NBC: Trump's support slides in military communities

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edit: 51/41 isn't +7, so either their arithmetic is off or one of them is a typo.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

After the Syria mission I can't blame them. He literally launched a military campaign because of pictures.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Geeh between Owens, his fued with the intelligence community, his fly by the seat of his pants strike in Syria which did nothing, and sharing info with the Russians I can't possibly guess why

[publicunofficial]

It's almost as if they don't want to die over the whims of a senile oaf.

[Person Man]

Dems really need to triangulate on "National Security" on a way that doesn't hurt them with other issues. Maybe Scoop Jackson 2.0 will be the next Bill Clinton 2.0. Basically, someone somewhat like Hillary with a higher EQ

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It's almost as if they don't want to die over the whims of a senile oaf.

He's also bailed on the Pacific Pivot.

Like Bush, he talked a good game on bringing the troops home instead of leaving their bones to bleach uselessly in the desert sun, but instantly abandoned his position once he was in office.

The officer class and anyone who cared about America's Grand Strategy was hoping for someone better than Obama, and got an idiot who's burning US strategic interests left and right.

The enlisted class, and anyone sick of pointless wars in the Middle East were hoping to get our boys and girls brought home. Instead, they can almost count on being deployed (and getting their blood spilled) in pursuit of another rich elitists dreams of going down in history as the next Alexander or Churchill.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

It doesn't surprise me actually, he hasn't done that much to help the military community + the action in Syria and Yemen hasn't helped.

[pbrower2a]

Obama may not have been a military favorite; he was no chest-beating nationalist (as if that matters in winning wars, but it does matter in preventing them).

Character matters among soldiers. The honor code shapes much of military life (don't lie, cheat, or steal, and don't tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing by others)...   Obama's behavior at least seemed to be compatible with that minimum. Trump isn't so consistent with such.

Sure, he's a super-patriot, but that attitude turns soldiers into cannon fodder. We can only wonder what sort of intel he has shared with potential adversaries.

Of course it is up to the civilian leadership to provide the military what it needs to do the job that those civilians deem necessary. It is also up to the civilian leadership to not get the military in trouble -- to not blunder into wars or to do aggressive warfare.

If you had to choose between an Obama-like President or a Trump-like President during a war, then which would you prefer if you were a soldier? Obama -- easily. Sure, Obama didn't like war. Well, either did Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR... and the ones who hate war are the ones who try to get it over with quickly. So one makes wise decisions and gives honest reports on the military progress. But nobody panics. It's the cautious leader who makes the daring maneuvers work.  The cautious insist upon their subordinates dotting the i's and crossing the t's to the point that even the most cautious are convinced. The cautious reduce risks. The reckless want nothing in the way.  

[Person Man]

Obama may not have been a military favorite; he was no chest-beating nationalist (as if that matters in winning wars, but it does matter in preventing them).

Character matters among soldiers. The honor code shapes much of military life (don't lie, cheat, or steal, and don't tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing by others)...   Obama's behavior at least seemed to be compatible with that minimum. Trump isn't so consistent with such.

Sure, he's a super-patriot, but that attitude turns soldiers into cannon fodder. We can only wonder what sort of intel he has shared with potential adversaries.

Of course it is up to the civilian leadership to provide the military what it needs to do the job that those civilians deem necessary. It is also up to the civilian leadership to not get the military in trouble -- to not blunder into wars or to do aggressive warfare.

If you had to choose between an Obama-like President or a Trump-like President during a war, then which would you prefer if you were a soldier? Obama -- easily. Sure, Obama didn't like war. Well, either did Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR... and the ones who hate war are the ones who try to get it over with quickly. So one makes wise decisions and gives honest reports on the military progress. But nobody panics. It's the cautious leader who makes the daring maneuvers work.  The cautious insist upon their subordinates dotting the i's and crossing the t's to the point that even the most cautious are convinced. The cautious reduce risks. The reckless want nothing in the way.  

There is that Rules of Engagement issue. From the people I talked to a big factor appears to be that excessive micromanagement and concern from things other than the primary objectives in missions is a major turn off. A lot of guys just want to do what they need to do no matter the collateral damage. "Who cares if there are friends at the gate. They aren't supposed to be there! Let's waste 'em before they can attack!"

[SoLongAtlas]

So as a vet and someone that works in defense with a ton of vets (both O and E), it's not because of anything vastly political, most older vets lean center-right to right, it's because Trump is an idiot and makes rash decisions all the time not grounded in science or good sense, or reality half the time-it goes to good leadership capability. This (Trump's latest screwup) is discussed all the time in vet/mil circles.

[Brittain33]

I wonder if vets are picking up on how much Trump disrespects McMaster and Mattis by disregarding what they say, most recently with the NATO speech.

[Person Man]

So as a vet and someone that works in defense with a ton of vets (both O and E), it's not because of anything vastly political, most older vets lean center-right to right, it's because Trump is an idiot and makes rash decisions all the time not grounded in science or good sense, or reality half the time-it goes to good leadership capability. This (Trump's latest screwup) is discussed all the time in vet/mil circles.

I do imagine that a lot of somewhat conservative and very conservative voters who currently will disapprove of Trump will "come home" or still vote for the Party's panel in 2018. There were similar issues with Obama because he wasn't as aggressive on Civil Liberties as Civil Libertarians wanted. The Bush Administration was also a notorious time where some of his biggest critics would never not vote for him or to support him except maybe downballot in 2006.  However, maybe there is that potential that enough neoconservative Republicans will stay home...but that wasn't enough last time to hurt him but that was because there were millions of missing minority voters, too.

[SoLongAtlas]

So as a vet and someone that works in defense with a ton of vets (both O and E), it's not because of anything vastly political, most older vets lean center-right to right, it's because Trump is an idiot and makes rash decisions all the time not grounded in science or good sense, or reality half the time-it goes to good leadership capability. This (Trump's latest screwup) is discussed all the time in vet/mil circles.

I do imagine that a lot of somewhat conservative and very conservative voters who currently will disapprove of Trump will "come home" or still vote for the Party's panel in 2018. There were similar issues with Obama because he wasn't as aggressive on Civil Liberties as Civil Libertarians wanted. The Bush Administration was also a notorious time where some of his biggest critics would never not vote for him or to support him except maybe downballot in 2006.  However, maybe there is that potential that enough neoconservative Republicans will stay home...but that wasn't enough last time to hurt him but that was because there were millions of missing minority voters, too.

That is a pattern but I do think Trump won't get the same amount of mil support that he did in 16 due to incompetence. Will be a great metric to look up in mid-Nov. 2020.

[Badger]

He's likely to lose military community support slower than the population at large, if only because he's proposing a vast increase in government spending on defense which will presumably keep pay increases and benefits consistent, avoid cutbacks requiring unwanted reassignments or the like, etc.

[Hammy]

He seems eager to go to war with someone, anyone, so of course his support is going to decline. I'm just surprised it took this long.

[Badger]

He's likely to lose military community support slower than the population at large, if only because he's proposing a vast increase in government spending on defense which will presumably keep pay increases and benefits consistent, avoid cutbacks requiring unwanted reassignments or the like, etc.

The quoted numbers seem dubious, but it's worth noting that the Trump budget made headlines in military communities by including a proposal for a round of base "realignment and closures" by 2021 even while planning increases in overall defense spending.

Base closures are not especially significant to most people here, as reflected by our lack of discussion on the topic, but we can be sure that those who would be most affected are paying attention.

Huh. Did NOT know that. Your analysis of whom will pay most attention to such things is spot on.

[Technocracy Timmy]

He's likely to lose military community support slower than the population at large, if only because he's proposing a vast increase in government spending on defense which will presumably keep pay increases and benefits consistent, avoid cutbacks requiring unwanted reassignments or the like, etc.

The quoted numbers seem dubious, but it's worth noting that the Trump budget made headlines in military communities by including a proposal for a round of base "realignment and closures" by 2021 even while planning increases in overall defense spending.

Base closures are not especially significant to most people here, as reflected by our lack of discussion on the topic, but we can be sure that those who would be most affected are paying attention.

Are you sure about this? I had a family friend who joked about Trump getting us into a war if he won prior to going to boot camp.

About a year later and after the election I asked him what he thought about that comment since then and he shrugged and said "At least we get a pay raise."

[SoLongAtlas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A couple of points here. So for mil communities, that point goes to more of the surrounding community apts, houses, stores, etc., that would lose revenue should another round of BRAC occur and billets assigned elsewhere. As for the immediate surrounding areas around bases, most of those are sham businesses or shady, and would do just as well without mil personnel. It really goes to what the overall economy of the area is, i.e., San Diego wouldn't be as affected as say Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville or some of the remote AF bases that rely on military spending to stay afloat.

As for the military voting, if the gen election is during a deployment, most just say screw it and don't do a provisional mil ballot although the services have gotten better at voting officers, emailing reminders, etc., had many on my last deployment for primary schedules, etc. although this is not always the case. In 2012, I didn't vote because I had to ship out to ride out the tail end of a deployment and missed the deadline for absentee. Many in the mil just don't care anymore and even though most lean right or libertarian, they have to follow the orders of the CINC regardless of party so it has become more reactionary, rather than participatory.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, although it's less of a concern for active-duty military themselves, who could be stationed anywhere, than it is for the communities that have grown around the bases.

For whatever reason the NBC headline refers to "military communities," not active-duty. Our analysis of election results tends to be extremely geographic anyway, and discussions of "the military vote" usually take focus more on places than individuals.

Moreover, nearly half of active-duty military members don't vote even in presidential election years, although in age-adjusted terms their participation is at least a high as it is for civilians.

"Military families" may include spouses and parents of active-duty soldiers. They have a legitimate concern in the quality of leadership of the Commander-in-Chief.  Combat entails great hardships to military families, including the possibility of a family member being killed or crippled in action. Recklessness is no virtue in achieving military objectives, let alone relating to 'military families'.   

[SoLongAtlas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, although it's less of a concern for active-duty military themselves, who could be stationed anywhere, than it is for the communities that have grown around the bases.

For whatever reason the NBC headline refers to "military communities," not active-duty. Our analysis of election results tends to be extremely geographic anyway, and discussions of "the military vote" usually take focus more on places than individuals.

Moreover, nearly half of active-duty military members don't vote even in presidential election years, although in age-adjusted terms their participation is at least a high as it is for civilians.

"Military families" may include spouses and parents of active-duty soldiers. They have a legitimate concern in the quality of leadership of the Commander-in-Chief.  Combat entails great hardships to military families, including the possibility of a family member being killed or crippled in action. Recklessness is no virtue in achieving military objectives, let alone relating to 'military families'.   

^^^ Spot on

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, although it's less of a concern for active-duty military themselves, who could be stationed anywhere, than it is for the communities that have grown around the bases.

For whatever reason the NBC headline refers to "military communities," not active-duty. Our analysis of election results tends to be extremely geographic anyway, and discussions of "the military vote" usually take focus more on places than individuals.

Moreover, nearly half of active-duty military members don't vote even in presidential election years, although in age-adjusted terms their participation is at least a high as it is for civilians.

"Military families" may include spouses and parents of active-duty soldiers. They have a legitimate concern in the quality of leadership of the Commander-in-Chief.  Combat entails great hardships to military families, including the possibility of a family member being killed or crippled in action. Recklessness is no virtue in achieving military objectives, let alone relating to 'military families'.   

^^^ Spot on

Don't ever ever ever underestimate the engrained mentality of those who volunteer for the armed forces that they put themselves in danger way for the good of their country. They join the services knowing that they get deployed knowing that, their spouses and loved ones feel great pride for them taking that risk. It is something that the people in their unit who are closest to them subscribe to, and that they will back each other up and protect each other.

Yes, a truly ignoramus War like our last catastrophe in Iraq will eventually turn around military families two stop supporting the matter. until it gets to that point of farce, though, pay raises and being adequately supported with necessary equipment will keep most already conservative military members - - at least the white servicemembers - - largely supportive of trump

[SoLongAtlas]

@ Badger, I don't since I was one of them. However, there can be meaningful cuts, esp. with regard to contractors, privatized base police, BAH reform, etc. that should be done but the right would tear them down with the you're not supporting the troops! Merica! argument. Most people inside the military or in defense know this to be the case but the political class, esp the GOP, has become too hackish on military reform issues - real reform here, not piecemeal VA websites, consolidation of one or two bases, etc. That is why the round of BRAC that the last SecDef and even the Army called for has been canxd until further notice because of the budgetary games from the last one https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/604215/

[Badger]

@ Badger, I don't since I was one of them. However, there can be meaningful cuts, esp. with regard to contractors, privatized base police, BAH reform, etc. that should be done but the right would tear them down with the you're not supporting the troops! Merica! argument. Most people inside the military or in defense know this to be the case but the political class, esp the GOP, has become too hackish on military reform issues - real reform here, not piecemeal VA websites, consolidation of one or two bases, etc. That is why the round of BRAC that the last SecDef and even the Army called for has been canxd until further notice because of the budgetary games from the last one https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/604215/

No debate with you on the efficiencies involved VM. The Blackwater ization of the military is one of the worst Trends during the last 15 years period I will gladly take your word on it, and trust with hope that you are correct, the most military families outside the Beltway will see such cuts and efficiencies as not threatening them and the job they do. Thanks for the input!

[SoLongAtlas]

@ Badger, I don't since I was one of them. However, there can be meaningful cuts, esp. with regard to contractors, privatized base police, BAH reform, etc. that should be done but the right would tear them down with the you're not supporting the troops! Merica! argument. Most people inside the military or in defense know this to be the case but the political class, esp the GOP, has become too hackish on military reform issues - real reform here, not piecemeal VA websites, consolidation of one or two bases, etc. That is why the round of BRAC that the last SecDef and even the Army called for has been canxd until further notice because of the budgetary games from the last one https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/604215/

No debate with you on the efficiencies involved VM. The Blackwater ization of the military is one of the worst Trends during the last 15 years period I will gladly take your word on it, and trust with hope that you are correct, the most military families outside the Beltway will see such cuts and efficiencies as not threatening them and the job they do. Thanks for the input!

Agreed. E.g., they privatized the base police at NBSD, and some of those guys are ahs of the highest order. MAs should take those jobs but they play second fiddle most of the time at the gates. It makes no sense and cost the govt way more. I can't speak to other services bases. If there are any Army, AF, CG folks on here please jump in. I know USMC uses mostly the duty Marines and not so much private. This is just one example. Oh and the Travel office idiots, don't get me started on those camp followers.

[Badger]

 funny. I'm not in the service but I have to have heard the exact same thing about the privatized military police being gargantuan douchebags compared to former standard servicemen MP's