What’s Behind A Number
By Mitch Berg
When I saw the lefty blogs en phalanx crowing about the factoid that a survey of the military showed them giving to Obama by a 6:1 margin over Mac, I sat up.
Wow. Gotta check this out.
Zack Stephenson of MNPublius’ tone was a lot like all the rest of the leftyblogs that wrote on the subject (hmmm):
I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the party of the military:
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…
Wow. Given that Bush crushed Kerry in troop donations (and votes; 4:1 with active duty troops, 3:1 with reserves) four years ago, that’d be big news, if it’s entirely true.
Of course, that’s the “if” you always have to run down when it’s “news” spread simultaneously through the Sorosphere.
Allahpundit:
The left will happily run this up the flagpole, just as Ron Paul’s supporters did last year, despite the fact there are so many variables in play that no one’s quite sure what the actual significance of it is. Is it evidence that the troops favor withdrawal? Evidence that the military’s trending left? Evidence that Obama’s supporters are more enthusiastic than McCain’s? None of the above? All of the above?
To really know, we’d have to know a couple of things; a big one would be “sample size”, the number of troops and contributions being sampled in the “Study”.
And we don’t know that. Remember that fact. We’ll come back to it shortly.
We do know a couple of things. Back to Allahpundit:
But again — what is it, precisely, that we’re noting? The fact that Paul does disproportionately well among the same group probably means it’s a war thing; it may be that there’s a core group of troops who are passionately opposed to extending the occupation for whatever reason and they’re willing to donate to candidates to achieve that end. That group was likely too small in 2004 to help Kerry given how recent the invasion still was, but after five years it’s grown along with the rest of the anti-war tide among the electorate. Evidence, then, that most troops want out? Maybe! Except … the data doesn’t specify whether the donations came mostly from Iraq or were spread out around the globe, and interestingly, the one branch where McCain leads Obama in contributions is the one most likely to see the hardest action — the [US Marine] Corps. Beyond that, the would-be McCain soldier-donor has a hurdle to clear on his way to his checkbook that the Paul and Obama donor doesn’t. By kicking in to Maverick, he’s making it marginally more likely that he’ll continue to be deployed in the field and away from his family in the future. Even if he agrees with McCain’s foreign policy, thinks we ought to finish the job in Iraq, and is willing to continue serving bravely and well to that end, it’s asking a lot to ask him to pay for the privilege.
They got their anecdotes, we have ours.
Oh, wait. Remember when I said to remember the fact that we don’t know the sample size?
That’s not exactly true:
Of the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors and airmen currently deployed around the entire world, 134 — about the size of a company or a handful of platoons — have contributed to the Obama campaign. This is blockbuster news, folks.
Here, let me use the original sensational headline instead:
Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama
Anecdotes, data…whatever. Obama Fever is obviously blitzkrieging through the ranks.
The Sorosphere: Distrust and Verify.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Ya lost me. Was there place in this post where you refuted that headline?
August 15th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Refute?
No.
Gave it its proper context – the sampling was tiny to the point of insignificant?
Toward the bottom.
Look for the bit about “134 troops”.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I can’t picture soldiers giving to political campaigns all that much in the first place. Voting? Yes. Handing money out? No. I don’t do much of that and I am not nearly as young, “busy”, far away or underpaid. I suppose “the military” doesn’t mean all deployed, but still….
August 15th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Ha, St Paul paper had this story this morning. Red flags went up all over the place when I read it. I wonder why they didn’t say “of the 500,000 troops station overseas, 134 have donated to BHO, 23 to McCain.”
But I guess saying our fighting forces support Obama 6 to 1 sounds better.
And most of the military people I know don’t contribute to political causes, even if they enthusiastically support a candidate.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Most of the military I knew 20 years ago – enlisted guys and junior officers – couldn’t spare the money to give to politicians.
Most of the military I know today – senior NCOs in the Guard and Reserve, and field-grade officers on active duty – may or may not have a buck to spare, but are mostly GOP.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Shorter Rosenburg: “DOH!”
August 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Mitch:
134 is not the total number who gave to Obama, it is the total of people who gave more than $200 in total. Given the demographics, donations under $200 are likely even more favorable to Obama.
According to this
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?sortby=N
Only 175,000 of Obama’s 2,000,000 donors gave more than $200.
So 134 military donations above $200 suggests more than 1500 total donors to Obama. That is not a few platoons, it is a large battalion.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Given the demographics, donations under $200 are likely even more favorable to Obama…So 134 military donations above $200 suggests more than 1500 total donors to Obama.
Presuming that numbers in the military mirror numbers in the general population. You have no evidence that they do.
There is highly anecdotal evidence on both sides: active duty military is still very strongly right-leaning, and Republicans tend to get a higher percentage of smaller donations than Dems do; I’m sure there’s anecdotal evidence and (as you’ve shown) simple-to-too-simple arithmetic extrapolation to buff up your case.
We’ll find out in November.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The overriding point, Rick – and I imagine you can try to deny this, although I shudder to think of the depths of obtusion you’ll have to plumb to do it – is that the “Troops Support Obama by a 6:1 Margin!” headline is extremely misleading, and the treatment the local Sorosphere’s given it has been exceedingly disingenuous.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Of the people who sit around me, 3 are on soccer leagues, 1 plays hockey.
Headline: MINNESOTANS PREFER SOCCER OVER HOCKEY BY A 3 TO 1 MARGIN.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Conservative bloggers prefer reading Left-Leaner blogs over conservative blogs by 12-to-1 margin!
August 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am
“Republicans tend to get a higher percentage of smaller donations than Dems do”
Not in the current Presidential race. Obama has far more small donors than McCain, probably by a 4-1 or 5-1 ratio.
“the “Troops Support Obama by a 6:1 Margin!” headline is extremely misleading”
Compared to what? No headline tells the whole story. Clearly there has been a significant change in the pattern of deployed military giving in favor of Obama. It is some evidence to suggest that Obama will get a higher % of the military vote than Kerry got.
If you got other evidence to suggest otherwise, cite it.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Isn’t 134, exactly the number of returning troops that have gone on homicidal rampages?
Coincidence?
August 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Not in the current Presidential race. Obama has far more small donors than McCain, probably by a 4-1 or 5-1 ratio.
Obama’s race is a bit of an outlier, though; smaller GOP donors (who tend to be conservatives) tend not to be excited about Mac, while Obama’s demigoguery, like any good cult, has parted a lot of people and their spare change.
Wellstone’s average contribution in ’02 was in three digits; Coleman’s was under $50. That difference holds for a lot of races downticket this season, from what I’ve heard.
Compared to what? No headline tells the whole story.
So let’s tell one that’s completely sodomized context?
Clearly there has been a significant change in the pattern of deployed military giving in favor of Obama.
No. Clearly an infinitesimal, three-digit sample pulled from a population in six figures gave a result that was somewhat unexpected. A little over 100 troops doesn’t make for a “signficant change in pattern”.
It is some evidence to suggest that Obama will get a higher % of the military vote than Kerry got.
Perhaps. I’m sure he will get a higher % than Kerry; Kerry was a stiff, and while Obama will on inauguration day likely be the worst president of my lifetime, he’s definitely a better candidate.
If you got other evidence to suggest otherwise, cite it.
Evidence to suggest a prediction? Well, other than decades of history and polls showing that while support among the military for the GOP has slipped a bit from 2004, from “incredibly overwhelming” to “overwhelming”, not at the moment, no.
And if I DO present “evidence” of this, it’ll be more than 100-odd people out of a couple hundred thousand.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
DFL-Rick:
“Compared to what? No headline tells the whole story.”
Objects Make Contact with Urban Structures
(See airplane crash from seven years ago in mid-September)
Texas Parade Cancelled During Event
(See firearm incident from November 1963)
Candidate Surpasses Incumbant
(See President Carter’s retirement)
Yeah, you’re right.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Is Barry-O still counting bumper sticker purchases as “small donations”?
August 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Not just bumper sticker purchases, Chuck… anyone who does a “fist bump” counts as a small donation.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Mitch writes:
“I’m sure he will get a higher % than Kerry”
“support among the military for the GOP has slipped a bit from 2004”
Then what are you complaining about? The takeaway from the stories is ‘Obama doing better in military, can’t say by how much’.
And quit using the sample size dodge. The study is a total count of $200 plus donors. There is a question about how well donor behavior indicates voter behavior (e.g. no one thinks Obama’s 4-1 donor advantage will carry over to the election), but that is not an issue of sample size.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
This sentence is more informative than ‘6:1 to Obama’:
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.
So for every dollar donated by military personel in the presidential race, Obama has gotten 57 cents, while generic GOP vs Dem military contributions have been GOP 59 cents, dems 41 cents. Not exactly the earthquake the 6:1 headline would make you believe was happening.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am
You folks have missed the glaringly obvious (perhaps intentionally?).
Obama enjoys a 94% advantage among black voters. Now I don’t know what percentage blacks comprise in the military, but I suspect it is larger than the overall population, and if this is the case, the total is naturally skewed in this poll.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Rick-
The numbers are far too statistically insignificant to draw any conclusions from. The people who donate more than $200 to a political campaign are likely a very highly partisan subset of the overall population of troops overseas and their behavior should not be used to generalize anything about that population as a whole.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Chuck:
“Is Barry-O still counting bumper sticker purchases as “small donations”?”
Try charging for your McCain bumper stickers. Supply and demand is a bitch.
Terry:
“This sentence is more informative than ‘6:1 to Obama’”
So your objection is that the body of the article contains more complete information than the headline. How do you feel about the weather?
Kermit:
“Obama enjoys a 94% advantage among black voters.”
Are we not counting black members of the military?
Chad:
“their behavior should not be used to generalize anything about that population as a whole.”
Sure, that is why everyone says the evidence should be weighed carefully. But would you rather have Obama’s 6-1 advantage or Bush’s 00 advantage? Just because the info is not conclusive, does not mean it is not good news for Dems.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
This just in:
Left-Leaners “Donate” More Snark Than Conservatives By 35:1 Margin
August 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
New Technology Tested Downtown
(See Little Boy and Fat Man)
August 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Try charging for your McCain bumper stickers. Supply and demand is a bitch
Ask the Scientologists!
