This is the America we live in- Gallup: Military Veterans of All Ages Tend to Be More Republican

[FrenchieCat]

I guess that Many Veterans like the chickenhawks that send them to fight wars that didn't need to be fought, and without the equipment required. It is beyond ironic that they, according to this article, identify with the party that doesn't give a fuck about them or their families once they come home.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Veterans are more likely to be Republican than are those of comparable ages who are not veterans. This Republican skew is at least minimally evident across all age groups, ranging from a 15-point difference in the percentage Republican between veterans and nonveterans in the 25-29 age group, to a 2-point difference in the 85+ group.



These results are based on an analysis of more than 138,000 interviews conducted as part of the Gallup Poll Daily tracking program since January of this year. Respondents were classified as veterans/active military based on an affirmative response to this question: "In the past or at the present time, are you or have you been a member of the United States military?" Fourteen percent of Americans indicate that they have served in the military in the past or are currently on active duty. (It should be noted that normal survey procedures would not include active-duty military serving overseas or on ships at sea.)



Political Differences

For the entire adult population, 34% of veterans and those currently on active military service are Republican, compared to 26% of those who are not veterans, while 29% of veterans identify themselves as Democrats, compared to 38% of those who are not veterans. (Thirty-three percent of veterans are independents, compared to 29% of nonveterans.)



Different Patterns at Work?

It is difficult to establish the precise causal relationship between military service and Republican orientation. It may be that service in the military per se socializes an individual in certain ways that in turn lead to a more Republican viewpoint -- either at the time or in later years. On the other hand, there may be a selection factor at work, such that individuals already disproportionately Republican in orientation are more likely to join the military, meaning that the causal factor predates actual military service.

The latter explanation seems more reasonable for the younger age cohorts considered in this research. For the most part, Americans who are now aged 55 and under, as noted, volunteered to serve rather than having been drafted. Under these conditions, a reasonable hypothesis seems to be that more conservative/more Republican persons would be disproportionately represented in the ranks of volunteers, suggesting that the major reason for the observed veteran/nonveteran political difference lies in the backgrounds of those who choose to serve.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118684/Military-Veterans-Ages-Tend-Republican.aspx

[thewiseguy]

1. I am going to get flamed for this but this all has to do with education

You would see the gap narrows as there is an increase in age.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I think that are more apt to buy into the RW propaganda

since it is most likely spoon fed to them while they are in isolation in Armed Force world!

Hope there are some veterans here who could enlighten us on this oddness.

[bluestateguy]

2. So?

I mean, really, so what?

Obama took 44% of the veteran vote to 41% for John Kerry in 2004. Obama is the president; Kerry is just another blowhard senator.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Why are you saying that about John Kerry?

I found this information quite interesting....
Thought I'd post it.

[karynnj]

22. He's likely still angry that Kerry didn't endorse Edwards

I think your analysis was great - the way they broke the information down adds a lot.

The fact is that EVERY group in 2008 will show a higher percent Democrat than in 2004. The fact of the matter is that it was CW that whoever won the Democratic nomination would be President. This is why the Clintons ran HRC in 2008, not 2004. The 3% shift from 2004 to 2008 for veterans is actually smaller than the shift overall. This likely means that Kerry did get some lift among veterans - in spite of the campaign of lies.

[LooseWilly]

6. What does Kerry have to do with this? Aside from being a veteran himself?

[Jennicut]

18. Kerry has been a very good Senator and would have been a way better President then Bush.

Sorry, but that argument is crap.

[karynnj]

21. You ignore that 80% of the country thought the country was going in the wrong direstion in

2008; where 59% answered that the country was doing fairly or very well in 2004.

In 2008, the person Obama had in Nevada and Texas speaking to vets in the primary was JOHN KERRY. Do you know why Kerry won Southern states in the 2004 primaries against Edwards - Kerry had the support of Democratic veterans.

2008 was a year where a Democrat was favored - 2004 was not - Bush was at 60% in December 2003. Kerry made it very competitive - in spite of a media heavily biased against him. The biggest error you can blame on Kerry is that he also had a narcissistic VP more concerned with his own image and unwilling to use the campaign's slogans or have the President's back. From Shrum, Kerry's gut feel was not to trust Edwards - the media and party favorite, he should have gone with that and pisked someone like Durbin.

