Tales from the Trail

American troops put their money on Obama

August 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – Republican John McCain‘s warning that Barack Obama isn’t ready for the awesome job of commander-in-chief may not be registering with a key constituency: the American military.troops.jpg

According to a study released by the Washington watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics, U.S. troops, and especially those deployed abroad, are talking with their wallets and saying they want Democrat Obama as the next president.

Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than McCain and the “fiercely anti-war Ron Paul,” another Republican presidential candidate, CRP said.

According to the group, Obama received $60,642 in contributions from 134 troops deployed abroad. McCain only got $10,665 from 26 soldiers, while Paul received $45,512 from 99 troops.

Through June 31, CRP said contributions from all U.S. military personnel netted Obama $335,536, compared with $280,513 for McCain.

McCain, a Vietnam veteran and prisoner of war, has been a vocal supporter of the Iraq war, while Obama, who never served in the military, has campaigned on a promise of ending the war, now in its sixth year.

CRP notes the trend in campaign contributions is especially interesting given that those serving in the military traditionally lean toward Republican candidates.

But in the McCain-Obama race, only those serving in the Marine Corps are contributing more heavily to the Republican than the Democrat. Even the Navy, where McCain spent his military career, is favoring Obama by significant margins, CRP said.

One possible reason for Obama’s advantage: “The Obama campaign has just been so much savvier with Web-based donors. It may be a logistical question,” University of California political science professor Aaron Belkin tells the group.

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.

- Photo credit: Reuters/Mike Blake (U.S. military personnel salute at a baseball game, June 9)

Comments
13 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Gee, stats can lie, can’t they?
Ron Paul had more military donations than all other candidates COMBINED while he was still running. Now that he has dropped out of the race, it is not surprising that he is not receiving donations, and that Obama has now received more.
Unfortunately, Americans will be disappointed when Barack “There will be more wars” Obama simply moves the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. There will be more wars, just this time it will be a Democrat calling the shots – and now the other half of the country will have egg on their face.

Posted by akrian | Report as abusive
 

A quick FEC search, using army, navy, etc for occupation and APO, FPO, etc for address, confirms this report – by far the largest number of presidential contributions from military overseas are to Barack Obama, not John McCain!

The $452 average also seems accurate – almost all contributions to both candidates are $200 to $500 and there are many multiples!

The military closest to the battlefront are voting overwhelmingly with their hard earned salaries to elect Obama president! Does this mean they are unpatriotic, unAmerican, traitors? Or is there another explanation?

Posted by OregonPerspective | Report as abusive
 

Yes but to the best of my knowledge Paul had all beat on both sides of the isle up until about super Tuesday. Ron Kicked Obama and McCains butt all last year as far as troops go.

Posted by Jack D | Report as abusive
 

Republican John McCain’s warning that Barack Obama isn’t ready for the awesome job of commander-in-chief may not be registering with a key constituency: the American military.

Posted by George | Report as abusive
 

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 are 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 | Report as abusive
 

to Oregonperspective,

They are not traitors, but they are very close. I think it is now obvious why our military is having such problems. It is full of liberal brats who are unpatriotic. How dare they not support the party that has been their bread and butter for 30 years! I hope the military does the correct thing and hunts these little liberals down and kicks them out!

McCain 08!!

Posted by republicanmike | Report as abusive
 

Try and find that story of a servicewoman who called home and said she might be on tv. That the media polled 100 servicemen and asked who would they vote for today. I believe 93 out of 100 said McCain, 7 being Obama.
When the story aired the media reported that they polled the armed service and 7 out of ten would vote Obama.

I have yet to count on one hand people that have said that they are voting for the liberal loser.

Posted by Richard | Report as abusive
 

Go Troops! We love you!

Posted by Henry | Report as abusive
 

It is true that Paul kicked everyone’s butt when it came to donations from troops. Of course since he dropped out he no longer leads in those types in donations.

Not that I am a McCain supporter, but this is what I hate about Obama and his supporters:

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

Was a quote from above….what the heck does this mean.?…hope…change…a better future for our children….. This is what every politician says and doesn’t know what change or hope mean. If you think McCain and Obama are that different take a look at their issues again and pay attention to what both of them do: they change their stances to be more like the other. Both are for big government, interventionism, and a monetary system that is far beyond logic. As of now, I am voting for Bob Barr. Though I know he will only get 10% of the vote, at least I’m not voting the lesser evil. He is the only one talking about personal liberties and the fall of the dollar. Did you know that a gallon of gas has cost about a quarter of an ounce of silver since 1947? That used to be $0.25, but now it is $16!!!! What does that tell you about our dollar and how it’s value influences oil prices? I do know that Obama and McCain have no clue, though!

Posted by Aaron | Report as abusive
 

Love it. Going to mail this to all my right wing pro war, Bush friends.

Posted by Judy Selby | Report as abusive
 

I’m gonna share a little secret…many private conservatives don’t donate after the primaries. They also aren’t terribly vocal about there beliefs and intentions. They are, by definition, more reserved. Much of the historical conservative money comes from corporations, special interests, and rich private donors with a hidden agenda, not their constituents. And much of this goes to the RNC, not the candidate!

