Pew had this whole thing about how Obamafans are convinced November is going to be some kind of landslide (> 10% margin). Then they got into all of the post-war landslides and how all fo those candidates led in the summer by more than 10 points, and how Gore and Kerry both lead in the summer before they were defeated, etc etc.

I guess it just depends on whether Diebold is on McCain's side or not.

Houshphandzadeh wrote: I won't have to pretend Stewart and Colbert are still funny.

Are you on crack?

Oh...

During World War II, soldiers crouching in foxholes penned letters assuring their sweethearts that they'd be home soon. Now, between firefights in the Iraqi desert, some infantrymen have been sending a different kind of mail stateside: two or three hundred dollars -- or whatever they can spare -- towards a presidential election that could very well determine just how soon they come home.



According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.



Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. 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.

Link

"...Well, I believe that this is what really underlies the conflict, and it has to do with the fact that the US has eyed the Caspian Sea, which lies just to the east of Georgia, as an energy corridor for exporting Caspian Sea oil and gas to the West, bypassing Russia. And this was the brainchild of Bill Clinton, who saw an opportunity, when the Soviet Union broke apart, to gain access to Caspian oil and gas, but he didn’t want this new energy to flow through Russia or through Iran, which were the only natural ways to export the energy.


So he anointed Georgia as a bridge, to build new pipelines through Georgia to the West. And it was he who masterminded the construction of the BTC pipeline, which is now the outlet for this oil, with new pipelines supposedly following for natural gas. And he chose Georgia for this purpose and also built up the Georgian military to protect the pipeline, and Russia has been furious about this ever since. And I think that’s the reason that they have clung so tightly to Abkhazia and South Ossetia ever since.

...Yes, exactly. And what’s underway in Europe is an effort headed by the EU to try to get under the thumb of Gazprom’s dominant role in the delivery of natural gas. Gazprom now delivers something like one-fourth of Europe’s natural gas. And if Gazprom has its way, it will double the amount of natural gas it supplies to Europe.


This has many Europeans and the United States deeply worried, because it kind of undercuts NATO’s independence. So, under American prodding, Europe has plans to build an alternative energy natural gas system called Nabucco, after the opera by Verdi, and this would go right through Georgia. And I think one of the major objectives of Russia’s incursion into Georgia is to say to the European leadership, “Your ideas about Nabucco are futile, because we can smash the Nabucco system anytime we want.”


..." Michael Klare excerpt from interview

full interview here

FTN wrote:

During World War II, soldiers crouching in foxholes penned letters assuring their sweethearts that they'd be home soon. Now, between firefights in the Iraqi desert, some infantrymen have been sending a different kind of mail stateside: two or three hundred dollars -- or whatever they can spare -- towards a presidential election that could very well determine just how soon they come home.

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. 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.

Link

That sounds like something until you consider that there are around 3 million active and reserve personnel. I'd guess at least half a million personnel stationed overseas and Barack Obama has netted only $60,642. Even if Obama is only getting $100 from each donor he is getting money form 1/10 of 1% of all overseas personnel. It isn't a statistically significant representation of support. I'd expect overseas military personnel to support Obama. Military personnel are overwhelmingly under 30, Obama's core constituency. They also tend to be socioeconomically on the lower end, also a core Democratic constituency.

It'd be noteworthy if Obama got more contributions from Vietnam veterans than McCain. It'd be really important if Obama had more contributions from air marshals, generals and admirals than McCain. That would show who the top military had confidence in.

spin spin spin

It's 134 donations compared to 26.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's 134 donations compared to 26.

Details? Anyway, the military, and especially the officer corps, is and has been for some time, overwhelmingly Republican. So, if Obama is making any inroads there that's significant.

It's in Floppy's link.

I think it's a lot more impressive that Obama is outraising McCain among military men overall, even by a small margin, than the stupid SIX TO ONE thing that is being yelled about. I still don't think it means all that much. We're losing the money race everywhere because no one other than LAEx really likes McCain.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's in Floppy's link.

