This is really, really perplexing. It turns out that according to a new analysis, troops deployed abroad have donated six times more money to the candidate who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq:
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.
Interestingly, the analysis notes that in 2000, George W. Bush outraised Al Gore by two to one among military personnel, but in 2004, with the war underway, John Kerry closed the gap somewhat. Now, with the war having gone on for more than five years, the Dem has an overwhelming advantage among troops abroad.I can't account for this odd phenomenon. Anyone have any ideas why this might be happening?