Shock: Obama Get's Twice More Military Donations Than Romney

#1
Bloomberg News

Military Personnel Campaign Funds Favor Obama Over Romney

By Laura Litvan on October 16, 2012
President Barack Obama has received almost twice as much in campaign contributions from U.S. military and Defense Department personnel as his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, despite Romney’s promises to boost defense spending and his criticism of military cuts set to take place in January.
Obama has received $536,414 from such donors, compared with Romney’s $287,435, according to research by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. The group’s study, which includes data through August, looked at donations from individuals who listed their employment as the Defense Department or one of the branches of the military.
Defense Department personnel led the list, giving $176,121 to Obama and $71,043 to Romney. Army personnel came in next with $165,646 for Obama and $87,218 for Romney.
....
The pro-Obama tilt comes even though Romney promises to boost defense spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product and to build 15 new Navy ships per year. He also is attacking Obama over $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to military programs over 10 years that begin January 2 unless a budget impasse with Congress is resolved in time.
Earlier in the election cycle, military personnel donations were overwhelmingly tilted toward Republican hopeful Ron Paul, who called for less government and opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, until Obama began to overtake him in March, the Center for Responsive Politics found.
In the 2008 election cycle, the center found that Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, took in slightly more in donations from military and Defense Department personnel, collecting $461,350 to Obama’s $450,950 through August of that year.
750 likely Virginia voters showed Romney barely ahead in the state, 48 percent to 47 percent. That’s well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,833
5,175
763
Wilmington, NC
#4
I know he forgot to remove formatting...



But this is what I see whenever I read his posts anyway...
 

Psychopath

Plata O Plomo
Dec 28, 2008
17,707
3,348
393
hell
#6
Shock: Another shitty thread by a shitty cunt.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,833
5,175
763
Wilmington, NC
#8
I'm glad I highlighted his text of the article so I can read the bullshit...

Not only did HHD NOT provide a link to the article...he selectively edited out a portion of the article. What portion, you ask? Oh, this one:

Obama's advantage probably comes in part because some of the personnel are political appointees of his administration, said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., who has studied military personnel and their impact on elections.
"One party owns the executive branch right now, so the impact could be potentially quite large," he said. Obama may also be winning a broader battle for support in an election that has seen both candidates "assiduously" court the military, he said.
"It appears that he does have a small but energetic supporter base in the military," Feaver said.
This wasn't THE END of the article...it was the middle...so obviously this biased dope didn't think the above text was that big a deal, I guess.

Then he left out a few other parts, which I don't get why he did that...

And here's the link to the full story...
 

laspino

I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok
Feb 23, 2006
472
6
418
Seattle
#12
I'm glad I highlighted his text of the article so I can read the bullshit...

Not only did HHD NOT provide a link to the article...he selectively edited out a portion of the article. What portion, you ask? Oh, this one:

Obama's advantage probably comes in part because some of the personnel are political appointees of his administration, said Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., who has studied military personnel and their impact on elections.​

This wasn't THE END of the article...it was the middle...so obviously this biased dope didn't think the above text was that big a deal, I guess.

Then he left out a few other parts, which I don't get why he did that...

And here's the link to the full story...
Kind of a bizarre statement by the Duke prof. There are 2+ million DOD civilian and military members barely 300 are political appointees. A small $ for any candidate anyway.
 

jules

uppity taxpayer
Jul 24, 2005
3,695
183
428
south jersey
#13
Bloomberg News

Military Personnel Campaign Funds Favor Obama Over Romney

By Laura Litvan on October 16, 2012
President Barack Obama has received almost twice as much in campaign contributions from U.S. military and Defense Department personnel as his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, despite Romney’s promises to boost defense spending and his criticism of military cuts set to take place in January.
Obama has received $536,414 from such donors, compared with Romney’s $287,435, according to research by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. The group’s study, which includes data through August, looked at donations from individuals who listed their employment as the Defense Department or one of the branches of the military.
Defense Department personnel led the list, giving $176,121 to Obama and $71,043 to Romney. Army personnel came in next with $165,646 for Obama and $87,218 for Romney.
....
The pro-Obama tilt comes even though Romney promises to boost defense spending to 4 percent of gross domestic product and to build 15 new Navy ships per year. He also is attacking Obama over $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to military programs over 10 years that begin January 2 unless a budget impasse with Congress is resolved in time.
Earlier in the election cycle, military personnel donations were overwhelmingly tilted toward Republican hopeful Ron Paul, who called for less government and opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, until Obama began to overtake him in March, the Center for Responsive Politics found.
In the 2008 election cycle, the center found that Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, took in slightly more in donations from military and Defense Department personnel, collecting $461,350 to Obama’s $450,950 through August of that year.
750 likely Virginia voters showed Romney barely ahead in the state, 48 percent to 47 percent. That’s well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
good way to leave out part of the article that gives the important reason why this is asshole.
you are pathetic
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#14
I'm glad I highlighted his text of the article so I can read the bullshit...

Not only did HHD NOT provide a link to the article...he selectively edited out a portion of the article. What portion, you ask? Oh, this one:



This wasn't THE END of the article...it was the middle...so obviously this biased dope didn't think the above text was that big a deal, I guess.

Then he left out a few other parts, which I don't get why he did that...

And here's the link to the full story...
I don't know why the op would omit that, but that is horrendously laughable reasoning anyway.

I have to be reading it wrong. I have to be.

Because it looks like what it's saying is "the military supports whoever is president". Which is an epic fail.

I think maz's explanation is actually better than a Duke professor's. Like way better.

edit: wait, this is just about total campaign donations?

1. One guy in the military could have donated $400,000 for Obama,

2. They only had half a million to cough up? There's a million of the motherfuckers! Cheap fucks.

I need to read these things before responding to them. total wgas.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,425
27,301
898
Seattle
#15
It's 6:15 in the morning and I've already shit twice. Fucking Salad. I mean, as I sat down for lunch yesterday it had sounded like a great idea, Tasty and healthy as well. But damn, I forgot that salads go through me like rectal roto-rooter.



Why am I sharing this? The rest of the thread is full of shit, I just thought I'd contribute.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,894
15,267
303
#17
Paul got almost 300,000 from people who just wanted him to have a chance at maybe getting the VP or Secretary of Treasury spot. The military leans right and libertarian. A Paul/Johnson ticket would have seen millions from military members.

Edit: 2 million active duty soldiers and civilians, 1 million Reserve/National Guard...

500,000 given to Obama. Unless it was a couple of his political connections, the military as a whole isn't endorsing either candidate and per member is giving a "found it under my couch cushions" amount of cash to both candidates. I don't see why anybody would brag about this?
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,894
15,267
303
#21
500,000 dollars divided by 3 million military and civilian Department of Defense people who could have given money to Obama but didn't=17 cents per person, rounded up.

Tss tss, sounds like change we can believe in or somethin', tss tss.
 

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#22
Hey HHD, I see you've posted on the board today. Care to comment about you edit here in this thread?
 
#23
500,000 dollars divided by 3 million military and civilian Department of Defense people who could have given money to Obama but didn't=17 cents per person, rounded up.

Tss tss, sounds like change we can believe in or somethin', tss tss.
These stats only include donations of $200 and over. On smaller donations you don't have to declare your employer.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,833
5,175
763
Wilmington, NC
#25
There he is! I thought I chased him from these threads. Maybe while he's at it...he can hop on over to the other thread that I smashed him in and explain why he was talking about how accurate polling was, back when Obama was doing well, and now, with Romney up, he thinks polling is never accurate. :asshat: