View Maps


I am still trying to locate the military voting results from 2004 but thought that these two maps were a pretty interesting comparison.

Definitely an interesting series of maps.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold your breath looking for military voting results; there are no such hard statistics. Military people are scattered throughout the world and vote either in where we are stationed or by absentee ballot in their home of record (which may be a world apart from where we live). Best you can hope for are opinion polls, such as those conducted by the Military Times before the election (which had, I should note, some methodology issues).

In general, however, the military tends to vote Republican. What would be interesting to see would be to find out if there were more Democrat votes than usual this year. I suspect there were (I'm a Republican who voted for Kerry, for example), but I just don't think there are sufficient data out there to really say for sure.

Last election military voted 75-80% Bush from what Ive heard and I doubt much has changed.

Its been a long time since a Democrat won the military vote.

If you consider what a few high profile Democrat politicians like Senator Kennedy say in public venues and read some of the military & troop bashing on sites like this methinks that ain't none too surprising, eh?

What are some of Senator Kennedy's public statements about the military that bother you? Do you have any examples?

Methinks his speech in January, think it was at a college, where he seemed to be blaming all the problems in Iraq on our troops and their actions and activities is a good example. 'Twas the one I most recently heard mentioned by a couple military personnel that had just come back from Iraq, at a party yesterday as a matter of fact, as being negatively received by our personnel over there.

Methinks he'd also made what came across as some pretty negative sounding comments about our military just prior to the Iraqi election, although in that case methinks he might not have meant it the way it sounded.

That is a total distortion of what Senator Kennedy said in his speech in January.

And I take exception with Flydangler's contention that there is "troop bashing" going on at this site.

"Methinks" the mate on the crowsnest has been visiting the jug with the ships spirits inside with such a post in the ships journal.

One thing about TK, he tells it like he sees it - like it or not. He does not applaud for the likes of chickenhawks when they speak because everyone else is clapping like trained free-kin seals.

"Methinks" that TK opposes the "SHRUBS" fiasco in Iraq big time and does not try to hide that fact one free-kin bit.

But as far as blaming the Troops or G.I.'S for the "SHRUB" fiasco, "METHINKS" the mate above better go see the ships doc or sleep it off. That would be the right approach for the ship in the storm, "Aye".

"Methinks" that then the mate above can post on a straight course, methinks anyway. LOL See what to much time watching Popeye can do to ones mind! LOL

Deaths Per 1,000 Deployed


Death rate of soldiers and Marines deployed from each state through Oct. 31, the latest date for which information on deaths and deployments was available.

http://www.vnews.com/war/deathsper1000deployed.htm


Per Capita Deaths
A state-by-state comparison of per capita deaths among soldiers and Marines.
As of Jan. 8, 2005

http://www.vnews.com/war/percapitadeaths.htm


Per Capita Injuries
A state-by-state comparison of per capita injuries (non-fatal) among soldiers and Marines.
As of Jan. 8, 2005

http://www.vnews.com/war/percapitainjuries.htm


National Guard Participation
A state-by-state comparison of the percentage of residents serving in the National Guard.


http://www.vnews.com/war/guardparticipation.htm

Dartmouth College region of New Hampshire and Vermont recently published a piece that confirmed something people around there had suspected: that Vermont soldiers and Marines have a higher casualty rate than service personnel from most other states.


The paper compiled statistics that may be useful to journalists in other states.

The paper's Web site includes charts giving four sets of numbers for each state (and D.C.):

Deaths per 1,000 soldiers deployed
Death rate per capita
Injury rate per capita
Percentage of each state's population serving in the National Guard.

Total coverage from the Valley News.

Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota and Arkansas lead the nation at somewhere between double and more than triple the rate of residents who die in Iraq compared to larger more urban states.


The list says California has lost the most soldiers in Iraq (160) followed by Texas (121), Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois and Florida.


The Valley News pointed out that one of the stories behind the numbers was the role of the National Guard in Iraq:

Statistical chance isn't the only explanation. There's also the fact that National Guard troops are playing a significant role in the Iraq war, experts say.

Overall, states' National Guard members account for 40 percent of military personnel in Iraq. While a traditional Army or Marine combat unit might draw on men and women from around the nation, a National Guard unit draws heavily from one geographic region.

