Military Times Poll Show Soldiers Pick McCain Over Obama 68-23%
Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 11:10AM In a Military Times poll that surveyed 4,300 readers who are active duty, national guard or reserves, soldiers favor John McCain for president over Barack Obama by a 68% - 23% margin. The respondents are all registered who plan to vote.
Enlisted soldiers prefer John McCain 67% - 24% and officers prefer McCain 70% - 22%.
The pollster concludes that the results represent a more senior rank than the overall armed forces represents, but that “as a snapshot of careerists, the results suggest Democrats have gained little ground in their attempts to significantly chip away at a traditionally Republican voting bloc in campaign messages and legislative initiatives, such as the recent expansion of GI Bill benefits”.
It also shows that “career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.”
SHOCKER!
Here’s an insight: infantry units and deployed soldiers are made up of mostly whites, while supply and support units are top heavy with minorities.
Having been stationed with 4th Infantry Division, 101st Airborne Division, 82ndAirborne Division, which are infantry units VS training and support units like those at Fort Jackson, SC and in Korea, I can attest to that assessment. In fact, it is usually the lower enlisted, college aged kids who frankly don’t know a whole lot that support Barack Obama.
This isn’t surprising. The troops voted 4-1 for Bush over John Kerry in 2004.
Trackback URL: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/2441684
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (26)
Amy, I see you are still 'Able'-y soldie(R)ing on with Mc'Kane' ... I guess that means you (R) p(R)o-Ame(R)ican and that those who don't agree with you are Auntie-American ... they cry Uncle and raise the white flag of defeat!
Originally the existence of different opinions was a measure of democracy in action. Now the litmus test for democracy is the 'homo'-geneity on the (R)ight.
Ahhhh .... the f(R)uits of democ(R)acy, Eh!?
Snerd
Late yesterday, at American Sentinel, I posted "Are the Armed Forces “racist” for overwhelming rejection of Obama?" .
You might drop by and look at my analysis of the Military Times' numbers.
Some highlights:
"The Military Times’ data presented . . . in the Army Times’ “Military Times poll: Troops backing McCain,” show near-overwhelming support for John McCain, no matter how the data are analyzed, with one exception. And that is along racial lines.
“'White/Non-Hispanics' for McCain outnumber that same group’s vote for Obama by approximately 3 to 1.
"But for 'Whites/non-Hispanics' for Obama versus 'Blacks' (they say Black/African-American, but according to the AP Style Manual, both apply to blacks, depending on how and who uses) for Obama, Blacks outnumber the Whites/non-Hispanics approximately 3 to 1.
"These percentages approximate those of the general population, with respect to the near-total black vote (it’s still 90+ percent) projected for Obama. . .
"At the Military Times’ poll, for 'Hispanics only,' it’s also approximately 3 to 1 for McCain.
"For 'Non-specified race,' it’s about 2 to 1 for McCain. . .
"Interestingly, for all men polled in the Military Times’ poll, it’s about 3 to 1 for McCain. For women, it’s about 2 to 1 for McCain.
"Age? Really not so much difference between younger versus older. Both at about 3 to 1 for McCain.
"And, in a display of unity between the EMs (enlisted personnel) and Os (officers), both groups go about 3 to 1 for McCain."
Forgot to mention that the article I just referenced can be found at RCP, on the more -than-10-votes page for reader submissions.
Snerd,
Let's see - Amy is an Army wife. Amy's husband is an Army man. I think that what America's fighting men and women want to do more than anything is WIN, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia, Grenada, Vietnam, or Somalia.
The Democrats have a very poor record in helping America's military WIN (see Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada, and maybe Afghanistan in the future). It culminated in wanting to run from Iraq, and thereby LOSE. Obama was out front in wanting to run and LOSE, no matter the consequences to this country.
McCain was out in front wanting to WIN, as were almost all Republicans. Our military took note of that, and that is why they cast their votes the way they did.
Almost all Iraq rhetoric from the Democrat opposition, be it from an official or from a private citizen, has always sounded to me like they were perfectly willing to LOSE if it meant they could get political gain from it, thus crossing the line from from constructive criticism/opinion/dissent. A lot of people view wanting to LOSE as anti-American.
I and probably a lot of Republicans opposed Clinton when he sent troops into Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia, and I didn't much care for Bush Sr. going into Somalia, but once there, I wanted America to WIN. I think any Republican who opposed going into those missions still wanted to WIN, and was not going to torpedo the effort just to get political gain out of it.
Senator Obama in 2006 earned an 80% rating and Senator Biden received a 75% rating from Disabled American Veterans, while Senator McCain earned a 20% rating from the country’s largest and oldest group dedicated to veterans’ disability and healthcare issues.
You can view the full IAVA report at http://www.veteranreportcard.org/index.html. IAVA has about 105,000 members.
Vietnam Veterans of America notes that McCain voted against their interests 15 times and for them 8 times, while Obama voted 12 times with them and once against them.
McCain's record: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/23/mccain-vet-awards/
You only know what you are feed...