Additionally, that number comes from exit polling. The same exit polling that showed that Kerry won - that then had to be "adjusted" to constrain it to the official result. A standard procedure - but given the magnitude of the "adjustment", it makes the results suspect. There was also the voter suppression in 2004 that was not a problem in 2008. (One lawyer Obama had working on this - Cam Kerry.)

Additionally, Kerry is not and never has been a "blowhard". Obama ran on many of the ideas that Kerry had in 2004. Kerry is the most important Senator on both foreign policy and the environment. He also is reportedly one of the people Obama does regularly speak to.

What exactly are you implying that Kerry failed to do for this group?
- To serve himself? He did - and he is a highly decorated veteran, who own men still to this day have great respect for him.
- To work in Congress to assure they get the benefits veterans need? - there is NO Senator who has done more.
- Or, do you think it was wrong that he spoke out when he knew the policy was wrong and men were dying because leaders wanted to save face? Go read Kerry's speech - you will see that what he did he did because he cared about the soldiers and he cared about his country.

[Binka]

30. Have You Served? I Mean Beside Worshiping Your 42 Inch TV.

Your semi-colon is used incorrectly sport BTW. I mean, really, so what.

[blm]

33. BushInc wasn't working 24/7 to STEAL 2008 the way they did for 2004. You are welcome to explain how

Obama would have gotten 44% of the veteran vote in 2004 and even gotten all his Dem votes counted under McAuliffe's 4yr stewardship of the DNC that collapsed so many state party infrastructures, and especially, with the last Dem president and the best known Democrats siding with Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war.

You are also welcome to name ONE LAWMAKER who has uncovered and exposed more government corruption over the last 3 decades than John Kerry, the man you call another blowhard, than John Kerry.

[LooseWilly]

4. You did read the whole article, didn't you Frenchie?

It came to a tentative conclusion which I've also suspected for some time... that the Republican skew of the military is not a result of the military, but a reflection of who is currently joining the military.

In other words... since the military has become a volunteer service, while it's perceived role hasn't changed much, it has been a majority of Republican leaning individuals who have volunteered... in other words, the stats suggest that they are Republicans before they enter the military, not as a result of exposure to the military.

That said, saying "I guess that Many Veterans like the chickenhawks that send them to fight wars that didn't need to be fought, and without the equipment required." is actually as much of/even more of a judgement of those who are signing up, as it is of anyone who is currently in or about to get out of, the military.

I personally suspect that if the military weren't used as often as in the last 28 years or so for conflicts that were largely concerned with corporate interests... then the skew might start to even out. It's just my personal theory, based on why I refused to have anything to do with the military....

[uponit7771]

10. Except for most blacks or latinos who enter this is mostly right from my experience...

...the folk who enter are mostly

EIB radio also has something to do with it also...

[LooseWilly]

15. That would make sense... statistically.

I think.

The blacks and latinos would largely be joining for the money/benefits(educational)/training. Stereotypically speaking... what with the stereotypically lower socio-economic status of blacks and latinos... statistically speaking.

The fact of the survey's measure of the skew further suggests to me that, despite the underpriveliged numbers in the general population of the country... that the correlation between opportunities and expectations of the military nevertheless don't draw the majority of latinos and blacks to military service. I suspect that has a lot to do with a negative view of the military as oppressors of "brown people"... which leads many possible recruits to refuse to join (as I did) because they can't stomach the possibility of being enforcers of policies that they refuse to tolerate.
Meanwhile the more Republican leaning types have no problems with any of the above behavior...

[karynnj]

23. True - and the Vietnam era vets are more even divided and possibly slightly skewed to the Democratic

Most of the vets now in their late 50s and early 60s would be Vietnam Vets - back when there was a draft.

[JimWis]

7. Don't know about the polls -but this veteran and most of the veterans

I currently know are Democrats, of various ages.

[depakid]

8. It would be more interesting to see the data broken down by regions

My bet is that the region one comes from or lives in is a MUCH more important predictor of party affiliation that one's status as a veteran.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. Agreed, it would be interesting to see, and I agree with your prediction.

[sarge43]

17. Also broken down by

Age, race, gender, length of service, rank, branch, education (before and after service)

Then do a comparison with a similar demographic that didn't serve. I suspect there will be little difference.

