The Electoral Impact of Military Experience: Evidence From U.S. Senate Elections (1982–2016)
| Author | David K. Richardson |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X211038032 |
| Published date | 01 October 2022 |
| Date | 01 October 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X211038032
Armed Forces & Society
2022, Vol. 48(4) 961 –981
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0095327X211038032
journals.sagepub.com/home/afs
Article
The Electoral Impact of
Military Experience: Evidence
From U.S. Senate Elections
(1982–2016)
David K. Richardson
Abstract
The belief that a military veteran candidate receives an electoral benefit at the polls
based on a history of military service remains a widely held assumption in American
politics. However, this assumption of a veteran electoral bonus has rarely been studied
by scholars and the limited literature displays mixed results. This article presents the
findings of a new study that addresses the mixed results in the literature and presents
evidence that demonstrates that certain types of military veteran candidates do gain a
veteran bonus in congressional elections. This advantage over nonveterans is condi-
tioned by party, the type of race, and the nature of military service. By analyzing general
election races for the United States Senate over 34 years (1982–2016), the study
uncovers support for Democratic candidates with military service receiving an
electoral bonus at the polls. This electoral bonus is most widely enjoyed by Democratic
veterans in open Senate races and with experience in deployed warzones. The key
findings suggest that previous conclusions in the literature with respect to establishing a
veteran bonus in congressional elections should be reexamined to expand the time
period of analysis, restructure the characterization of military experience beyond a
binary variable, and include both House and Senate elections.
Keywords
veterans, political science, congressional elections, representation
Department of Political Science, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402, USA
Corresponding Author:
David K. Richardson, Department of Political Science, United States Naval Academy, 589 McNair Road,
Annapolis, MD 21402, USA.
Email: drichar@usna.edu
962 Armed Forces & Society 48(4)
“In one of the sharpest exchanges of the campaign, Mr. Webband Mr. Allen squared off on
the war in Iraq on ‘Meet the Press’on NBC on Sunday, with Mr.Allen defending the Bush
administration’s policy and denouncing the ‘second-guessing and Monday-morning
quarterbacking’of the critics. ‘We’re going to need to do what it takes to succeed,’
Mr. Allen said, when asked if he would support additional troops in Iraq, ‘because it’s
essential to the security of the United States of America.’
Mr. Webb responded: ‘I know what it’s like to be on the ground. I know what it’s like to
fight a war like this, and—there are limits to what the military can do.’…
Mr. Webb also took several digs at what he called theorists in the administration and
among its allies who know combat only in the abstract. Mr. Allen, like the majority of the
current Congress, did not serve in the military.”
1
Introduction
In the weeks leading up to the November 2006 midterm elections, Tim Russert hosted
debates for several key United States Senate races on the popular Sunday morning news
program “Meet the Press.”The two general election candidates for the U.S. Senate in
Virginia, incumbent George Allen and challenger James Webb, debated for an hour on
national television on September 17, 2006. This one debate, while just a singular moment in a
unique campaign for one Senate seat over a decade removed, laid bare the stark differencein
the biographies of two candidates seeking election to the “world’sgreatest deliberative body.”
Each candidate represented the polar opposite of the other with respect to military service and
political experience in elected office. The New York Times characterized the 2006 Virginia
Senate race as “a campaign of contrasts…combat boots versus cowboy boots.”
2
In November 2006, after a campaign that garnered national media attention largely due to
a major gaffe by Allen in the months leading up to the election, the political world was
shocked by Webb’s narrow victory.
3
At his victory rally, Senator-elect Webb removed the
combat boots he was wearing and emphatically held them in the air as the crowd applauded.
The boots belonged to his son, who had followed in his footsteps as a Marine and was
deployed to Iraq throughout his father’sfirst run for office. Webb had worn them throughout
the previous months, a visible symbol that his military experience and national security
expertise was the stated foundation of his long shot and ultimately successful campaign.
4
The 2006 Virginia Senate race is just one example that speaks to the long-held notion
in American politics that a candidate biography that includes military service helps gain
votes. The Allen–Webb race was decided by the interaction of numerous factors over
many months. But the basic fact of the outcome remained that an established, ex-
perienced candidate with an overwhelming fundraising advantage was beaten by a
decorated military veteran with no prior experience in elected office. Was Webb’s
victory an example of an overarching “veteran bonus”in elections, or the idea that a
candidate’s military service provides a boost with voters? Or was it simply an outlier
data point representing one successful race in an election year known in the press in part
for being the year of the “fightin’Dems”?
5
2Armed Forces & Society 0(0)
To continue reading
Request your trial