RSS Feed MenuA recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics (August, 2008) indicated that Barack Obama raised more money from military people than any other presidential candidate. Obama’s donations far exceed the amount raised by John McCain, the Republican candidate who represents the party that traditionally receives the bulk of military support. This overt show of support for a Democrat is quite a departure for a military that is typically quietly conservative and is generally thought to vote Republican. Certainly, this study reflects a small sample, but I believe it’s emblematic of a broader issue: today’s Republican party is losing the support of military people. However, a military member’s vote for Barack Obama might be less a vote for a Democrat than a vote against a Republican and the ideas John McCain represents.
In my role as officer’s wife I pay close attention to the national political scene because it directly influences my life: elected leaders make decisions about what my husband does, where he goes, how much he is paid and what benefits he receives. Our military friends also pay attention, but their political views, like ours, are frequently kept private. While the command climate usually encourages everyone to vote, seldom do specific issues get discussed openly. The culture within the military is to publicly support the chain of command even if privately you disagree with the decisions being made on your behalf. Military people look for ways to subtly make their voices heard, and a donation to a political campaign can be an easy way to do that.
I believe that the perception of betrayal by Bush administration leaders has done a lot to weaken their support from the military, and by extension this weakened support has rolled to John McCain.
• The hostile relationship between former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and military leadership has left hard feelings and persistent problems after going to war with a too small, under- equipped force that wasn’t trained to do the job that it’s currently doing on a battlefield where the rules change daily.
• The lack of definition of “victory” in the Global War on Terrorism. When you’re not sure what success will look like, how do you know when you’ve found it? The promise to “stay until we’ve won” rings hollow when no one can identify what a win consists of.
• Multiple long deployments with short periods of time at home exacerbate weaknesses in finances and family life. In a December, 2007, Military Times poll, three-quarters of respondents had done at least one combat tour. One-third had done two or more tours in Iraq. A quarter have done at least one Afghanistan tour. The military is weary after almost seven years of combat operations and a seemingly endless cycle of train-up, deploy, reset and train-up again. The divorce rate among both the officer and enlisted corps has surged since the Global War on Terrorism began.
The theory of John McCain should be appealing to the military: a decorated veteran, he’s voiced support of military causes for years. However, reality and perception have hurt McCain: his unwillingness to discuss any end state in Iraq other than staying the course, the perception that a McCain administration would be an extension of the Bush administration, even his lack of support for the recent revision of the GI Bill because it was too generous. Contrast that with the perception of Obama: he may be inexperienced but at least he’s willing to learn and seems to be open to ideas that are new or different from his own.
It’s tough to say whether the increase in donations to Barack Obama is truly a sign of growth for the Democratic party. The next four years will show whether these are lasting gains or merely a reaction to the Republican party’s problems and military people’s projection of these problems onto John McCain. Still, it would behoove GOP leaders to be mindful of wavering support in the military community and adjust policies to better suit the demands of our military population.
R.E. Munn // Jan 21, 2009 at 10:37 am
Although I agree with most of what you’ve written, I think the reasons for Obama’s ability to raise more cash from military personnel than McCain are less complex. McCain was, at best, a lackluster draw among the military, just as he was to the population in general. So support for McCain was tepid, while Obama supporters were (are) enthusiastic, and even, not infrequently, rabid. My gut tells me that the majority nonetheless voted for McCain.
JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:14 am
After the past year, getting a candidate who could both excite the base and not alienate the rest of the country was a tall order. McCain was actually a pretty good choice, in that respect. Things would have been difficult in any case…
senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You post is wrong on so many levels. The assumption that getting more donations from military members means more military members supported Obama is pure spin and ignores actual polls that show more military members voted for McCain. Most military members do not donate to any candidate, ever. The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation, and in this case the explanation is that Obama supporters were more energized, by a large margin.
You are also wrong in your “perception of betrayal by Bush administration leaders”. Wherever and whenever Bush meets with the military he is enthusiatically greeted, as was Rumsfeld until he resigned. Your premise that “to war with a too small, under- equipped force that wasn’t trained to do the job that it’s currently doing on a battlefield where the rules change daily.” is pure garbage right out of the leftist generals handbook. We won OIF 1 in how many days? And that was done with a lighter force that Rummy wanted. To believe as you do displays ignorance of the role of the State Dept. in the “mistakes” and the dynamics involved in Anti-insurgency warfare.
kshannon27 // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I think that military voting results were somewhere around 65 – 37 , McCain – Obama . So, maybe the donations reflected the racial make up of the military? What percentage of the military is African American or Hispanic?
senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:46 pm
continuing…..You also mistake ” The lack of definition of “victory” in the Global War on Terrorism” with the lefts lie that there was no “definition of victory” in the war in Iraq. That is a gigantic mistake for a military wife to make. You should know that from the beginning Bush laid out the GWOT goals of “DEFEATING TERRORISM” and promised that it would be a very long war. You should also know that from the beginning Bush defined victory in Iraq as “Overthrowing Saddam’s regime and establishing a govt. in Iraq that could defend itself from terrorism and other external threats” You go on to make the astounding claim that McCain is “unwillingness to discuss any end state in Iraq other than staying the course”. That is flat out incorrect. Wow! You have grossly missrepresented facts. Why?
Finally, your use of “Military Times” polling data displays either ignorance or deciet on your part. The Military Times has a strong liberal, anti-Bush slant.
Your post could have been written by Cindy, the mother of war hero Casey Sheehan. Nothing in it makes me want to be part of your “conservatism”
GeneK // Jan 21, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I’m retired military and find your comments to be spot on. The treatment of wounded vets by the previous administration and McCain’s lack of support for the new GI bill was the last straw. Senator Jim Webb surpasses any republican in supportting the welfare of the troops. Too many republican politicans talk big but when it comes push to shove they check their wallets before they take care of those than left a body part overseas. I’m a conservative but I’m not just giving republican candidates my vote anymore.
senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 2:26 pm
GeneK…I’m sitting in my office with a “medically seperated” marine who has no complaints about his treatement. I know many, MANY, other marines who were wounded, some severely, and none, NONE, have complaints about their treatment.
You are repeating an anti-Bush Democratic talking point.
If you are the type of “conservative” this website is attracting the site won’t make a dent in the conservative movement
JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2009 at 3:39 pm
senorlechero: “You should know that from the beginning Bush laid out the GWOT goals of “DEFEATING TERRORISM” and promised that it would be a very long war.” What does a DEFEATED TERRORISM look like? Terrorism is an act, not a country. As for it being a “very long war,” we could have Oceana fighting Eastasia forever. Do we wait until we’ve captured the very last Basque separatist? You could make things very open ended. How do we evaluate how our government is doing at something like that? Especially one as non-transparent as the last one we had.
senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm
JJWFromME…”How do we evaluate how our govt is doing at” defeating terrorism?
If you can’t answer that you have not been listening and are not paying attention. It’s not a serious question.
“non-transparent”? LOL Another democratic talking point buzz word. Want to know about “non-transparent”? Do you know what Obama did before he came into politics? I don’t mean “community organizer”, I mean what he actually did? Of course you don’t, because he is totally opaque about it. Do you know about his relationship withg Tony Rezko? Do you know about his wife’s job at the hospital and why she got the 300% raise after he became US Senator and earmarked money for her employer? Do you know where his billion dollars of earmarks went? Do you know where the funding for his university education came from? Do you know anything about him except “Yes We Can”?
datroy // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:38 pm
This has been touched on above, but this theme has refused to die for nearly 2 years now. It started out with Ron Paul. He got more money than McCain, you see, so therefore the military opposed the war in Iraq. As someone mentioned – few, if any of these donations are from active duty. But insofar as donations from retired military and civilians working for military organizations can tell us about the views of the active duty military, John McCain got many, many more individual donations from those connected to the military. The ones giving to Ron Paul just gave the full $2,300 allowed by law. The ones giving to McCain gave less. The same held true with Obama in the general election. Is the amount you give more a sign of your commitment to a cause or your inability to afford paying politicians $2,000+?
