Interesting Stats on Military Support For Obama

[Nintendesert]

So if we vote Democrat by such a wide margin, why do Democrats keep trying to disenfranchise us with our absentee ballots?

 

[xBiffx]

Way to tell half the story. But then again, the whole story doesn't fit your narrative.

Sources: http://www.examiner.com/article/gue...ndidate-military-campaign-donors-support-most
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/military-donors-still-prefer-paul.html

Older data btw.

 

[werepossum]

So if we vote Democrat by such a wide margin, why do Democrats keep trying to disenfranchise us with our absentee ballots?

Very good point. The military consistently votes more heavily GOP, and is giving money more heavily to the GOP. Perk has a point though; the military seems to generally like this guy, at least as seen from the outside. That isn't that surprising to me, he's generally been reasonably good to them. (Again, at least as seen from the outside.) He's reinforced when needed and withdrawn when he can.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Does this count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

I don't think it does. They never actually took to the streets.

 

[piasabird]

A large portion of the military is non-white minorities. So a lot of them might be minorities. You dont have to be a conservative to be in the military. It is one of the few places where uneducated men can earn a living wage with room and board.

 

[woolfe9999]

Way to tell half the story. But then again, the whole story doesn't fit your narrative.

Sources: http://www.examiner.com/article/gue...ndidate-military-campaign-donors-support-most
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/military-donors-still-prefer-paul.html

Older data btw.

No, the OP's article tells the whole story. It says that Paul was getting more donations before March, 2012, but that Obama got more in March.

That said, I'm not so sure how much we can read into a single month, particularly since total donations in that month were lower than previous months. The better interpretation is that it's more a shift away from Paul, who is now perceived as not being a viable candidate, than it is a shift toward Obama. Still, Obama is looking better than Romney. Not sure why that is.

 

[werepossum]

No, the OP's article tells the whole story. It says that Paul was getting more donations before March, 2012, but that Obama got more in March.

That said, I'm not so sure how much we can read into a single month, particularly since total donations in that month were lower than previous months. The better interpretation is that it's more a shift away from Paul, who is now perceived as not being a viable candidate, than it is a shift toward Obama. Still, Obama is looking better than Romney. Not sure why that is.

I suspect because unless you have followed Romney's actual career, you'd find him - confusing.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, the OP's article tells the whole story. It says that Paul was getting more donations before March, 2012, but that Obama got more in March.

No ...it does not ...

by this one measurable metric, donations over $200

It only includes donations over $200, there are metric fucktons of donations under $200, of which I would imagine a majority of military members would be making since junior NCO's and below don't exactly get paid like kings.

 

[blankslate]

WARNING! Positing any theoretical situation where Madeline Albright might be less than fully clothed threatens to break the Internet!

C'mon everyone knows that searching the term Google in the Google search page is the real danger to the interwebs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, the OP's article tells the whole story. It says that Paul was getting more donations before March, 2012, but that Obama got more in March.

That said, I'm not so sure how much we can read into a single month, particularly since total donations in that month were lower than previous months. The better interpretation is that it's more a shift away from Paul, who is now perceived as not being a viable candidate, than it is a shift toward Obama. Still, Obama is looking better than Romney. Not sure why that is.

That $200 is a sticking point. That is real money for most in the service. Someone has to be at the high end of the income curve or are highly politically motivated. Hard to know how the military thinks as a whole when the typical donor is most likely excluded.

 

[werepossum]

C'mon everyone knows that searching the term Google in the Google search page is the real danger to the interwebs.

😀