Military veterans to Obama: Too bad, so sad, buhbye

Posted by: ST on September 25, 2012 at 8:23 am

Obama’s so-called “edge” with military veterans has evaporated over the last few months, according to recent polling numbers (hat tip):

President Barack Obama is trying hard to win veterans, but it looks like they’d prefer a new commander in chief.

The Obama campaign had been hoping that veterans and their families — especially among the post-Sept. 11 generation that served in Iraq and Afghanistan — would be part of their path to victory: They’re a high turn-out demographic and concentrated in battleground states, with nearly 1 million each in North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, and 1.6 million in Florida.

But recent polls make clear that the president’s campaign is losing the battle. Even as Obama leads in Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, Mitt Romney is up by double digits among veterans in those states. Nationwide, he’s got a commanding 20-percentage-point lead over Obama and has even overtaken the president with younger veterans.

“It’s no contest,” said Maurice Tamman, a Reuters data news editor who has polled on veterans and the presidential campaign.

Obama’s campaign has been trying to improve on a historical Democratic disadvantage on national security and among veterans by touting the killing of Osama bin Laden, ending Iraq combat operations and winding down the war in Afghanistan. They’ve also been talking up the administration’s attention to veterans’ benefits and efforts spearheaded by first lady Michelle Obama, hoping to appeal not just to the troops but to the spouses and other military family members who have coped with long separations and multiple deployments.

Read the whole thing for links to recent polling information on veterans in the four key states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado.

Considering we’re less than two months away (gasp!) from Election Day, I don’t think that gives our Celebrity President in Chief time enough to make any significant dent in Romney’s advantage with this key voting bloc. It sounds to me like veterans young and old have had enough of this President trying to take personal credit for the Navy SEALs operation that took out OBL, as well as his attempts at buying the votes of veterans who are returning home from war zones – not to mention are disgusted by the rumored attempts at disenfranchising the military vote in states like Ohio.

Stay tuned…

RSS feed for comments on this post.


16 Responses to “Military veterans to Obama: Too bad, so sad, buhbye”


  1. Vethusbandfather says:

    The President goes about ‘courting the veteran vote’ the wrong way. He thinks you win over vets by giving vets free stuff. In reality vets care more about seeing our current fighting forces taken care of than ourselves.

  2. A.Men says:

    Romney/Ryan 2012 in Virginia and the rest of the “57 states with one or two to go”!

  3. LTCHawg says:

    Another term for Obama will give him license to tamper with the military (end strength, pay, pensions, health care). I have no faith that he cares at all for the welfare of this country, its people, or those who have served or are serving it now in the military.

  4. H Hazell says:

    His edge was prevaporated with this vet!

  5. The issue of long deployments and other such items were significantly reformed as far back as the early ’70s with CNO Zumwalt’s changes in personnel policy, something the Obhammuds have never concerned themselves with till the elction grows near. As a veteran it is obvious Obhammud will face the same obstacle that caused vets and active duty personnel to vote against Clinton: the question of honor.

  6. Gravelagitator says:

    As a Vet (‘Nam) I can only say: “Obama 2012?” …” Not only NO, but HELL NO!”

  7. TexasMom2012 says:

    It is not really surprising after his mishandling of the Fort Hood TERROR ATTACK (not work place violence) and the restricted rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan. Not to mention the issue of TriCare. I do not believe our military can be won over by offers of rewards when they can see all the damage Obama has done and will continue to do if reelected.

    And also after our seals where killed in that helicopter crash and the families asked that no photos be taken… Remember Obama had his taken as the coffins were taken off the plane and he released that photo. Disrespect of our dead is not an attractive quality.

    As far as I can tell, the only thing Obama takes seriously is himself and his campaign. I bet the veterans can see that. I bet they also noticed that the death toll that was once on the news every night doesn’t get mentioned at all since Obama became Commander in Chief. And I bet they have heard of the form death letters signed by robo-pen that are being sent to the families of the fallen. There are plenty of reasons for the military and vets to want a change in the White House and no last minute twist by Obama is going to change their viewpoint.

  8. Carlos says:

    When it’s obvious even to Duh-1 that he lost the election this coming election and he tries to declare martial law, he’d better hope the soldiers assigned to protect him from protesting rioters don’t hold a grudge about him trying to deny them their right to vote.

    Just sayin’…

  9. Ben Hartley says:

    I’m also a ‘Nam vet, Gravel, and I, too, say “not only NO but HELL NO” to Dear leader (Bless His Heart and May Peace Be Upon Him).

    Quite truthfully, Obama couldn’t lead me out a burning building; Romney, on the other hand, just might tell me to enter one, and I just might go.

  10. Paul says:

    He will be here in Virginia Beach on Thursday “courting” the military vote. Hah!

  11. Dorothy Palmer says:

    Why does Obama have taxpayer funded secret service protection? The service is sworn to uphold the constitution, nothing else.

  12. Casey says:

    Ms. Palmer, you might want to (oh, I dunno) actually read about a topic before expressing your opinion.

    The Secret Service isn’t “sworn” to do anything about the constitution; I suspect you are thinking of the armed forces.

    The Service was instituted to investigate counterfeiting during the Civil War. After McKinley was killed, Congress asked the Service to begin protecting the president.

    They succeeded in protecting Truman against an attempt, but alas they were not so fortunate with Kennedy. Congress authorized protection for candidates as well after Bobby Kennedy was killed.

    In short, the Secret Service has no explicit mandate to either protect or support the Constitution, except as specified in their role in law enforcement. The roles it plays in today’s society are those explicitly authorized by Congress.

    I hope this clears up your confusion.

  13. Casey says:

    By the way, what I find amazing about that article (it’s been widely cited in the blogger-tubez) is that nearly no one has pointed out that most of those polls showing Obama’s alleged lead are heavily weighted in favor of Democrats, averaging +5% to +8%, with at least one +12% out there somewhere.

    I suspect an honest poll would show Romney running 8%-10% over Obama right now.

  14. @Casey–Agreed. I have said here before polls are nothing more than statistical lies and one of the flaws is the one you point out which is a polling sample with a built-in bias. Another inherent flaw is they all rely on a human being to tell the truth.
    “It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us in trouble. It’s the things we know that ain’t so.”–Artemus Ward

  15. Jiji says:

    Korea vet here. I do not think the vets and active duty personnel will forget that Oblabber tried to make wounded vets pay for their own medical care. This one won’t.