I think it's a lot more impressive that Obama is outraising McCain among military men overall, even by a small margin, than the stupid SIX TO ONE thing that is being yelled about. I still don't think it means all that much. We're losing the money race everywhere because no one other than LAEx really likes McCain.

If Obama gets even 25% of the military vote, it's like if McCain getting 50% of the African American vote.

It's fun to say things that are hyperbolic and not even close to being true!

jerseyhoya wrote:It's fun to say things that are hyperbolic and not even close to being true!

On party ID, Republicans have something like a 8-1 advantage among officers. Among non-coms, it's a bit more than 4-1. Those numbers have dropped under Bush, but McCain really should be able to bring a lot of those voters back.

Laexile wrote: I'd guess at least half a million personnel stationed overseas and Barack Obama has netted only $60,642.... Military personnel are overwhelmingly under 30, Obama's core constituency. They also tend to be socioeconomically on the lower end, also a core Democratic constituency.

It'd be noteworthy if Obama got more contributions from Vietnam veterans than McCain. It'd be really important if Obama had more contributions from air marshals, generals and admirals than McCain. That would show who the top military had confidence in.

Too bad for your case that votes aren't weighted by job title. From the article:

CRP's totals based on employer are limited to donors contributing more than $200, since information is not provided to the Federal Election Commission for smaller contributions. So these figures are likely to disproportionately represent the mood of officers, who have more disposable income to spend on politics than do the lower ranks....

...Seeing political activity of any sort among soldiers is notable, [former West Point prof Jason] Dempsey added. "It's hard to describe how apolitical a lot of the enlisted ranks are."

I'm not an Oba-mite. And I will vote for him over McCain mainly in dim hope that a Dem in the White House will slow the horror...

But I know there are some staunch McCain supoprters here and some staunch Obama supporters. So I ask this in earnest -- and don't parrot speeches -- tell me 3 ACTUAL things/policies you are certain that your candidate will lead/implement of the nation that you think justify his election:

Obama

1 ?
2 ?
3 ?

McCain

1 ?
2 ?
3 ?

I'm sick of this minutiae about percentages and polls and this pundit and that spin-doctor, and this regional trend. Tell me what your man is GOING TO DO for the country that matters -- that is the foundation of your support for that candidate???

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's fun to say things that are hyperbolic and not even close to being true!

On party ID, Republicans have something like a 8-1 advantage among officers. Among non-coms, it's a bit more than 4-1. Those numbers have dropped under Bush, but McCain really should be able to bring a lot of those voters back.

From October 2004 poll

In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

So Kerry was winning about 1/5 of the military vote in 2004. Obviously for Obama to improve compared to this total even a little bit while running against an accomplished military man is impressive.

That said, your comparison was hyperbole to the nth extreme, making it really dumb.

Not that surprising. They want to come home, want their fellow soldiers to come home, don't want to end up pulling another tour, et al. 3 or 4 tours tends to make one a little weary of war.

I wonder how much Obama's support for, and McCain's opposition to, Webb's GI bill plays into this.

Though a more likely explanation might simply be concern about the economy. If there's a perception (and if there isn't, there damn well should be given Johnny Mac's full-body embrace of Grovernomics) that Obama and the Dems will be better for the non-rich, at a time when economic concerns are foremost, that would figure to help the Dem.

Philly the Kid wrote:I'm not an Oba-mite. And I will vote for him over McCain mainly in dim hope that a Dem in the White House will slow the horror...

But I know there are some staunch McCain supoprters here and some staunch Obama supporters. So I ask this in earnest -- and don't parrot speeches -- tell me 3 ACTUAL things/policies you are certain that your candidate will lead/implement of the nation that you think justify his election:

Obama

1 ?
2 ?
3 ?

McCain

1 ?
2 ?
3 ?

I'm sick of this minutiae about percentages and polls and this pundit and that spin-doctor, and this regional trend. Tell me what your man is GOING TO DO for the country that matters -- that is the foundation of your support for that candidate???

1) reinstitute governmental oversight of areas that have been left to the wolves since kennedy died. (congressioal oversight of the executive branch, SEC oversight of financial institutions, and judicial oversight, over anything else)

2) rollback don't ask, don't tell. i don't think this is an important issue to him, but i see this as something the democrats can easily push through congress, without his standing in the way.

