In the previous post, I pointed out that people "affiliated with the military" donated most to the two leading anti-war candidates, Paul and Obama. As it turns out, when you narrow the people "affiliated with the military" to actual "uniformed service members," Obama is the clear winner, with $27,000! A distant second is Paul, with $19,250, followed closely by McCain, with $18,600.
These must be Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers." Why do the troops hate our troops so much??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
With all due respect, but if you're going to laud the pattern of military contributions as evidence for the rightness of your cause, then you really should point out that 60% of all military donations are still going to Republicans (which is indeed a historically low figure, but it's still remarkably good compared to he overall figures).
Unfortunately the data doesn't provide enough evidence to rule out alternative explanations for the data - one obvious factor could relate to the fact that the US military is probably the most successfully integrated institution in the USA (up to 40% of manpower is black, IIRC) and Obama is the first credible black candidate either party has ever put up.
Also, given that we're talking about how the experience of the military may be affecting the pattern of donations, I would be very interested indeed in seeing if there is any difference in the pattern of donations between veterans who have actually done a tour in Iraq and REMFs back home. But again, the data is simply insufficient to draw any conclusions.
One final thought - if you track back through the links to the articles you post, it seems to be the case that the average military donation is about $500. Or to put it another way, Obama's $27k represents a princely 54 people. Out of a military of 2.2 million...
Random
(PS as it'll probably be mentioned, but Ron Paul's success isn't automatically down to him being anti-war either. If you track through the links again it apears that he's popular amongst the military because he's been a big campaigner for veteran's benefits and not necessarily because of his position on the war - but again, we simply don't have enough information to know what's going on.)
There are like 9 republican candidates and 2 democrat candidates. I'm not surprised at all that the military isn't interested in Clinton. Hardly anyone I know is interested in Clinton.
So, it makes sense that the donations from the democrats in the military would go towards Obama and the donations from Republicans would be spread out since there isn't really a front runner yet.
Ron Paul is popular among young people and fiscal conservatives as opposed to the religious right. The military tends to be young people.
I'll tell you who IS interested in Clinton.
Defense Contractors.
With all due respect, but if you're going to laud the pattern of military contributions as evidence for the rightness of your cause, then you really should point out that 60% of all military donations are still going to Republicans (which is indeed a historically low figure, but it's still remarkably good compared to he overall figures).
I wasn't really using it as evidence "for the rightness of my cause." This whole post and the one before it were more a satirization of Mark's arguments at Pseudo-polymath and evidence that he cherry-picks evidence.
Unfortunately the data doesn't provide enough evidence to rule out alternative explanations for the data - one obvious factor could relate to the fact that the US military is probably the most successfully integrated institution in the USA (up to 40% of manpower is black, IIRC) and Obama is the first credible black candidate either party has ever put up.
That's an interesting point. It's possible, I guess, although his support doesn't seem to be unusually high among African-Americans in general.
Or to put it another way, Obama's $27k represents a princely 54 people. Out of a military of 2.2 million...
Yeah, I know. But it says something, surely, that he and Ron Paul are leading the way in military donations, right?
So, it makes sense that the donations from the democrats in the military would go towards Obama and the donations from Republicans would be spread out since there isn't really a front runner yet.
Another good point, although the rise of donations to Democrats from the military is itself an interesting trend.
What "rise"? 22 people? That means that a couple dozen soldiers want out of Iraq now enough to support the most vocal "out of Iraq" politician who has at least a chance at running for President. That's a joke, really.
Meanwhile, Rush's "phony soldier" comment, which was about those who have lied about their military service, got $4.2 MILLION dollars donated to help the Marines. Not bad.
First of all, not that many people donate for political causes in the first place. Those that do represent the opinions of many others who don't donate anything. Other variables are involved. I am sure donations correlate with something, but what?
Post a Comment