Does it tip the balance from a “lukewarm” candidate to someone who will definitely get your vote?
- Very important
- Somewhat important
- It’s helpful
- I don’t care
- It’s a negative
0 voters
Not definitely, but it does show someone has some discipline and knowledge of things.
Not really. And I say this as a lifelong military vet.
I hope that if they don’t have some understanding of military matters, their Secretary of Defense does. And that in any matter, they’ll choose experienced advisors and then listen to the advice offered.
If the Candidate is a Hawk, they should be a Vet.
If they’re not a Hawk, I don’t consider it to be very important.
Very little importance in of itself, it’s just part of the context. Might be a positive, might be a negative depending on the person. But it is worth noting that I’d prefer my presidents be little seen bland technocrats and policy wonks. I’m mildly, but reflexively anti-presidential. I just don’t entirely trust the charismatic and ambitious.
I would prefer that a candidate has some military experience, simply because they’re the commander & chief of the armed forces. However, a preferred qualification is not a required qualification, and it probably won’t tip the balance for me. The lack of military experience didn’t stop me from voting for Hillary.
Very little on its own, but if it enhances a candidate’s apparent electability, then it might influence my support. For potential presidents, I generally try to support the candidate whose views are pretty close to mine AND who I think has the best chance to win. Military service could enhance that latter factor.
Like any other facet of a candidate’s experience, I’d have to know more about what he or she did with it. A decorated veteran who is held in high regard by peers? That’s a plus. Spent a few years in the Air National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam and shirking what limited responsibilities he had? That’s a minus.
Nitpick (since that’s what we do around here):
The president is “Commander In Chief” of the armed forces.
I can subscribe to this.
As likely to be a negative as a positive. There are a ton of douchebag politicians that served only to use that as a cudgel to quash criticism while later running for office later.
Perhaps I should have made this a poll or something to measure what’s most important to people as far as a candidate’s resume….
Not at all.
If you come up with the poll questions, I can insert it into the OP for you.
I would need to know more about their service, beyond just the fact that they served in the military somehow.
It’s nothing to me. General Eisenhower- pretty decent president. General Flynn- unworthy of any job in public service. Give me a president who prefers diplomacy over military action. Sometimes military types are the ones who want to avoid confrontation, sometimes not. The mere existence of a military record doesn’t guarantee my vote one way or another, I just want to know what will be the foundation of his foreign policy. “Human rights” is a lot more appealing to me than “America First”.
If they were in the service it might depend on what they did there.
Should I just post them or send them to you?
I find it fascinating that most people simple ignore the fact that the military has been and still is full of Nazis, white extremists, Christian extremists, homophobes, transphobes, antisemites, willing torturers, xenophobes, and thousands and thousands of sexual harassers and rapists, from the lowest recruit to . Every year there are multiple negative reports and studies of the military, including many Congressional hearings, and every year the military promises to do better while kicking the problem down the road.
This is not the same as saying that the military is utterly corrupt and worthless. Yet the automatic near deification of anyone who has served is as severe self-blindness as climate change denial.
Let the individual prove their worth exactly as if they have had any other life experience.
I don’t think it really matters. It’s nice and all, but I don’t think required.
The question kinda reminds me of folks who say I should support a veteran -owned business because it’s owned by a vet. Or buy local only because it’s a locally-owned business.
Screw that. I vote for who I want to and I spend my money where I want to.
Doesn’t make a big difference to me, no more then any other job they held in their past. Not a negative, but not necessarily a positive.