troops

Open Secrets is reporting that troops overseas are giving to Barack Obama over John McCain at a rate of 6 - 1:

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.

How does that stack up against previous years?

"That's shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it's about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one" in Democrats' favor, said Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military. "That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans."

In 2000, Republican George W. Bush outraised Democrat Al Gore among military personnel almost 2 to 1. In 2004, with the Iraq war underway, John Kerry closed the gap with President Bush, but Bush still raised $1.50 from the military for every $1 his Democratic opponent collected.

The real question is this - is this indicative of a trend in support for Obama across the armed services (enlisted and officers)? And if so, does it translate into votes? It certainly does go along way towards disproving Republicans' claims to speak for (and have the backing of) the troops.

Hat tip to Jonathan Singer at MyDD, who first brought this to my attention.

First some youthy news:

• Two articles are out today on polling. The Michigan Messenger does a great job analyzing a PEW study on the demographics of cell-only and "cell-mostly" users and how pollsters are dealing with under-represtentation of these demographics in their polling. If that's a little too data-geek for you, Campus Politico has a good "polling 101" story that might be a little more your speed.
• At Tapped, Tim Fernholz questions the effectiveness of a voter registration drive launched this week by the Hip Hop Caucus.
• Matt Zeitlin at PushBack follows up on that post, noting that celebrities are not an effective way to move young voters to the polls.
• Teaming up with SPIN, CMJ, and others, Head Count has launched a 90 day voter registration challenge. They hope to register 100,000 voters by the end of the 90 days. You can watch a video of SPIN at the Warped Tour interviewing an artist about the program here.
• NDN notes Connecticut Democrats are out-registering Republicans among young voters by 4.3 - 1. That registration and turnout advantage might help Democrats defeat Republican Chris Shays in the fall. Shays is the lone Republican congressman in New England.
• South Carolina young Republicans are not feeling the love from John McCain, and Young Republicans nationally are having a tough time drawing young people to the convention.
• Meanwhile, Young Democrats are thriving in delegate-rich Florida.
• Tech President argues that 2008 is a boring year in tech/politics. While 2004 and '06 saw huge paradigm shifts in how we organize, 2008 is all about refining those practices.

Some less-youthy, but very interesting news:

• Democrats are getting ready to spend $20 million to register and GOTV latinos.
• The Nation writes about MoveOn's 10th birthday and how far the organization has come.
• A new study by the RAND Corporation tells us the obvious - to win the war on terror, we need to stop fighting the war on terror.
• Finally, the Washington Post has a front-page story basically calling "liar liar pants on fire" on the McCain campaign for their latest ad attacking Sen. Obama.

The great people at WesPAC and BraveNewFilms are drawing attention to a very important bill that is scheduled to appear today on the House floor.

Mike talked about the joint venture between Sen. Webb and Sen. Hagel last November when they began to make rumbles about it. Its sad that its only now getting traction, but hey.. its the sausages being made.

I sat down with Bill Smith a thirty-something Gen X'er who served in the first Iraq war and received the Bronze Star.

AK: when did you go into the service?

Smith: June 1989

AK: Why?

Smith: I felt obligated to as a citizen you know, it was giving back and a family has a history of it. You know, also for the challenge to myself.

AK: Were there any expectations you had about it?

Smith: Not really, I wasn't really thinking about expectations I knew what I was getting into in terms of basic training and the job I was getting into.

AK: did you expect to have college be paid for?

Smith: No. I knew I was going to be paying into the GI bill, its not something you get at no cost, most people don't know that. When I did it in '89 it was $100 of your monthly pay check for the first year went into the [GI] bill and you had to serve 3 years to get it something like that... I can't really remember for certain...

The impression I had was that it would help pay for college. I don't know if they still have it but there is the Army College Fund that you get based on your ASVB score. That's where you might qualify you for certain specialties or incentives but I don't know if they still do that. I didn't get the ACF but, I thought it was like $25,000 which would pay a significant fund. Today, of course it wouldn't and I don't know if they still do it.

AK: Did most people you served with think that they would have college paid for?

Smith: Idon't know - it wasn't really top of the conversation, so I'm not really sure. I don't think any of us thought it would cover all of the costs of college I knew it wouldn't I assumed everyone else knew. I knew it might help pay for college.

AK: Do you have any student loan debt now from school?

