The Rhetoric of Campaign Contributions
The headline is overstated: Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama. It’s true enough from a particular statistical point of view, but the situation (as usual) is a bit more complicated. Read the whole thing.
Snarky quip: Hmmmmm… it seems the troops don’t support the troops (depending on what the meaning of “support” is). No, wait! The troops are “objectively pro Saddam”! Hahaha… remember that one? Couldn’t resist 
This bit would have made a more accurate (and, dare I say it, more objective) but less sexy headline:
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.
And then we have this:
A former West Point professor, Jason Dempsey, noted that the small set of contributions from deployed troops at this point in 2008 — just 323 donations — should not be extrapolated to form conclusions about military personnel overall. “If, on a bad day, a guy gets that letter that says [his tour has been extended] from 12 to 15 months, that could spur a quick donation and expression of anger,” he said. “Donating helps members of the military express their political views privately.”
I think what we see here is that military personnel are as politically diverse as the rest country. I have no doubt many (even most) shade toward the Republican party much (even most) of the time. That makes sense in several very reasonable ways.
Tags: journalism, rhetoric, politics
I’m an Army veteran. I can’t imagine why anyone who has ever served in the US military would support John McCain. This guy is insane and will get more of us killed.
Having said that, I understand that some military folks will probably vote for McCain, and they will be in the minority.
Um…how about because he was a prisoner of war and tortured because he was serving this country in the military? Perhaps because the military folks would understand that McCain knows more of the dangers in a combat area than his opponent?
As to the subject of the post…it always interests me when headlines don’t really match up with the story within. It’s just another reason people have a hard time believing the mainstream media sources. While you can’t say the author of that piece is definitely biased it’s still being written by a human being and they’ll immediately jump to the thing that resonates loudest with them.
A good lesson…read the story and not just the headline.
Jason… One clarification: This story isn’t from an MSM outlet.
But, all too often, headlines in the MSM do tend to be reductive and sensational. I’m afraid my cure for that would make them more boring. But I contend they’d be more appreciated.
Liked this: Troops contribute more to Obama campaign
Maybe that should have been the hed?
Tim… Drawing general conclusions is always the problem. The data speak only to those who have donated. I wonder if soldiers contribute in greater, lesser, or similar proportions compared to the general population?
No idea.
They seem to be drawing conclusions based on employer, but I don’t know how they could distinguish uniformed (”troops”) from civilian DoD employees, officer from enlisted, etc.
Also, it doesn’t look like they distinguish Iraq/Afghanistan APO/FPO addresses from other overseas or shipboard addresses.
But then, there’s no methodology available, so ….
You might like this: Military See Presidential Race Through Own Lens