"When (National Guard units) take a hit," said Lt. Veronica Saffo, spokeswoman for Vermont National Guard, "it affects the whole state."

Leibon, the Dartmouth professor who reviewed the Valley News analysis of deaths, said he was struck by the role that the heavy National Guard presence might be playing.

Deaths from many states seemed higher than his statistical analysis expected, he said, most likely because National Guard units are made up of people from the same state. So when a unit sees multiple deaths during a particular mission, that state's rate soars.

Earlier this month, for instance, Louisiana suffered a blow when six guardsmen from that state were killed in a single bomb blast in Iraq. Less than a week later, two more Louisiana guardsmen were killed.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=78305

There is NO troop bashing here. We all support our men and women in war zones. They didnt ask to go fight this Iraq war but instead were lead there by our Commander and Chief because he wanted to take our eyes off the ball.......Bin Laden and the Saudi family him and his father are in bed with.

My husband is deployed and being National Guard, his 18 mos. is a real hardship for us back here. His job paid rather well and kept our bills paid and a few bucks in savings........now living on Military pay is a leap backward for us. A yr. and a half of getting less will put us so far behind and there's no telling if his unit be be extended or redeployed again seeing we will be there for a very long time.

Our troops dont like where they are believe me. The Guard units I know that are there are so pi$$ed off about spending over a yr. in a place that we shouldnt have been in from the start. Leaving their jobs, their families for such a long period of time was a hardship on their morale from the start.

Guard was rarely ever used as it was in the Iraq invasion. Their training was so limited as they only train 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a yr. at AT. It was like taking untrained people off the street and throwing them in a war zone. What sense does that make? NONE!!!

My hats off to the troops and esp. my hubby and we hear what soldiers in Iraq think of Bush even tho the Bush administration wants us to believe our guys are all RAH RAH! They arent cheering for Bush, they're cheering to get the heck home and pray they have jobs left and anything left in savings. Over 90% in my husbands unit and over 85% in a few other units say as soon as the stop loss is off, they will run not walk away from the Guard. This left a bad taste in their mouth. IMAGINE...Guard units being held hostage by their Government while regular Military is free to retire, leave etc.. What next?

Well then methinks you could explain to me what the wild accusations that our troops committed cold blooded murder being thrown about here and here constitute, eh? Read all the accusations made by posters, most of them baseless, then see if you don't want to change your tune.

Troops must be worked up by Rudy Guliani who said the same thing

Methinks they would be if they heard 'bout it, but 'twould seem the Guliani statement was ignored by much of the media. Your mention of it here was the first I'd heard 'bout it, eh?

When you put 150,000 American soldiers in one area you can expect many problems. When you start to believe that out of these 150,000 soldiers none are capable of committing bad deeds, you are lying to your self and everyone else. When all these people are volunteers to the military, you can expect that they will cover for each other. If you want to know the whole story you’ll probably have to wait until a couple of years after the war for some of the truths to come out.
I don’t believe America benefits from having a volunteer military, inherently an all volunteer military should be thought of like Ike thought of the military's industrial complex, they are not to be trusted. If the American people were to support a military action, they would send their sons and daughters to respond to the draft, just as we have for the past 100 years or longer. When the politicians are forced to use the draft in order to impose their thinking in other countries, it’ll help prevent them from going into a needless war.

Looked up my old quotes: It wasn't the same thingas saying the troops are the problem. It was about the missing explosives. Even so, there would have been more noise if it was Michael Moore, Kerry, or Kennedy saying this:


By Glenn Blain, The (Westchester, N.Y.) Journal News
Rudy Giuliani's penchant for speaking his mind generated some trouble for the Bush-Cheney campaign yesterday when the former New York City mayor suggested that U.S. troops, not the president, were responsible for the missing explosives in Iraq.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks at a Republican rally in Brewer, Maine.
Robert F. Bukaty, AP

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there," Giuliani said on NBC's "Today" show. "Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

Thanks for the clarification!

I remember that incident and methinks the media jumped on Rudy pretty heavy. Don't think 'twas unfair, just yer typical media vultures choosing to run with a ready made story rather than actually having to dig for one, eh?

Never got any feedback from my daughter 'bout how the troops reacted to Rudy.