Which Republican Presidential candidate is receiving the most donations from members of the military?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Click here.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Is it just me or is there something wrong with those numbers?

Is there a decimal place out of place or are all of those numbers just so incredibly low that I can't possibly give a shit?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Is it just me or is there something wrong with those numbers?

Is there a decimal place out of place or are all of those numbers just so incredibly low that I can't possibly give a shit?

Still a large enough sample to be statistically significant as an indicator.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

good point, the article doesn't explain what time period it comes from.

But I found this:http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html It would seem that the numbers correspond to donations made within the last quarter.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Is it just me or is there something wrong with those numbers?

Is there a decimal place out of place or are all of those numbers just so incredibly low that I can't possibly give a shit?

Still a large enough sample to be statistically significant as an indicator.

Maybe . . . the problem I have is that you can't really tell how many people donated. Take one high ranking general in each service branch and have him donate just $2000 to either of the top two candidates and the whole thing gets very wonky.

Again, the numbers just don't look significant enough for me to actually care.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,132]

> Which Republican Presidential candidate is receiving the most
>donations from members of the military?

In the category of "you know you're in trouble when" - which candidate leads in the latest AP poll?

The answer - "none of the above." (Wasn't there a movie about that once?)

None of the above - 23%
Giuliani - 21%
Thompson - 19%
McCain - 15%
Romney - 11%

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the category of "you know you're in trouble when" - which candidate leads in the latest AP poll?

The answer - "none of the above." (Wasn't there a movie about that once?)

None of the above - 23%
Giuliani - 21%
Thompson - 19%
McCain - 15%
Romney - 11%

The GOP is hardly in trouble. I suspect NOTA would do pretty well on the Democrat side to at this point in the election cycle. Given the choices of a 2004 loser, a woman that has alienated more than half the electorate, and an inexperienced Senator running on the color theme, I'd like another choice. It's about as meaningful as the surveys that put up everyone against Clinton and show him winning. It's not the same as a real election.

BTW, who the fuck is Ron Paul? That's why NOTA does well now - you got people coming out of nowhere - and usually going back there by New Hampshire.

[billvon 3,132]

>The GOP is hardly in trouble.

Did you note the results of the last election cycle?

>and an inexperienced Senator running on the color theme . . .

I guess it's inevitable that the right will make an issue of his color. They've already made an issue of his middle name and his schooling.

>I'd like another choice.

You probably won't get one. Popular politicians or popular actors have a shot. With everyone else you get statements like "who the fuck is Ron Paul?"

[pop 0]

Quote

Click here.

I love Ron Paul. He already has my vote.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The GOP is hardly in trouble.

Did you note the results of the last election cycle?

And do you remember what happened in 1994 and 1996? Are you not aware that the White House nearly always loses seats in the 2nd term midterm election? 2006 has slightly more significance than normal due to the war, but it's not nearly as big a hint as you seem to hope.

Quote

>and an inexperienced Senator running on the color theme . . .

I guess it's inevitable that the right will make an issue of his color. They've already made an issue of his middle name and his schooling.

It's quite obvious that he's not yet experienced enough. He hasn't completed a single tem in the Senate. His whole campaign is based on his speech in 2004 at the DNC (much like how Clinton was first seen) and his race.

For the GOP, Bloomberg becomes the interesting other guy, though he may inexplicably stay independent. For the Democratic side, I have no idea. They have a shortage of leaders too - I remember Biden's plaigarism back in 1988. How could he be more relevent now?

[billvon 3,132]

>And do you remember what happened in 1994 and 1996?

Yep. Back then the democrats were in trouble. Now the GOP is.

>It's quite obvious that he's not yet experienced enough.

So he's not enough of a politician? He doesn't know how to pander to the right special interests yet? He still thinks it's possible to make a difference? He isn't well known on K street yet? He hasn't figured out that he has to say what the spin doctors tell him to say, instead of speaking his mind?

You're right. We need a president who does exactly what his party says, who kowtows to the right contributors, who supports people he's owed for decades instead of a newer guy with a better idea, and who will slip easily into the well-greased Washington, DC political machine. The last thing we need is a non-politician who speaks his mind and doesn't know which side his bread is buttered on.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

I love Ron Paul. He already has my vote.

I voted for Him last time he Ran for president. I was a Volunteer at the national convention where he got the Nomination. I was standing in-between Abbie Hoffman and Timothy Leary when he gave the acceptance speech.

I will most likely vote for him again.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>And do you remember what happened in 1994 and 1996?

Yep. Back then the democrats were in trouble. Now the GOP is.

>It's quite obvious that he's not yet experienced enough.

So he's not enough of a politician? He doesn't know how to pander to the right special interests yet? He still thinks it's possible to make a difference? He isn't well known on K street yet? He hasn't figured out that he has to say what the spin doctors tell him to say, instead of speaking his mind?

You're right. We need a president who does exactly what his party says, who kowtows to the right contributors, who supports people he's owed for decades instead of a newer guy with a better idea, and who will slip easily into the well-greased Washington, DC political machine. The last thing we need is a non-politician who speaks his mind and doesn't know which side his bread is buttered on.

I think his point was about overall experience in national politics, not just the smarmy underbelly of DC politics.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

I love Ron Paul. He already has my vote.