[depakid]

19. Could well be

My thoughts on the regional thing are that the population of veterans these days may skew more toward the various Republican leaning- or solid red areas- and that in those areas, the difference in party affiliation would be rather pronounced, whereas it probably wouldn't be in "bluer" areas.

[boppers]

11. Cannon fodder doesn't want to believe that they're duped morons.

News at 11.

In related news, people who bought into "Make Money Fast" scams over the internet don't think they made bad decisions.

Oh, and people who have given larger sums of money to religions tend to think better of religion.

People who have spent more money on "psychics" tend to think that predictions are more accurate.

If only there was something to explain this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[cliffordu]

13. Is it easier to call veterans duped morons in the anonymity of the internet, or

when you stand face to face with them?

I would imagine the former.

Cowardice has been infinitely rewarded here in the 'courage of your convictions' vacuum that is the world wide web.

Pity, really.

[boppers]

14. My father was totally shafted by the AF.

I would guess that you didn't get what you were "promised" by your recruiters, either.

I'm happy to go toe to toe with you, and take my lumps, to defend my point, but I doubt that'll be required.

I'd guess that you didn't get what you were "promised", either.

On that note, I'll just note that I've seen you on DU, over the years, defending service, and acknowledge that you are worthy of a great deal of respect, and honor, for defending those who have served.

I'm happy to talk with you anytime you're in Portland, OR, and discuss ways to make sure that recruits know what they're getting into, and how we can ensure that the FNG's know when they're going to be cannon fodder, or when they are going to have a long career.

[cliffordu]

26. My only beef is with the phrase "duped morons."

I was neither. Still ain't.

If you want to let kids know what they are REALLY in for just take them to the wards in the VA where the serious brain injury patients are, or better yet arrange a nice visit to the burn unit.

Or just look around your town for homeless guys in wheelchairs missing limbs. Maybe talking to themselves. By some accounts 25% of homeless men are veterans. We aren't too hard to find.

More than a few of them are these duped morons, I guess.

Just don't call them that to their face.

What you want to SHOW the kiddies is that this military shit has permanent, real-life consequences.

And you won't even have to call them names.

Be sure to tell them that recruiters will NEVER share that with them.



My recruiter promised me Germany if I enlisted rather than wait for the draft. MY lottery number was three. I signed up. Beer and German girls sounded pretty good. When I got travel orders for Vietnam I went to my company commander to complain about not being assigned to Germany like the recruiter promised.

"You'll go to Germany, all right." He said. "Right after you get done with your tour in Vietnam"

[boppers]

28. I apologize for using the phrase.

Thank you for the ideas on helping "kiddies" understand the magnitude of what they're getting into.

What do you think about asking (requiring?) new recruits to volunteer at a VA hospital for 40 hours before they sign? God knows they need the hands.

Would that have stopped you, or at least helped you understand the magnitude of your decisions (or, in the case of the draft, the decisions being made for you)?

[cliffordu]

31. Working in a VA hospital is a great idea for potential recruits.

It wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference in my case - My ancestors all did a stint in the military and it was expected of me.

No quibbling on that with stepdad or grandpa.....

Besides, I was trying to outrun a warrant for the sale of narcotics. (long story....).


I'm glad I went. It stripped me of the illusion that we are NOT just another empire in decline.

And it impressed me as to how little the 'people in charge' actually know, and how afraid they really are.

And it showed me what "I got your back" really fucking means.

[Radical Activist]

12. Of course.

Republicans convince them that Democrats are anti-troop because the Republicans are the hawks who push for more defense spending. And Democrats are too chickenshit to tell the troops they're getting screwed because all of the money is going to the defense industry.

I've been very impressed to see Obama talk about focusing defense spending on troops as opposed to defense contractors. That's what the Dem message should be when we aren't afraid to stand up to Boeing, Halliburton etc.

[joshcryer]

16. 62%, by that poll, are *not* republican.

:shrug:

Doesn't make sense to me.

[karynnj]

24. Obviously many identify themselves as Independent

[karynnj]

20. Note the Vietnam era veterans - they are more Democratic than Republican

Look at the last graph - These are people mostly between 50 and 60 now. Some would also be in the 60 - 64 age - where they are about equally split between the parties. (I think more were drafted right out of high school at 18 or 19. I think the height of the war in terms of numbers fighting was in 1967 - 69. These people would be in the 56 - 59 age range and the youngest in the 60 - 64 range. The support for the war fell as time went by - so the later in the war someone served the more likely it met your description.