Most liberal donors give to the candidate. these donors are across all spectrums, small private donors, large private donors, special interests groups, and corporations. Many times, the candidate hauls in more than the DNC!

Republicans are never excited about their candidate because republican policy is not exciting. Republican policy is supposed to be non-progressive. New exciting policy is only supposed to be made to ensure health safety and welfare and extend god-given rights to all americans. This is not always the case and has not been the case for man years, though the continued existence of an increasingly liberal party is allowed to exist in opposition to the ultra liberal party. Conservative mindset is boring and repetitive. Conservatives believe that the founding fathers purposely left regulation off the table and simply acknowledged a set of rights that are god-given. They recognize states are the regulatory body of the government and that in this way, the people of each region can be more accurately represented by their government. The federal government simply assures that states do not deny powers. The federal government also exists to keep the health safety and welfare of America as a whole in times of war or attack. These boring premises hardly engage the hard working believers in the constitution. California and Massachusetts can have their gays, texas their guns, etc… each state never overstepping the federally acknowledged and enforced constitution, but representing their citizens’ will. In the conservative agenda, free market is what creates excitement, new products, new technologies, etc… not government. Very boring but tried and true.

Democrats get very excited about what changes their party may enact if elected. Liberal policy is exciting because the followers of the liberal party feel that the founding fathers could not have foreseen advances in technology, the continued existence of guns, or the effects of global warming. If free enterprise won’t take these developments into account, government must regulate them. Liberals see advances that were made without government as having reached their peak unless government takes action and creates regulations. The idea of forcing change rather than waiting years at a time for the free market to adjust for what people want is the main motivation. If you can regulate the market, you can force private entities to do what you believe is best. Power is exciting. Liberals get excited knowing that with regulation, they can change peoples’ lives that must need changing. Rural folks and poor folks obviously desire to be like rich city folk, the free market just hasn’t allowed for it yet because they don’t know to ask for it. The idea of “helping” people who must be miserable because they love religion and guns is exciting. These rural people should be able to be permiscuous and have as many children as they want without consequence. Liberals get excited about making these offspring into voters dependent on the government and equally excited about murdering them so as to not force the mother to live out a mistake she could not have avoided. The liberals fail to see that condoms were created to fill a need by some, but have gotten excited about creating their own form of protection against pregnancy because the free market version was not with the times. Liberals get excited and excitement means you are part of something bigger than yourself, something that nourishes you, tucks you in at night…excitement.
Very exciting but destined to be false representations of the will of the people, simply based on the disallowing of the free market to work. Very exciting.

One could argue that America is always were it wants to be. If it could be or wanted to be somewhere else, it would. This goes for a lack of government regulation and an increasing government regulation. If we want something different, we will either regulate it or get rid of the regulation. the tendency is to fix what was once good, but was then ruined by regulation, with more regulation, so it seems, the want is to lean towards an eventual collapse or revolution to bring us dramatically and catastrophically back to the lack of regulation by our founding fathers and try again.

On a separate tangent, regulation has created the immigration problem in this country. In a free market, if there were only a certain number of jobs for the poor mexicans coming over here and the govrenment didn’t throw money at them to stay, they would not come in groves. They are filling a niche just as the irish, germans, russians, and italians did during the settling of this nation. Back then, they were needed in greater numbers to grow the country. Now, the infrastructure would not support the same influx of numbers, though the ones with jobs are obviously necessary, as the free market obviously had a place for them. the others come over in unnatural numbers looking for jobs and staying for the government regulated money handouts.

Liberals:Yay!
Conservatives: Blah..

McCain will win in November because the regulations Obama hopes to put in place are not desireable to the majority of states(Yes, over half the states…perhaps even half the citizens)

Obama would have won had he avoided policy making, as McCain’s policy making is boring crap working to get votes from the center. The rest is boring continuation of a 300 year old document that has done very little other than shape the country into a super power.
Obama could have ridden the excitement and prospect of change for those that fail to recognize the importance of the free market(an increasing majority), though his policies that actually illustrate a change are opposed by a great and silent group of people who don’t get excited about change, the conservative movement. Those liberals with some conservative ideals would have voted for excitement, but overwhelming restraint on the free market has left them unexcited. Not so unexcited as to vote conservative, but just unexcited enough not to vote for Obama…

Posted by karlthomas | Report as abusive
 

republicanmike, maybe you’ve forgotten why the military fight and die for America, ah, freedom, ah, of speech, opinions, liberty, prusuit of happiness, etc. And don’t forget Thomas Jeffereson’s quote: All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. A, oh yeah, never mind he was a little liberal brat, too.

Have you been in a cave for 30 yrs? Feel free to move to China they still control their people.

Julie, grateful for my military family’s service!

Dessent is the greatest form of Patriotism-Zinn

Posted by Julie | Report as abusive
 

(…spelling issues aside)
repubmike: (guess you can tell a nerve’s been struck) So you’re saying Men and Women who serve our country and give their lives and also happen to be Dems are somehow less patriotic? How do you figure? Divided we fall: being different and still standing together is the very definition of being American. I take great offense that our Democratic Service Men and Women’s lives are somehow less valuable and their service not equal to all who serve.

Posted by Julie | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/