So your objection is that the body of the article contains more complete information than the headline. How do you feel about the weather?
Obtuse much?
If the context makes the headline nearly meaningless, then it’s a pretty valid objection.
Are we not counting black members of the military?
Don’t know that I’ve seen one. But since african-americans are disproportionally represented in the military, and the military voted 4:1 for Bush, one might suspect there’s a difference.
But would you rather have Obama’s 6-1 advantage or Bush’s 00 advantage? Just because the info is not conclusive, does not mean it is not good news for Dems.
The story isn’t about whether it’s good news OR conclusive.
It’s that the sorosphere is presenting a deeply, disingenuously misleading headline and a very incomplete portrayal of the story.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“a deeply, disingenuously misleading headline and a very incomplete portrayal of the story”
Since all of the context you cite (and more) is contained in the article, I don’t see your issue. That leaves the headline which usually highlights the most dramatic new information. What headline would you write for the story?
August 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Which article?
The one in MNPublius? The one in the Mindy? Not so!
That leaves the headline which usually highlights the most dramatic new information. What headline would you write for the story?
This story has no dramatic information, and indeed hardly qualifies as news, except if you cherry-pick it very carefully and present it with almost no context.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Are we not counting black members of the military?
Are we incapable of applying context?
August 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
It’s not the Barry is charging for trinkets with his name on them, but he is reporting them as small campaign donations to make his numbers look better….to skew them to many small individual donars. Helps offset the trial lawyers, Big Hollywood, etc.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Kermit said:
“Are we incapable of applying context?”
Please, Kermit. We know RickDFL is incapable of a lot more than that!
August 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Well, in defense of Rick, he at least seems to keep the discussion in context (if not the subjects and information); he doesn’t seem to palpably froth over these arguments like…
…well, you know.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“This sentence is more informative than ‘6:1 to Obama’”
So your objection is that the body of the article contains more complete information than the headline. How do you feel about the weather?
I don’t have any objection at all, RckDFL. Man bites dog sells newspapers. Dog bites man does not.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Hey Terry, you had a New Messiah sighting on the beach down there? I hear He’s a mean body surfer!
August 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Mitch:
“This story has no dramatic information, and indeed hardly qualifies as news, except if you cherry-pick it very carefully and present it with almost no context.”
Well that is certainly has more vocab than ‘nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-here-you’, but about the same content. We will just have to file this one under ‘we will see’.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mitch:
Conceded.
RickDFL:
The richness of “nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-here-you” (sic) statement is also acknowledged.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Well that is certainly has more vocab than ‘nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-here-you’, but about the same content.
Er, yeah. If you say so. Whatever.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Seriously. You wanna say that “Obama wins the $200 or more competition among deployed troops 6:1” is huge news for him in a week where his Rasmussen poll shows him within the margin nationwide and in Minnesota, knock yourself out.
It’s dishonest to the point of comical, but it’s your life.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Kermit-
Dude! The Obamanator is everywhere! He’s like HURRICANE OBAMA !1! Right there! Buying shave ice & going to Zippy’s drive-in!!1ELEVENTY!1
Actually Obama is an Oahu guy & that’s where he’s been hanging out. I don’t know if he’s ever been to the ‘neighbor’ islands (They used to be called ‘outer’ islands but the tourism bureau made them change it).
The way the local press has been fawning over him is pathetic. They’ve been breaking into network programming to give live interviews to the people who waited on him at restaurants. This is what fascism looks like. Except for the hula-hoops.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
So, if 134 is the number that gave more than $200 to BHO then is 22 the number of troops that gave more than $200 to McCain? If so then That leads me to ask what is the true sample size? Followed by the other important question about a poll: What’s the methodology used?
I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no chance that this 6:1 troop support is accurate, NONE. I could buy as much as 1:1; I’d be highly skeptical of a 3:2 advantage for BHO, but it could be fathomable.
I think that this is a 100% manufactured poll, made for the sole purpose of refuting a dead even election, with a razor thin victory going to McCain based on absentee ballots from service people. They will point to this poll & say that there must be some sort of fraud in the ballot counting. They’ll say “How could the troops support BHO 6:1 financially, but then vote overwhelmingly for McCain? There must be some sort of fraud, coercion, or disenfranchisement on the part of the Republicans.” Then they will try to have the troops votes excluded because of this.
It’s not like the Dems didn’t try to accomplish this in 2000 & 2004, why would 2008 be any different? BHO is a part of the Chicago Machine, nothing should surprise you. I believe this is the harbinger of what you can expect on election night.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“Well that is certainly has more vocab than ‘nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-here-you’, but about the same content.”
Hey Rick…
If you are going to try to rip a guy about his limited vocabulary, perhaps you may want to check your own vocabulary and grammar first? You should pick one verb or the other, & then learn the difference between ‘here’ & ‘HEAR’…