3) push through stem cell research. it's not a given that it will cure every disease, or any disease, for that matter, but to ignore the potential is unthinkable, and to hide behind some ambiguous moral standard is pure jackassery.

i'll put a cherry on top for you PTK, 4) stem the growth of the military-industrial complex. i have no disillusion that he'll be a white knight and slash the budget in half by the end of the first term, but i think he can hold it's growth in check for as long as he's in office.

The power of the executive branch (as steagles seems to grasp at least in part) is fourfold: appointments to the judiciary, control of the bureaucracy (think regulatory process), the negative power to thwart Congress (or get out of its way), and playing the lead role in setting a national agenda.

On the first two, to get back to an argument jeff2sf and others have advanced against partisan voting, the nature and typical usage of these powers--which get absolutely no attention during the campaign, of course--is why partisan voting almost always is the rational course. If you want judges of a certain temperament and mindset, or you have more or less blind faith in "the market" to produce outcomes that serve the general good, that's almost always going to lead you to support one party or the other at the federal level based on its core philosophy. This is also where the Nader/George Wallace argument that there's no bit of difference between the two parties falls apart.

I'd had some hope that McCain, based on his previous TR/reformer incarnation, might at least do some of what steagles points out in #1. Pretty clearly, that's not going to happen. At this point I'm not even certain he'll be a clear improvement over Bush in this core regard: that government should at least be effective in what's considered as its limited purview. Obama, if nothing else, probably would appoint regulators and cabinet officials and agency staff who take their jobs seriously.

Anyway, if you take it as read that the Dems will maintain control of Congress, having Obama simply "get out of their way" will mean that a lot of things Bush has blocked--stem cell research, S-CHIP reauthorization and expansion, a drawdown of forces in Iraq--will go forward.

That leaves my fourth power, shaping the national agenda. (I'm putting foreign policy in this bucket, though it certainly could merit its own.) McCain has said "There will be more wars." The enthusiasm he's shown for open-ended commitments in Iraq, a belligerent posture vis-a-vis Iran and Russia and maybe China, and just generally the way he seems to perk up at the figurative smell of gunpowder suggests he is, at least in this instance, giving straight talk. And, in probably my biggest single disappointment given his history, he hasn't breathed a word that I'm aware of about pruning the unfathomably bloated Pentagon budget.

I actually don't think Obama has the political courage to take on defense spending; probably no Democrat would, other than maybe Webb if somehow he became President. (No Republican would because it's evidently axiomatic to them that defense spending is never "wasteful.") But he won't look eagerly around for new wars to fight. That's a pretty big deal. I also suspect he'd be much more assertive in ending torture, pursuing diplomacy where appropriate and re-examining some old orthodoxies (like the Cuba embargo), and emphasizing a pro-worker agenda in trade negotiations.

In terms of domestic/economic priorities, Obama has talked endlessly about universal health care and ending dependency on foreign oil. McCain shrugs away the problems of the health care system, and while he talks a decent game on oil, he couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote for the extension of the alternate-energy tax cuts he claims to support. His domestic/economic agenda boils down to more-of-same from the last eight years: tax cuts for the richest and irresponsible budgeting. His talk about spending cuts won't ever fly in a Dem congress, for better and for worse. Maybe you'd see some grand compromise on immigration along the lines of what he proposed a year or two ago... which of course would infuriate the Republican right. But I think that would be almost equally likely under Obama, who presumably wouldn't be as worried about what Malkin or Limbaugh "think."

This has turned into a PtK-length answer to PtK's question, but one last point: I think the single most important aspect of this election is for American voters to show the world that we repudiate the Bush legacy of torture, comprehensive politicization of government, economic irrationality and short-sightedness, and near-mindless belligerence on the world stage. Since McCain has chosen pretty much to embrace that legacy, he must be defeated. The way the race is playing out in the moronic media, it's all about Obama--but to me, this is still about Bush and the perversion of American governance he's perpetuated since 2000.

Our military spending is really not that ridiculous.

By % of GDP we are not even close to being one of the top countries.