[Still Sensible]

25. Despite continuous evidence to the contrary

during the goddamn Bush administration, be it:

the lack of body armor for troops,
the lack of armored vehicles,
the cuts in veteran's benefits,
the scandal at Walter Reed,
and on and on

The republicans have been able to convince the majority of military folks that democrats are bad for the military and the republicans are good. Despite the evidence, this has become so much the dogma of the service that many simply accept it as fact.

I was an Army brat. I believe the dogma got started during the Vietnam war and became cemented in the culture divide that came in its aftermath. In every way they could, the conservatives and republicans drove a wedge between democrats and military families. The war protests--where IMO much rage was misdirected at returning soldiers instead of a laser focus on the politicians and the top brass--fed the stereotype.

Sadly, it wasn't due to any great concern for the troops that the GOP was able to create the stereotype, but rather for the MIC, for which they were really working. Military families' acceptance of the dogma was a happy--to the MIC--by product.

I still have relatives and friends in the service and I can report that it seems to me the stereotypical thinking has evolved for the better in the last few years. Many in the service finally began to see through the Bush bullshit. I would be interested in seeing the Presidents approval ratings among those in the service and their families to see if my anecdotal observation is reflected.

Certainly the reception President Obama has been getting in military venues so far has been quite strong.

[windbreeze]

27. IF this is true...then explain to me, why at one point...Sen.Johnson,

a Democrat from S.Dakota, was the ONLY SENATOR...with a child in the military, serving in IRAQ????

Boot camp is where they MAKE a man out of you...read this as....where they teach you to think like they do...and trust me, they do have ways of teaching a person how best to get along with your fellow soldiers and superior officers...all it takes is one in a position of power, to influence a whole group...a DI has a new group of kids, what? every 6 weeks?....and a lot of them are underprivileged kids who have gone without basic necessities of life up to that point...who join the service for the paycheck, and education they can get..and retirement...At the same time, because of their strong desire for those things, can be influenced the easiest of any...

I have personal knowledge of a kid who went into the military and became a man I didn't know..to the point of when having a discussion with him a couple years ago (I mistakenly thought I could speak freely in front of him, since he was always considered a part of our family)...so we get into a discussion about *, and I exercise my right to free speech accordingly....his response...Are you on a list yet???? That's when I became aware that all the talk about people being put on lists was NOT bullshit...this person was a pretty high ranking non-com in the AF at that time...but I was stunned, not deterred, but stunned for a second, because I never dreamed such a thing would come out of his mouth to me...I mean, we considered him part of our extended family, he even lived with me when he was a young kid, and I took good care of him...and yet he asked me something like this???(my response? I don't give a s*** if I am, right is right, and wrong is wrong, and to make it worse, I even told him * wasn't my president...I didn't vote for him, and I can't stand him...LOL)

Then a couple months later, I had a strange occurrence at my home, that pretty much convinced me he had turned me in to someone(I won't go into it, but it was so strange, it simply couldn't have been the result of anything else)...His oath of loyalty, originally, was to the Constitution, but his actions told me, he had become convinced that his loyalty was to his CIC instead(so where did that mindset come from, if NOT from someone in a superior position?)...He did admit that they were told to spy on their fellow workers...to watch all the people they interacted with on a daily basis and make reports if someone was radical, or expressed any views that weren't part of group think...(when I asked him if he felt deep down, that such a thing was right, I didn't get much of a response, other than it didn't matter, it was what he had to do)

Basically he was just one more of the many under privileged kids who join the military in order to be able to live a decent life, meaning a regular paycheck, food, a roof over their heads, medical and some education if they are up to it.. multiply that by millions of kids and perhaps that's the reason the poll comes out the way it does....wb

[quiller4]

29. The Gallup survey doesn't distinguish between enlisted and

officer. Other surveys do and show different results. The Republican bias is strong among officers and non-existant amoung enlisted. 538 had a thorough discussion about this a few days ago.

[Aristus]

32. This veteran is an ultra-liberal Democrat, so the repukes can kiss my Army-green ass!

[Butch350]

34. Military democrat here and my son.