datroy // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Also, don’t underestimate the extent to which the active duty military has been completely disenchanted by much of their leadership. The generals have consistently shown themselves unable to adapt, stuck in a conventional war mindset and uninterested in reforming the military to counter insurgencies. There may be no love lost for Rumsfeld, but no one voted against McCain because Rumsfeld didn’t listen to Ricardo Sanchez. McCain, by the way, was one of the leading supporters of these disenchanted soldiers, criticizing the generals and civilian leadership with great gusto.
Also, in Army Times polling, those who responded overwhelmingly chose McCain over Obama. Likewise, more recent polling shows the military is wary of doing away with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – an Obama pet project.
JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm
senorlechero, If you are somehow equating Obama with Dick Cheney, then you haven’t been paying attention. Look up Jack Goldsmith’s work and who he is. then if you think Obama will be the same as Cheney and co, I will find that very amusing. Here’s Obama earlier today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE
senorlechero // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:55 pm
JJWF…one thing is for sure, there is complete transparency in your posts. It’s clear you are no conservative. If you were you would know that Cheney’s bussiness pursuits were placed in Blind Trust and he had no control over nor any knowledge of any of his business interests when he took office.
It’s also clear that you are no conservative.
Only liberals bring up “Cheney” in an argument. He is their fantasy 3 point shot.
CarlPham // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Gee, this is a pretty fact-free analysis, more or less the indulgence of gut feeling and plausible theorizing. The only “military” among whom it describes Republican support reliably is military wives named Gannoway. If that’s a crucial demographic, then the RNC should listen up. Otherwise, not.
The fact that Obama raised more money among the military than any other candidate means zip. Obama raised far more money than any other candidate, period. It would be hardly surprising if that statistic extended to every particular demographic group. What you need to know is how the military voted, both for President and in local elections. Without that data, this is just empty speculating.
JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:01 pm
senorlechero: “It’s clear you are no conservative.” No, Comrade!! Please !! Are you going to call the Party functionaries cancel my subscription to Pravda–er, the Weekly Standard? I hear that Norman Podheretz has some art criticism http://www.slate.com/id/3132/ on a show honoring our Brave Conservative Comrades at the Justice Department!! http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-nomenklotura Don’t want to miss that!
sinz54 // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Our men and women in the enlisted ranks of the military aren’t paid like Wall Street financiers. They and their families have difficulty making ends meet like any other working-class Americans.
So in this year of economic collapse, it’s not at all surprising that they would vote for the candidate who seemed to promise a genuine economic turnaround.
McCain’s problem was not his sincerity, his patriotism, his support for the military. His problem was that he came off as clueless as to how to restore American prosperity. That turned off all working families, whether the breadwinners are civilians or soldiers.
sinz54 // Jan 21, 2009 at 6:42 pm
JJWfromME: McCain sewed up the GOP nomination by the spring of 2008, mostly on his staunch support for the War on Terror and for his advocacy of a surge in Iraq having been proven right. Those were big issues back then. The problem is that in the following months, the economy totally supplanted the Iraq War as the biggest issue for the electorate. Had the economy, not the Iraq War, been the biggest issue for the entire period 2007-2008, either Romney or Giuliani would have been nominated by the GOP, not McCain. And in the general election, either one of them could have put forward a more credible economic platform than McCain did.
JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I’d say McCain was the best candidate, because he was the only one who could, as a “maverick” and “reformer,” credibly dissent from George Bush. The rest of them would have had a lot harder time. George Bush has had consistently had the lowest approval ratings since Richard Nixon (25-20%). So the Republican candidate had a hard task. He had to excite the base (as candidates were doing during the primary debates–see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NhRhDtfYo0 ) among whom George Bush had a high approval rating, and also appeal to the rest of the country, among whom George Bush had a dismally low approval rating. How do you do one without completely turning off the other? Very hard to do. The base: loved George Bush and wanted more more more!! The rest of the country: had had enough, and many thought they had been hoodwinked into going to war. It’s very hard to please one of these constituencies without it being the kiss of death for the other. You have to tack to the hard hard right (see the video above) and then tack furiously to the center and pretend that you never played to the base earlier in the year.
GeneK // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:41 am
I live in the Hampton roads area of Virginia which has a significant active duty and retired military population. Obama would not have carried this area if he had not recieved the support of a significant number of military spouses and retirees. So I think it’s appropriate to take a serious look at what can be done to change that outcome. In his inaugral address Obama stated that the ground has shifted–I think that is a valid assessment.
MarkG555 // Jan 22, 2009 at 11:01 am
The whole premise of this article is that Obama got more votes than McCain from active duty military members. I would bet money that’s not true. A few minutes of Googling turns up exit polling showing that McCain won among voters who ever served in the military. And 60% of active duty personnel have qualms about President Obama: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/tag/polls/
I hasten to add, in my view we either need a much larger army, or a more isolationist foreign policy. We have asked more than we should of our folks in uniform.
senorlechero // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:07 pm
MarkG555, you are 100% correct. Folks like GeneK crack me up making stuff up likie “Obama would not have carried this area if he had not recieved the support of a significant number of military spouses and retirees” in attempts to get conservatives to change their beliefs.
GeneK….Obama has said alot of things. So what? What Obama says has no bearing on what conservatives and Republicans should have as their core beliefs. We are for a strong national defense, which includes a strong military and giving the military the tools to do the job. Democrats are not.
As for “the political ground”, well, it is always shifting. and it will be different by the next election. When Obama’s Gitmo Detainees are releases on American soil the ground will have “shifted” a great deal. My guess is that when that happens, and it will happen, Obama will be unelectable.
GeneK // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I want to win elections senorlechero, not pontificate from the wilderness. Take a hard look at what’s happening. Congresswoman Drake (R-VA) lost her seat to a novice weak democrat in the Hampton Roads district that Obama won—this was a safe Republican seat. In my state senatorial district a moderate Republican lost to a further right candidate in the primary. In the general election the Democrat won and with it the Republican majority in the VA state senate was lost. They (Democratic controlled state Senate) will redistrict after the next census. In the name of party purity we gained nothing and potentially may lose a seat due to redistricting. Our message needs to be focused to attract the voters who voted for Obama–my purpose here is to win elections not give voice to meaningless generalities that may fire up the base but doesn’t attract the voters we’ve lost.
senorlechero // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:51 pm
GeneK…you are wrong if you think anyone who voted for Obama believes he supports the military more than any republican candidate. The left voted for him because they hate the military and hope he does too. More moderates voted for him than McCain because they saw McCain as too much like Bush and as part of the administration they blame for the nations financial problems.
You have no reason to believe me, but I’ll say it anyway. I know a great many military members. None that I know supported Obama. None of them believe he will give them what they need to do their job. None of them believe he will help their families or provide them with better benefits.
This woman’s post is pure Democrat propaganda . Nothing you have said supports it in any way except to say that you agree with it.
GeneK // Jan 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm
You’ve got it wrong senorlechero. The retirees I’ve talked to that voted for Obama mentioned the reasons that Sarah did in the article. The Obama canvasser that came to my door who was on active duty (not in uniform) said similar things in encourageing me to vote for Obama. Why are there more vets running for public office as Democrats? Think about it a little. We suffered embarrassing election defeats the last two cycles–this trend is not our friend. A lot of work needs to be done fast–but continueing to do what we’ve done in the past is unlikely to produce a different result.
Do people in the military overwhelmingly support Republicans? - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 2 - City-Data Forum // Sep 12, 2009 at 4:23 pm
[...] Losing The Military Vote Quote: [...]