAT DOLLAHS PER WHATEVER TIME PERIOD you want to look at. Therefore the actual dollar numbers look minuscule, but they aren't really.  
 The ratio is significant because it is so frigging lopsided.

Were the numbers reversed, I believe that there would be many showing great concern, but since they are what they are, they are 'completely irrelevant'?

puh - leeze......


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST

Re: U.S. Forces Abroad Give to Obama... (none / 0)

Obama has 134 donors in a group of over 300,000 total personnel overseas giving an average of $450. That's under 0.05% participation.

As Obama passes 2 million donors, he's getting ever closer to 1% participation of eligible citizen donors.

Military gifts are a bad barometer of military sentiment.


by JoeFelice on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST

Re: U.S. Forces Abroad Give to Obama... (none / 0)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've been saying the same thing elsewhere.

A self-selected sample of 160 troops out of 300,000 just doesn't tell you much.


by RT on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Center for Responsive Politics, (none / 0)

How  about some background for this  group such as Chairman, funding sources, office address. Maybe it is another lie by John Edwards et al. Make me feel better.


by joliepoint on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:57:07 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.