« Politics of Fear, II | Main | Obama's Change Gets Personal »

October 21, 2008

The Silent Scream of Martha Raddatz

"Surprising Political Endorsements" by U.S. Troops...

McCain Ahead 68%-23%:

Among the US military, according to the Military Times poll. Figuring that the undecicdeds and so forth break very strongly for Obama, that's easily a 7-3 split.

McCain leads 76%-17% among white servicemembers.
McCain leads 63%-23% among Hispanic servicemembers.

Active Duty break for McCain 67% to 24%.
Retirees break for McCain 72% to 20%.

Servicemen for McCain, 70-22%.
Servicewomen for McCain, 53%-36%

Grim has more - I did not cite his entire post. Nonetheless, Martha Raddatz must be suffering the torments of the damned.

Could it have been the sample size? She has the profound sympathy of the entire Editorial Staff.

Truly. You have no idea.

Posted by Cassandra at October 21, 2008 08:38 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2479

Comments

What the obammymessiah-hopeychangeypants-taxemto death doesn't understand is that the men and women who Serve in The Armed Forces of The United States are a whole lot smarter than he is.
My period of service was 1973-1993, so I got stuck with jimmy the dhimmi and billy jeff. At least with billy jeff, I got to retire 8 months and 1 week into his administration.
By and large, the Armed Forces are conservative. You can't be too much of a left-leaning flake and cut it. The very nature of what we do is reprehensible to the average lefty.
And the real killer was jimmy the dhimmi graduated from The Naval Academy!

Posted by: GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET at October 21, 2008 08:50 PM

But I'm afraid that Hamas, NWO, ABC, CBS, NBC, Al-Qaeda, CNN, MSNBC, MSLSD and the Roman Catholic Church all have endorsed 'The One': Obamessiah?

Posted by: darthcrUSAderworldtour07 at October 21, 2008 09:21 PM

I got to retire 8 months and 1 week into his administration.

It was one of those 231 days and a wake up call, eh?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 21, 2008 11:09 PM

Cass, do you think the demographic Grim was talking about that went for Obama 80-20% were black men and women in the military?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 21, 2008 11:10 PM

But I'm afraid that Hamas, NWO, ABC, CBS, NBC, Al-Qaeda, CNN, MSNBC, MSLSD and the Roman Catholic Church all have endorsed 'The One': Obamessiah?

You forgot the CPUSA....

Posted by: BillT at October 22, 2008 01:01 AM

Cass, do you think the demographic Grim was talking about that went for Obama 80-20% were black men and women in the military?
Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 21, 2008 11:10 PM

I'll answer for her, since she's probably asleep now. Absolutely, yes...

Posted by: camojack at October 22, 2008 01:22 AM

"Absolutely, yes...
Yup, as mentioned at approximately 58 seconds into the video linked at Grim's.

Hmmm, 80%... I wonder if race has anything to do with that number or if it's just that 80% of that demographic are, coincidentally, Marxists/socialists?

Posted by: bt_what-me-worry_hun at October 22, 2008 08:05 AM

It's that they want to tell their children that they can really, truly grow up to be President. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the one set of Obama supporters I can truly understand.

Posted by: Grim at October 22, 2008 11:37 AM

Interesting that the polls with sample sizes exceeding 2,000 -- the Army Times poll, AoL's poll -- show McCain as a runaway favorite, while the MSM polls (several hundred respondents) favor Obie.

Could it be that the MSM pollsters can't find more than a few hundred Dems in any one location? Are Dems actually becoming an endangered species, their numbers shrinking as we speak? Is the caring, nurturing MSM attempting to withhold the tragedy from our sight until we've matured sufficiently to grapple with it?

Film at eleven.

Posted by: BillT at October 22, 2008 11:37 AM

80% is still lower than the 90% I've heard mentioned for blacks in America as a demographic.

You could massage more information from the data if it could be broken down by MOS, service branch, rank, time in service, sex, and a subjective criteria based upon the answer to the question "how much do you pay attention to political analysis".

For example, we might answer the last with "a lot" while others may say they hardly even ever think about politics.

It's that they want to tell their children that they can really, truly grow up to be President.

They didn't mention that data being the polls so what evidence are you deriving this from, Grim?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 22, 2008 05:24 PM

Not data: personal anecdotes from living and working alongside soldiers, black and otherwise. I've had this conversation several times, mostly earlier this year while I was in Iraq and Obama was a figure in the primaries. I can't find anything in my heart to hold against those black servicemembers who feel that way: given the history, it makes perfect sense to me.

Posted by: Grim at October 22, 2008 05:30 PM

I understand the desire Grim...

Being a father to two daughters, I'd like to see the right woman elected to the highest office. I've always told my girls to accept no limitations beyond what nature and their ability imposes upon them. But that does not mean I would vote for any woman to be POTUS. Particularly not one with the background, known associates, voting record and politics of BO...

Not even if the candidate were of my blood could I make that compromise, Neanderthal that I am. Something about the quality of, the qualifications of and the content of the character of the person.

Posted by: bthun at October 22, 2008 06:05 PM

I think the so-called confirmation bias may be at work here too, bthun. Black soldiers -- and especially black officers -- are more likely to see Obama as someone 'like me.' Making that initial observation tends to flavor every other piece of data you receive about him. If you identify with him and think he's a lot like you, you tend to dismiss negative stories to a greater degree, and weight heavily the stronger ones. By the same token, even if you recognize something bad in a person you identify with, you tend to be more forgiving -- remembering your own similar sins, perhaps.

So, again, I'm not surprised, and I don't think it's in any way dishonorable. Human beings are made this way. When you combine that with the cultural and historic reasons, I think their support for him is completely understandable.

It is, however, a strong outlier in the military context. No other group feels that way: he can't even capture a plurality from any other group of servicemembers except women, and he still loses them by a landslide.

Posted by: Grim at October 22, 2008 06:24 PM

He may have lost a few women when he announced that he would impose the registeration requirement for the draft on women also, even if the question of drafting them is not resolved.

Posted by: mj at October 23, 2008 12:43 PM

He may have lost a few women when he announced that he would impose the registeration requirement for the draft on women also...

Possibly. However much a "hot button" issue the draft is, it's also pretty much a *dead* issue, because the SSS is in such Deep Standby, it has to look up to see down.

If we ever *do* find ourselves in a situation that requires us to re-instate the draft, it had better be something our existing military can battle for 12 months, because that's about how long it will take before the SSS can begin to induct the first draftees...

Posted by: BillT at October 23, 2008 02:47 PM

A young (and therefore ignorant... NOT stupid) friend of mine who is quite liberal honestly believed that George W. Bush was going to reinstate the draft if re-elected in 04. He even made the statement that he would move to Canada if Bush was re-elected. I took him aside and informed him (which is the correct response to ignorance) that first off, the President COULDN'T reinstate a draft... only Congress held that power. Second, neither the President NOR the military WANTED a draft. And third, if he was STILL concerned about it, he could rest assured that he'd have PLENTY of warning that a draft was coming and would have lots of time to leave before ever seeing his number pulled.

I politely declined to point out that as a young man more than forty pounds overweight and asthmatic, he'd be outright rejected for military service anyway. No sense in being mean.

Posted by: MikeD at October 23, 2008 03:01 PM

Grim, what would be the general percentage breakdown of the personal examples you used as anecdotes in terms of service branch: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?

If we ever *do* find ourselves in a situation that requires us to re-instate the draft, it had better be something our existing military can battle for 12 months, because that's about how long it will take before the SSS can begin to induct the first draftees...

Logistics: always a pain for the dreamers.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 23, 2008 08:42 PM

100% Army -- I was with 3ID last year, so almost everyone I talked to at length about anything was Army.

Posted by: Grim at October 24, 2008 12:16 AM

Logistics: always a pain for the dreamers.

So's "Reality" -- anything big enough to scare Congress into reinstating the draft will be settled long before any draftees report for induction.

One way or another...

Posted by: BillT at October 24, 2008 07:36 AM

...almost everyone I talked to at length about anything was Army.

That observation holds true with the servicefolks I work with here, too, ymar. Got a wider service base -- everything except Coast Guard -- but the tenor's real close.

Two black USAF NCOs I know say they'd love to vote for Obama, but his politics stick in their craw. Buuuut, they're just blog-junkies -- not like they read the NYT or nothin'...

Posted by: BillT at October 24, 2008 07:45 AM

everything except Coast Guard -- but the tenor's real close.

When the Coast Guard can make artificial harbors in landlocked nations and connect them to the ocean I think you might be seeing more of them then.

100% Army -- I was with 3ID last year, so almost everyone I talked to at length about anything was Army.

Interesting. It's too bad the Military Times aren't intelligence organizations since a couple thousand spies spread around the US military could pick up a lot of... what did they call it... scuttlebutt and provide a more detailed analysis of trends and causes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 24, 2008 10:29 PM

They kinda are, really. Stars & Stripes as well. The left considers them in-the-tank water carriers for DOD, but you'll encounter quite a bit there that the DOD would rather you didn't read.

I like the S&S guys in particular. They're not always right, but they don't have to be. They just have to be the guys who make sure the Army can't avoid explaining what really is right.

Posted by: Grim at October 24, 2008 11:05 PM

My standards for a spy organization are that they 1. cannot be recognized as affiliated with spycraft/tradecraft 2. have their own inhouse analysis branch and 3. are transparent on the credibility of their agent/sources and exact in the details of what data or witness recollections were taken.

A journalism organization is hard to take in precisely because they combine data with analysis into one article. It is not strictly simply a list of facts or events that leave you to draw your own impressions, like strategy.com, nor is it an inhouse analysis of their own independent data (or open source data mining) sources like Stratfor.

The mixture journalism produces becomes hard to analyze because the data are mixed in with other things. At the same time, they aren't paid to provide analysis of separate related or unrelated data points, either. They don't have this capability because that isn't part of their mandate as journalists or reporters.

An After Action Report, complete with the individual impressions of on scene agents (soldiers in this case) with observations + conclusions separated out in discreet junks would be an infinitely more valuable tool in understanding the trends, reasons, motivations, and dynamic factors at play concerning servicemen and women's views of Obama.

Just as "polls" aren't used for AARs, so should it not be used for analysis of the consequences of certain factors, unknown and known.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 26, 2008 03:19 PM

My bad, wrong link.

http://www.strategypage.com/

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 26, 2008 03:21 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)