I voted for Him last time he Ran for president. I was a Volunteer at the national convention where he got the Nomination. I was standing in-between Abbie Hoffman and Timothy Leary when he gave the acceptance speech.

I will most likely vote for him again.

I will probably switch to the Republican Party so that I can vote for him in the Maryland Republican Primaries (you have to be a member of a party to vote in the party's primaries in Maryland, as in many other states).

So the GOP is getting another voter. Me.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,132]

>I think his point was about overall experience in national politics, not just
>the smarmy underbelly of DC politics.

Hmm. He's spent seven years as a state senator and three years in the US senate. Ten years of experience in politics, mostly at a state level. What I hear his detractors saying is that he doesn't have enough time at the DC level - which tells me he doesn't know how to play DC games yet. I'd actually prefer a president like that.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>and an inexperienced Senator running on the color theme . . .

I guess it's inevitable that the right will make an issue of his color. They've already made an issue of his middle name and his schooling.

It's quite obvious that he's not yet experienced enough. He hasn't completed a single tem in the Senate.

If terms in the Senate are a requirement, then Bush, Clinton, Carter and Reagan were all unqualified.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

If terms in the Senate are a requirement, then Bush, Clinton, Carter and Reagan were all unqualified.

It's not. They all had experience running state governments. While that didn't give them DC experience, it did give them critical "management" experience.

It's funny to watch you guys act as if his limited experience isn't relevant.

I like him, too. Hope he gets the nomination. But you guys acting as if his resume isn't lacking is laughable.

[quade 4]

Quote

It's quite obvious that he's not yet experienced enough. He hasn't completed a single tem in the Senate.

Actually if you look at it from a historical perspective, that could be to his advantage. Historically very few sitting Senators have gone on to become Presidents. I read somewhere that Senators like McCain and Clinton get too wrapped up in thier Senatorial offices and become disconnected. I also believe they were talking about this effect on "This Week" last Sunday.

I'm not saying this is actually the case with any particular candidate or that the theory is even correct, but the historical facts are kind of interesting to consider.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And do you remember what happened in 1994 and 1996?

Yep. Back then the democrats were in trouble. Now the GOP is.

Uh, no. Clinton won handily over Dole.

Quote

>It's quite obvious that he's not yet experienced enough.

So he's not enough of a politician? He doesn't know how to pander to the right special interests yet? He still thinks it's possible to make a difference? He isn't well known on K street yet? He hasn't figured out that he has to say what the spin doctors tell him to say, instead of speaking his mind?

After less than 2.5 years, can he even make his way around Congress without having to look up people on a directory? After a few terms as a state senator (please), has he ever been a leader of anything?

And you think he's ready to be the leader of the free world? We rarely elect Presidents in their mid 40s, and with good reason. He strikes me as a very good potential candidate in 2016. He's not even qualifed to be Veep right now.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually if you look at it from a historical perspective, that could be to his advantage. Historically very few sitting Senators have gone on to become Presidents. I read somewhere that Senators like McCain and Clinton get too wrapped up in thier Senatorial offices and become disconnected. I also believe they were talking about this effect on "This Week" last Sunday.

yes, we seem more likely to elect governors. It could be as simple as the fact that Senators don't accomplish anything alone, and often when it has a name on the bill (McCain-Feingold), it's something that took a crap on the Constitution. But I bet a lot of people like Roth.

[billvon 3,132]

>Clinton won handily over Dole.

Well, there was no presidential election in 1994, which is the first date you asked about. In the House the GOP gained 54 seats. That would qualify as the democrats being "in trouble" in anyone's book.

In 1996, a democrat won the presidency, and the democrats gained 8 seats back. A slight recovery, but not enough to put them in the majority. They still had a lot of trouble, and would continue to have it until 2006, when they finally won enough seats to take back the majority.

>After less than 2.5 years, can he even make his way around
>Congress without having to look up people on a directory?

Exactly! Why, I bet he doesn't even know how to get to all the parties on K street yet without an aide! For shame. (Because after all, finding an office in a hallway is much more important than knowing what language Mexico speaks, or what carbon dioxide is.)

In any case, as you may have noticed when you visit DC, the White House is not in Congress, or even nearby. And I bet he can find Congress from the White House without directions. (I can, and I've only been there for a few weeks.)

>And you think he's ready to be the leader of the free world?

He would do a hell of a better job than who we have now. I'd rather have a smart non-insider stirring things up than a not-so-smart political panderer who knows how to raise money and smile for the camera.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>And you think he's ready to be the leader of the free world?

He would do a hell of a better job than who we have now.

So Bush is the standard we measure '08 candidates against?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

>And you think he's ready to be the leader of the free world?

He would do a hell of a better job than who we have now.

So Bush is the standard we measure '08 candidates against?

Yep! The '08 elections will be like a competition in a Special Ed class! EVERYBODY wins!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,132]

>So Bush is the standard we measure '08 candidates against?

I hope not! But Bush, with all his failures, was electable (in your words, was "ready to be the leader of the free world.") A smarter guy with 12 years of experience in the legislature will be even more so. Perhaps someone else (like Romney or whoever) will be as well; those are the people you should measure candidates against.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>So Bush is the standard we measure '08 candidates against?

I hope not! But Bush, with all his failures, was electable (in your words, was "ready to be the leader of the free world.")

My words? What are you talking about?