Smith: Oh yes. Lots of student loan debt

AK: Do you feel cheated at all?

Smith: I think a lot of student think that you pay the price of your education but you never get compensated by employers in terms of salary for that. I think most students feel that way. Colleges sell it as an investment and then you pay for it the rest of your life. Like now, I have a 30 year mortgage for my education. I mean this goes deeper than the GI Bill but it makes me mad.

AK: What do you think about the existing GI Bill?

Smith: The GI Bill for me didn't pay my tuition - and I don't know if the current one would. Or if it was even designed to pay for our troops to go to school. I think the most value was maybe $600 a month for me. But it paid my moving expenses and sometimes rent and food. It supplemented my income. It helped but it didn't pay for college at all.

AK: Should it?

Smith: Yeah. Particularly for people who put themselves in harms way in times of conflict or war. I think its not just the sacrifice the troops are making, being away from their children or families or having fun with friends, but the physical and mental effects combat has on an individual.

We should support them in ways that help them transition out of the armed forces and providing them with educational benefits is a key to that. Even the VA benefits is a part of that. But veterans are the highest homeless population in the country - and that's a problem. Whether thats a result of no education or other mental health issues I think there's a relationship there.

Education is supposed to open the doors to life... ya know?

AK: What did you think of the video?

Smith: The video was powerful. I'm shocked I didn't even realize, I mean, I had known that they were going to do this, and change it, but I was shocked McCain wasn't cosponsoring and I tried to find out why and I just don't understand why he's not co-sponsoring the bill. The message I left on the website basically said he's selling himself as a supporter of the troops but his words aren't turning into action. The words are meaningless unless he's going to take care of us. And clearly he isn't.

Bill graduated from Baker University in Kansas in 2003. The current Congresswoman for his district (mine as well) Rep. Nancy Boyda is a co-sponsor of HR 2702.

It has yet to be determined why someone like John McCain is not.

On a creaky plane ride between JFK and my equally creaky connection in St. Louis, I happened to read an article in today’s New York Times questioning the democratic principles of the Iowa caucus system: Caucuses Only Empower Some Iowans.

It’s a must read.

For months we’ve been hearing about how Iowa allows for the kind of retail politics that allows for real participatory democracy, but if you’re not part of the Iowa chamber of commerce, and you’re not someone whose bread and butter relies on the caucus every four years (read: the state parties and paid bloviators like David Yepsen), they’re probably the most anti-democratic part of our entire nominating system. As many smart people have pointed out before me, granting one of the whitest, most rural states in the nation almost total power over deciding the nominee (at least for the Dems this year, if not the GOP) is in no way fair to the other 99% of the country, and in fact completely ANTI-democratic.

To ad insult to injury, only a whopping 6% of Iowans manage to drag their asses out to participate in a given year. Even with an average of 49% turnout (in 2004), young voters can’t catch a break in the media narrative. Yet somehow Iowans get a big fat pat on the back from the media every four years because a few die-hards manage to drag themselves out to the caucus and it makes for great copy and even better economics for the state. This is all amply covered in the New York Times piece.

The piece did mention something so obvious (and frankly, wrong) about this system that pretty much nobody talks about it. Caucuses require physical participation at a particular time and place. That’s very demanding in comparison to a primary, in which one can vote at an time during the day. Naturally, this by default excludes certain types of people from participating – night shift workers, service workers, poor folk, disabled folk, and, the big no brainer: our troops.

Iowans serving our country abroad in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any number of stations outside of Iowa are excluded from the caucus by default. So not only are we getting less input from young Iowans, we’re excluding the voices of those most impacted by current policy decisions. This seems particularly important in light of the ruckus the youth vote community kicked up when some campaigns made noises questioning the legitimacy of out of state voters, and perhaps even more so in light of recent remarks by John Edwards about troop withdrawal times and residual forces. Whatever the media says, the candidates are offering different visions for the war and our foreign policy going forward. It’s scandalous that those most affected by those decisions will have no say in selecting their future commander in chief.

Yet another reason why the Iowa caucus has to go. Some folks have pointed at the shortened primary schedule this year and suggested that this will indeed by the swan song for the Iowa Caucus. Here’s hoping.

Now I’m hopping in my car to hit an Obama event downtown. Hopefully it won't be a full house by the time I get there. If not, I’ll have my first video segments uploaded late tonight.