2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMilitary Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05/09/military-times-survey-donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton/84132402/
"In a new survey of American military personnel, Donald Trump emerged as active-duty service members' preference to become the next U.S. president, topping Hillary Clinton by more than a 2-to-1 margin. However, in the latest Military Times election survey, more than one in five troops said theyd rather not vote in November if they have to choose between just those two candidates.
But given only those choices, 21 percent of the service members surveyed said they would abstain from voting.More than 54 percent of the 951 troops Military Times surveyed said they would vote for Trump, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, over Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Only about 25 percent said they would vote for Clinton in that matchup."
Actor
(626 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Her record argues that she might be no less likely. Trump has no record (in any meaningful way as far as this question is concerned). His buffoonish blustering doesn't inspire confidence, to be sure...but neither do Clinton's past actions. The obvious peace candidate is still in the race, of course...
Actor
(626 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm simply saying that in the specific area of likelihood of getting us involved in yet another war, Hillary might not be any better than Trump. It's not that Trump is better on this point...it's that Hillary has a damn poor record.
I think this is something a lot of military people have given thought to (which only makes sense: for many it's literally a life-and-death matter). Sure, some military folk are very conservative, and despising Hillary is kind of expected on the far right. But I give many plenty of credit in recognizing their enormous self-interest in the matter of a potentially hawkish president. What reason do they have to believe that Clinton is less likely than Trump to involve us in another pointless, discretionary war?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)expanded military means more promotions.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But the actions of one of them can be observed.
msongs
(67,433 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)apcalc
(4,465 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)Why wouldn't they support that?
TimPlo
(443 posts)The one I was in we did not get a profit, we got paid and much much less than someone in civilian world.
kimbutgar
(21,177 posts)I can only imagine the blowback from his bombastic talking points. But of course most in the militarily went straight out of high school and watched trump on celebrity apprentice so it doesn't surprise me they would support that cretin.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Let me get this straight: "most in the military" are less-educated, unsophisticated folk easily influenced by shallow celebrity (and, presumably, bright shiny objects)?
Wow...
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)and yet the DNC and the Hillary supporters ignore it all. What is wrong with those people?
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)rickford66
(5,528 posts)I'm a Vet. I served with a bunch of terrific guys 46 years ago. 95% are wing-nuts right now. After debating them on line for several years I can attest that their TV stays tuned to FOX. Present the facts and they change the subject.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)and chicken-hawks.