~ Peace
[quote]It also shows that “career-oriented black service members strongly favored the Democratic Party candidate.”
SHOCKER![end quote]
"From the deepest desires often come the deadliest hate. "
~ Socrates
"I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone... they will be forced to deal with pain. "
~ James Arthur Baldwin
Ed,
Thanks for keeping us posted on the great job Obama is doing for the veterans.
Hopefully the current troops make it to "veterans", since Obama is also doing a great job making sure they don't get the resources they need to defend themselves while serving, much less WIN. I suspect this fact weighed heavily on the current troops landslide selection of John McCain in the Military Times poll.
While I had to retire earlier than planned due to (non-combat) knee injuries, I keep in touch with soldiers I formerly commanded, officers I served with, and several generations of veterans. Not one of them that I've heard from, enlisted or officer (and I was in NG support units mostly from Chicago) support Obama. All, whether or not they're thrilled with every one of his policies, are supporting McCain. They know that when he voted against veterans bills, it was because they were loaded with extraneous pork, and that he is absolutely in their corner. All of us know that McCain does not just honor troops, he loves them with the love that can only come from having given everything alongside of others. That's the 'greater love' that only someone who knows and loves his country and fellows can give, and the love that Obama has no inkling of.
Any thoughts on what traitor Powell's endorsement will mean tomorrow?
GOF: Well, it's only speculation at this point but if the reports are true, I suspect Powell's endorsement of Obama will be very bad news for McCain.
Bob: "... America's fighting men and women want to do more than anything is WIN ... McCain was out in front wanting to WIN, as were almost all Republicans ... [Obama and (D)z are] perfectly willing to LOSE if it meant they could get political gain from it. "
SG: Interesting ... Patriotic presidents support the troops desires, and unpatriotic presidents don't.
Curious ... I thought it worked the other way round.
Suggesting that the patriotism of a president and therefore his value as a leader, is measured by the degree to which he supports the military's wants and desires, purports that the objectives of the military trump those of the civilian leadership. That is a wholly undemocratic position.
Yet this wholly undemocratic position is one advocated by the (R)z when stated that McKane is a better leader because he supports what the troops want. Conversely, Obama not wanting to win for the troops, is proof of Obama putting personal desire over patriotic desire.
Depicting foreign policy and foreign relations only and wholly in military terms, in terms of military objectives, winning militarily, is more apt of a military junta than a democracy.
But (R)z are arguing for exactly this undemocratic litmus test to assess the fitness for leadership in a 'democracy' ... !
(R) logic, Eh?!
Snerd
I'm inclined to think he'll not endorse anyone. He's more a moderate Republican and has some left leaning positions. Obama, however, may be too left for him. Besides, I'm not convinced that Powell wants to get back into politics that way, especially after being excoriated by the Democrats.
Looks like he's having fun being retired.
Well, I was wrong and he did endorse. However, the question remains: Does it really matter?
"Any thoughts on what traitor Powell's endorsement will mean tomorrow?"
Has Powell betrayed his country or committed treasons?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Just who are these "We the People"?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Maybe they meant only those of British decent, but no, we kicked the British ashes to secure our land.
What about smart people? Maybe the Declaration of Independence was meant only for smart people, but then who and how do we gauge what is smart. That would not work, there are books written why smart people fail, and besides Ayers is a smart person and I am sure we do not want him to vote, do we?
Maybe only those who are patriotic, but then according to the GOP they would be the only ones with these rights.
Right or wrong, the states of the union restricts the rights of their citizens to vote, 48 states have laws against felons so 1 in 43 Americans cannot vote. Maybe that will change someday. A bit off the subject now, we are not talking about voting rights; we are talking about Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. BTW, I have only had a traffic citation for having a heavy foot...
You know America was founded on freedom from religious persecution. America was founded on tolerance of differences in beliefs and cultural heritage. Our differences come from being people from all over the world enriching our culture, bringing new ideas and new energy.
Many of our families can trace their histories to ancestors who traveled great distances, enduring risk, sacrifice, and great hardship to make a home where they would be guaranteed basic freedoms.
Try to remember who we are and stop the hate...I know hate, I grew up in City of Angels as a witness to all forms of hate.
I wrote a poem a long time ago. I was looking out a window watching a baby bird while working out at a local gym.
Baby Bird
A calm summer breeze is the day,
and I will learn to fly this very day.
I get up and try and try,
for my mother is teaching me to fly.
Looking carefully at each movement she makes,
I will do whatever it takes.
You see, if I don't fly,
I will surely die,
and those are high stakes.
Copyright ©2008
It is not one of my better poems, but there is a message. We need to come together as a nation, we need to learn to fly again, and yes, those are high stakes.
~ Peace
So, are you saying that the makeup of the military has returned to World War II standards when minorities were considered to lack the intelligence and courage to be combat soldiers and were relegated to cooks and trash haulers? Interesting. I wonder if what you say is true.
