Headlines

NJ

The “military vote” doesn’t really exist

Veterans and active-military members vote as voters. When it comes to picking a president, they care about jobs, health insurance, and other kitchen-table issues – just like everyone else.

Consider that veterans narrowly favored Bill Clinton, who some called a draft dodger, over World War II hero George H.W. Bush in 1992, while Bush’s son won the military vote in 2004 by 16 percentage points against decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Republican John McCain, who survived captivity in Vietnam, won the military vote in 2008, but only by 10 percentage points.

“There’s this idea that veterans have a shared outlook and interests, but voting behavior is usually explained by other factors, like party affiliation, ideology and religion,’’ said Benjamin Bishin, an associate professor at the University of California-Riverside, who studied exit poll results from more than 20 elections between 1992 and 2002.

The absence of a cohesive military vote, however, won’t stop the presidential candidates from courting veterans and their families.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I don’t believe this. The Democrats wouldn’t be using delaying tactics to ensure military ballots aren’t counted. They sure as heck seem to believe there is a military vote.

Doomberg on May 29, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Actions speak louder than words. The fact that democrats try so hard to disenfranchise so many military absentee ballots is proof that the military vote is significant and trends towards one party.

This article is just a distraction like so many others to set the stage for “Dear Leader” to contest a close election.

Skwor on May 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

The “military vote” doesn’t really exist

Well, tschaaaa….. we stopped counting those ballots years ago.
/pick a dem, any dem…..

ted c on May 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Kevin Baron (coauthor)

Baron worked in the Boston Globe Washington bureau as the investigative projects reporter, covering defense, international affairs, lobbying, and other issues. Before that, he muckraked at the Center for Public Integrity.

Skwor on May 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

“There’s this idea that veterans have a shared outlook and interests, but voting behavior is usually explained by other factors, like party affiliation, ideology and religion,’’ said Benjamin Bishin, an associate professor at the University of California-Riverside, who studied exit poll results from more than 20 elections between 1992 and 2002.

So, there is no military vote because votes tend to follow other factors, AND (not mentioned) people in the military tend to vote Republican and tend to be religious and tend to be patriotic — which would be those other factors.

I think we now know why this guy ain’t an associate professor of rocket science.

apostic on May 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Translation: The military vote is a huge advantage for the GOP so I will now pretend it doesn’t exist to feel better about myself.

rcpjr on May 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Good thing for Dems that the “illegal vote” exists

Ditkaca on May 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM

The military vote exists. It’s just not counted, or at least not counted in time to count.

petefrt on May 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The “military vote” doesn’t really exist

Say the civilians.

Washington Nearsider on May 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Every election they go out of their way to make sure they don’t count, so I guess that is a form of nonexistence.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I think writers like these two are grossly underpaid. The mental gymnastics one has to go through to create a narrative that fits the Dem agenda must be excruciatingly taxing.

antipc on May 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

My own experience was that military members are almost as variable politically as other Americans, but missing the left and right extremes. It wouldn’t surprise me a lot if they trended a little more conservative than the general population – just from overexposure to government control – but they’re hardly monolithic.

PersonFromPorlock on May 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM

The Democrats did their best to disenfranchise the military votes in 2000, and almost won.

But the real champion of a Democrat President disenfranchising military voters came when FDR was running for his 4th term.

As Robert J. Serling recounts in his terrific book “When the Airlines Went to War”:

…Roosevelt, running for an unprecedented fourth term against Republican Thomas Dewey of New York, had wanted to give the 11 million soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen stationed overseas a chance to vote in the election. But in a measure introduced by his Democratic lieutenants, FDR insisted on two provisions: no serviceman should have to pay the poll tax required by southern states, and the mail ballot itself should be a one-sheet affair limited solely to candidates for federal offices.

Southern congressman went ballistic over the poll tax proviso, and Republicans said it was criminal to not allow servicemen vote for local and state candidates. The debate raged for days, Ohio’s Senator Bob Taft leading the fight for all-inclusive voting. According to David Brinkley, who covered the Senate for United Press during the war, Taft really feared that Roosevelt’s plan “was to march the troops to the polls under orders to vote for the only name they knew-his own; to line them up as WPA workers had been lined up at the polls in past elections.”

-snip-

The bill Congress finally past and sent to the White House was so riddled with confusing and restrictive amendments that Roosevelt refused to sign it. He didn’t want to veto it either, so he let it become law without his signature, and the result was that very few servicemen overseas voted at all.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

This is just to set the table for when 0bama loses the military vote and loses big. “It doesn’t matter. It’s insignificant.”

CurtZHP on May 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I tend to believe this story is a crock.
1972, Richard Nixon running for re-election against anti-war candidate George McGovern. I was a 21 year-old registered Democrat about to vote in my first election (18 year olds had just got the right to vote the year before) via absentee ballot–I was a Marine in Vietnam. There was no question in my mind that I would vote for Nixon. I don’t know of any GI at the time that was for McGovern. I’m sure there were some, but they probably felt more comfortable keeping it to themselves.
(a few years later I switched to Republican. Sometime around 1995, I became an independent (thanks mostly to Gov. Pete Wilson of California).

cartooner on May 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I second what others are saying. I’ll believe when Democrats stop trying to discourage the military from voting, and vice versa with the GOP.

Also, one big reason TANG pilot W got their vote over decorated combat veteran Kerry was because Kerry stabbed all the vets in the back with his senate testimony, and went on to stab the USA in the back as a politician.

juliesa on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Bush’s son won the military vote in 2004 by 16 percentage points against decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry.

Duh! They know a phony when they see one.

cartooner on May 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM

He didn’t want to veto it either, so he let it become law without his signature, and the result was that very few servicemen overseas voted at all.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Re: Serling’s account – That doesn’t sound right. If I remember my civics lessons, a President not signing a bill doesn’t make the bill a law. If a President doesn’t sign a bill within a certain amount of time the bill is automatically veteoed. They call it a “pocket veto.” A President either signs a bill into law or it is vetoed and never takes effect.

But then, nowadays a President can sign the bill with an autopen and it’s considered valid. So who knows?

Mitoch55 on May 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Re: Serling’s account – That doesn’t sound right. If I remember my civics lessons, a President not signing a bill doesn’t make the bill a law. If a President doesn’t sign a bill within a certain amount of time the bill is automatically veteoed. They call it a “pocket veto.” A President either signs a bill into law or it is vetoed and never takes effect.

But then, nowadays a President can sign the bill with an autopen and it’s considered valid. So who knows?

Mitoch55 on May 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

You have that absolutely backwards. When a president doesn’t sign the law within ten days and he fails to return it back to congress it goes into affect automatically. This was an early compromise to allow a sitting president the leeway to not support the law but still allow it to go into effect.

Skwor on May 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I wonder if the timing of this new meme has anything to do with recent polls like this.

Kind of like “What is this ‘Wisconsin recall’ of which you speak?”

tbrosz on May 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM

You have that absolutely backwards. When a president doesn’t sign the law within ten days and he fails to return it back to congress it goes into affect automatically. This was an early compromise to allow a sitting president the leeway to not support the law but still allow it to go into effect.

Skwor on May 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Yup…absolutely correct. I was wrong about it. Except if Congress adjourns before the ten days runs out. In that case, the bill does not become law.

Mitoch55 on May 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM

..you must be one helluva well-read individual. (Not in the slightest a sarcastic remark; one engendered by my profound admiration.) I am continually entertained and encouraged to do further research by your comments and posts, Del.

You should consider blogging.

The War Planner on May 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM