Will the Democrats ever win the military vote?

[James Monroe]

Ever since the catastrophe of Vietnam conflict, the Democratic party has been labeled as the anti-military by the right-wing. I assume that Republicans have won the majority of this vote since the 70's, especially with the generals. Even despite the poor background of many veterans they still vote for the party that represents the values of 1%. Outside of defense spending what do you think turns off veterans from voting for Democratic politicians? Does anyone believed the Dems could gains this vote if they nominated a veteran such as Jim Webb against a more libertarian republican such as Rand Paul?

[Sumner 1868]

Traditionally, the military vote has been Republican. The few decades after WWII, when the parties were more even among military voters, was an aversion of the trend since the Civil War. Even before Vietnam, the Democrats were the preferred party of pacifists and non-interventionists as opponents of militarism they tend to be on the left.

The military has generally consisted largely of rural, right-wing Americans. The world wars briefly ceased this trend, with Vietnam reverting to form.

[James Monroe]

Well your forgetting a period in which the Republicans staunch isolationists. They had likely not much support from those in the military in that time. Though I do remember Ron Paul getting many campaign donations from veterans so he must be doing something right to attract them unlike most ideological leftists. Maybe that military splitting myth is still fresh in the minds of many veterans.

[bobloblaw]

No and they dont deserve to

[5280]

As a veteran myself, John Kerry is a disgrace to the military.

[Skill and Chance]

It's possible if we have a couple more interventionist Dem presidents and the GOP goes libertarian isolationist and stops sparing defense from the budget cuts.  Defense contractors would probably flip a few years earlier, so they will be the harbingers of any change in military voting IMO.

[IceSpear]

If the Democrat is a huge war hero

[Mr. Reactionary]

They'd have to appear much more nationalist (other than just on trade). One stereotype that the Democrats still carry is that they are much more internationalist/ less nationalist. (U.N./ World Court/ Kyoto Treaty/Foreign Aide/Yay European Welfare State/ Boo rural America/ "We're the only industrial nation who doesn't ..."/ America is not exceptional/ "Blah blah blah American imperialism"/ War Criminal!/ MUH Blood for Oil!/ "Baby Killers"/ "We need lots and lots and lots more immigration."

[Skill and Chance]

If the Democrat is a huge war hero

I mean like literally an Eisenhower or Grant type.

I really don't think we will ever have war heroes in the pre-1945 sense anymore.  Even containing and "winning" a hypothetical WWIII in the best case scenario would still mean losing >20% of the US population to nuclear warfare.  In a war with >50 million mostly civilian casualties even on the "winning" side, there are no heroes. 

The perception of winning or losing minor foreign conflicts can swing elections a bit (1968, 1980, 2002, 2004, 2006, maybe 2012) but there will probably never be another Ike or another 1944 election.

[The Mikado]

John Kerry was literally the head of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He was about the worst possible veteran pick for the military vote.

Anyway, a big portion of this is that the modern (post-Vietnam) military is self-selected due to the end of conscription. The kind of person that decides to be career military (rather than a two-year stint to pay for college or pick up useful career skills) is not likely to be a Democrat anymore. To the extent the military is competitive at all, it's in the enlisted men, not the heavily-Republican officers.

Democrats should definitely have learned by now not to put too much of a premium on war service. It can be a fine bonus, but it also can be a resume padder for a dud like Kerry or be the entire basis of a campaign for someone like Wesley Clark, who...probably shouldn't be in public service at all. Clark, the ultimate resume candidate on paper, would have actually made a terrible, terrible president.

[RFayette]

Traditionally, the military vote has been Republican. The few decades after WWII, when the parties were more even among military voters, was an aversion of the trend since the Civil War. Even before Vietnam, the Democrats were the preferred party of pacifists and non-interventionists as opponents of militarism they tend to be on the left.

The military has generally consisted largely of rural, right-wing Americans. The world wars briefly ceased this trend, with Vietnam reverting to form.

But rural = Republican is a fairly recent phenomenon.  It certainly wasn't the case in the late 1800's with politicians like William Jennings Bryan.  Sure some rural areas have been GOP for a long time, but others (like in the South), not so much.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In addition to Mikado's point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailyyonder.com/largest-share-army-recruits-come-ruralexurban-america/2009/03/02/1962