Results are a signal of hope for Democrats

by David L. Englin
Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Oct. 25, 2004; Air Force Times, Nov. 1, 2004

Old-school military professionals no doubt will lament the very idea that anyone would try to discern the partisan political attitudes of military men and women.

But long gone are the days when men like Gen. George C. Marshall were so devoutly neutral that they refused even to vote.

Both Republican and Democratic activists now target military support, and the Defense Department aggressively encourages troops to register and vote. So one can understand why Military Times would want to know where its readers stand politically.

However, the notion that the results of the Military Times 2004 Election Survey are “a disappointment to Democrats,” as reported, is flat-out wrong. Take these particular survey results with a grain of salt, no matter which candidate you support.

Polling organizations such as Gallup and Zogby use scientific methodology to make sure they survey random samples of people who accurately represent the populations they are trying to poll.

Military Times simply sent an e-mail notice to its online subscribers asking for volunteers.

To its credit, Military Times admits that this unscientific method produced a survey group that doesn’t necessarily represent the U.S. military as a whole. More important, it admits that its method undersampled groups that traditionally support Democrats, skewing the results in favor of President Bush.

However, Military Times overlooked another factor that would have a similar effect. Military public affairs staffs are constantly trying to overcome the perception among those in the ranks that the Military Times newspapers are official, command-driven publications. Therefore, when Marine Corps Times asks a Marine about his vote, a natural “command influence” effect likely skews results further toward any sitting commander in chief.

Even with a survey methodology that unduly benefits Bush, the results are more hopeful than disappointing for Democrats. Despite oversampling Republicans, the survey shows just 54 percent of active-duty respondents consider themselves Republican — welcome news to the active-duty officers who recently launched a group called the Civic Soldier Forum (www.soldierforum.org) to amplify the voices of politically progressive troops.

Moreover, Democrats have not suggested that military voters will flock to Sen. John Kerry over Bush. (Certainly, they think that military voters ought to support Kerry, but that’s different.) Democrats have argued simply that, among military voters, Kerry will do better than past Democrats — and that is exactly what the survey shows.

Among active-duty troops responding to the initial survey, 17 percent said they support Kerry, while 12 percent said they supported Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Among National Guard and reserve troops, 18 percent said they support Kerry, while 16 percent said they supported Gore.

Kerry did better than the previous Democrat in both cases.

Moreover, the follow-up survey after the first presidential debate showed Kerry gaining six more points. The broad-brush conclusion that military voters support Bush over Kerry is almost certainly correct. But Kerry is clearly doing much better among military voters than Gore did, which could easily swing an election that was decided last time by just 537 votes in Florida.

Passions are high on both sides of the political aisle, and it will be interesting to see where military voters come down. Fortunately for Democrats both in and out of uniform, even this flawed survey shows signs of hope for Kerry.