Comments on: Ron Paul, most contributed-to-by-military-personnel candidate?

By: bbartlog

bbartlog — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:16:11 +0000

It’s mandatory for them to ask for the employment information, but I don’t think it’s actually mandatory for the contributor to supply it (nor for that matter to supply a serious answer). And it’s true that the data is a mess. Eyeballing Ron Paul’s filings I see a fair number of duplicate entries. But I have no reason to believe the data from other campaigns is any cleaner; it’s not like they have any real incentive to make sure everything is exactly correct, they just need to file something that won’t result in election fraud charges…

By: Warren Terra

Warren Terra — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:00:57 +0000

How can a candidate be “unusually good at collecting employment data from contributors”? I thought that was a mandatory part of the contribution form, back when I filled them in on paper and now online.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:36:20 +0000

I would.

Its not logical, sure. The military is a communal organization dedicated to intervening abroad.

But I know a lot of soldiers who envision themselves as the hard-bitten survivalist type.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0000

You wouldn’t expect the military to be a bastion of isolationist libertarianism.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:15:22 +0000

Ron Paul has a very solid internet support. Look at those “who won the debate” polls. Ron Paul demolishes every other republican candidate in terms of the sort of support that votes on internet polls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963531/

That doesn’t necessarily translate into votes. But the military personnel I know get their information online.

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:41:33 +0000

“Giuliani” starts with “Giu” (JEE-OO -> JOO), as in “Giuseppe”, not “Gui” (GOO-EE -> GWEE), as in “Guido”.

By: Wiggliest

Wiggliest — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:58:25 +0000

The data is thrown off because campaigns are only required to put in their FEC reports the names and occupation/employer of people who have given a total of $200 or more. So if HRC has a million vets giving her $50 each, we would never know. Also donors often just put in the blanks on the form “Retired”. I imagine there’s a political difference between the “Retired” vets and the “Retired Army” vets that might map to D and R. If there’s a contribution gender gap the way there is for voting that would further mess with the statistics, since the armed forces and veterans are over 90% male.