Ummm... Ed? Grumpy was being sarcastic. He didn't mean he thinks Powell is a traitor. He was aiming at poking fun of conservatives of whom some will, I'm sure. I'm not one of them, however. Powell is who Powell is. He has good points and bad points. Much like anyone else, he's only human. I can see why he would be excited about Obama especially with some of his left leaning policies. Still, I doubt his endorsement will really do much for Obama outside the beltway and the media to which nobody outside the beltway rarely pays attention anymore.
Boy that was a bad last sentence. I had to read it twice before I understood what I was trying to say.
Hardly anybody outside the beltway pays attention to the media and Powell's endorsement won't help much outside Washington because he is considered "just another beltway elite." The media might be impressed, along with Washington but only a few others will be.
StephC
The quote I was refer to was in the body of the blog:
"Military Times Poll Show Soldiers Pick McCain Over Obama 68-23%"
Forgot StephC,
Thanks for pointing that out to me though :-)
My edit window was open so long I did not see Grumpy's comment. Multi-tasking...carpets are white and dirty :-)
Millions of Americans pay attention to the media outside of the Beltway. Having lived in the Beltway and now in the Rust Belt (or "Tech Belt"), I do agree that the Washington/Maryland crowd perserverate on issues far more than average Americans. But I think Powell's endorsement will have great implications for Obama's candidacy. The base won't care, many will just be frustrated or mad, but for indepenents who are watching things very carefully in these last weeks who weren't sure whether Obama had the substance or experience to be commander in chief, I suspect this endorsement and the collective endorsements he'll receive will likely sway some in that crowd. It might also hurt some of the other Republican Senate/Congressional races since several leading Republicans are jumping ship this year.
Individually, Colin Powell's endorsement means very little. In aggregate though, the defection of Powell and Buckley, the doubts of George Will, and the wobblies from a host of other prominent Conservatives and Republicans gives the impression the Democrat candidate is the de facto next President. This past week, there was a story about rich folks rearrainging their finances to accomodate a Democrat administration and making nice with the Messiah's disciples. Rats leaving a sinking ship, so to speak, regardless of whether or not the ship is really sinking. Ship, iceberg, doomed sinking feeling - that's the perception.
IndigoRed, it's not just rich people who are rearranging their finances. I'm far from rich but I'm doing a bit of rearranging myself. Whether Obama wins or McCain wins, there are going to be hard times ahead. I don't plan on taking government handouts to survive them.
I like the rats from a sinking ship comment. That's about the size of it, really. But then, they risk little doing that, do they? If Obama wins, their careers are safe. If Obama loses we won't get the Fairness Doctrine, so their careers are safe. Should McCain win, however, their reputations will be trash in conservative circles. I suppose to some reputation doesn't mean a whole lot.
(R)ed: "... Ship, iceberg, doomed sinking feeling - that's the perception."
SG: Yes ... The polls seem to be having the same problem ...
Obama/Biden .... "286" .... 249 Solid .... 37 Leaning
McCain/Palin .... "155" ..... 140 Solid .... 15 Leaning
Toss Up ............. 97
BATTLEGROUND STATES:
Colorado .... Obama +6.0
Ohio ........... Obama +2.8
Florida ........ Obama +3.2
Nevada ....... Obama +4.2
Missouri ..... Obama +2.5
NCarolina ... Obama +1.3
Virginia ....... Obama +8.1
When I was on active duty and our mostly White, upper middle class, officers heard us say anything resembling a pro Democrat stance we were subjected to jeers about being "communists" and "traitors." I'm sure it still exists.
As far as the race divide in the military, it's absolutely correct. Most of the Black faces I saw were in supply, administration and other non-combat roles. They were all enlisted. In my eight years in the intelligence field, I saw four Black intelligence officers.
I have read all the above with much interest. I have been wondering about the polls we have been told about and don't think they are very fair. To say there is a small percentage voting one way or another isn't saying much since most polls only go out and ask about 1200 people. Since there are millions in the U.S. along with those serving abroad, I think it's best to wait until all the votes are officially counted on November 4th. And may the best man win. Heaven help us if it the wrong one is voted for...we may all be in trouble.
Most of you are a bunch of racist effing liars. I am in the Military and everyone I speak to is voting for OBAMA. That retired guy who say he spoke with his friends black and white and they are voting for McCain he is a big effing Liar. If I was in Iraq with a knife to my neck I still wouldn't vote for an old senile guy who is pro war and can give two fu**s about me, he just want my vote. I saw his rally an all the hate that went out was enough for amy black, hispanic, jew, Muslin, buddest, and any others I forgot to tell McCain go to HELL. I am in the military does it means that I am qualify to run the military? I know you all just love to be fighting killing people in Iraq because you can get away with it (yeah you fu**ing white serial killers who join the military for that purpose claiming that blacks serve in supportive units it because we don't get our jollies out of killing innocent women and children)by saying I did it for Country but all you are is a murdering bastard. There is now way anyone with a lick of sense would vote for him no matter his war record and reading some of the blogs and seeing the underlining hate it solidify my vote fo OBAMA.