Item Details
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:632Hits:20068773Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

In Basket
  Journal Article   Journal Article
 

ID172688
Title ProperBattlefield Casualties and Ballot-Box Defeat
Other Title InformationDid the Bush–Obama Wars Cost Clinton the White House?
LanguageENG
AuthorKriner, Douglas L
Summary / Abstract (Note)In the 2016 election, foreign policy may have played a critically important role in swinging an important constituency to Donald Trump: voters in high-casualty communities that had abandoned Republican candidates in the mid-2000s. Trump’s iconoclastic campaign rhetoric promised a foreign policy that would simultaneously be more muscular and restrained. He promised to rebuild and refocus the military while avoiding the “stupid wars” and costly entanglements of his predecessors. At both the state and county levels, we find significant and substantively meaningful relationships between local casualty rates and support for Trump. Trump made significant electoral gains among constituencies that were exhausted and politically alienated by 18 years of fighting. Trump’s foreign policy shows a president beset by competing militaristic and isolationist impulses. Our results suggest that giving into the former may come at a significant electoral cost.
`In' analytical NotePolitical Science and Politics Vol. 53, No.2; Apr 2020: p.248-252
Journal SourcePolitical Science and Politics 2020-06 53, 2
Key WordsClinton ;  White House ;  Battlefield Casualties ;  Ballot-Box Defeat ;  Bush–Obama Wars