The short version — Even though Clinton received 80% of donations from the military and solidly had the majority of support of those who contributed to a political campaign, Trump had the support of those in the military who don’t contribute but still vote. His polling at about 19% points above Clinton with military personnel polls translated to a
27 point advantage in the general.
Now, this does not mean that even though you receive a majority of military donations and are not leading in military polls you will lose the general election. Obama was in the same spot with Romney &
McCain and we all know how that turned out. Plus, considering the extremely bad mis-step by this administration concerning the military (turning on the Kurds, using funds meant for schools on military bases being used to build a wall that gets knocked down with a stiff breeze and the “It’s just a headache” traumatic head injuries) — Trump’s support from military personnel my be feeling a dip. But in the last three election cycles, receiving a majority of donations from members of the military does not equal overall support.
Rabbit Hole Extra:
Rolling Stone found this information on opensecrets.org. They have a great resource to find out which organizations (by individuals/PACs/owners/employees/family members associated with said organization) are a top 20 donor for each presidential candidate. This may be a better keystone as to what a candidate is perceived to truly support. For example: (I’m only screen shooting the top ten but
click here to see all contributions) Bernie & Warren seem to have a nice mixture of high profile schools, government agencies and businesses (the next top ten for them tend to split where Bernie has all branches of the military and Warren has more places of higher education). Biden on the other hand has more banks and law firms in his top ten. Trump has PACs, private equity firms & real estate.
Bernie Sanders:
Elizabeth Warren: