I did some number crunching, and found a few interesting things (including stuff that S&H missed:

Reactive/Nomad presidents have high levels of active military participation (7/10), and are the highest ranking: 3/10 held the highest commands and ranks before becoming president (Washington, Grant, Ike), and another 3/10 were generals (Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison). I wasn't able to find any active military service for Adams (manditory quarterly militia drills?), Arthur, or Cleveland (county sheriff in ACW).

S&H portray Reactive/Nomads as career military types, but only one (Ike) was a career officer. Washington was (in modern terms) a well-known National Guard officer with a political career and successful business who volunteered for active duty during a crisis war (AWI); he was the only one to serve on active duty AFTER becoming president. Grant was a regular who had long since resigned his commision, and only came back because of the crisis (ACW), then stayed on to handle reconstruction and the Indians. The other 3 ACW generals were strictly wartime, while Truman was a MO ARNG officer. Reactive/Nomads are typically in the "In Case of War, Break Glass" mode.

Civic/Hero presidents have the highest active military participation (8/10), with 3 (Monroe, JFK, Bush '41) seeing pretty harsh combat as junior officers. Carter was the only one with significant military service outside of a crisis war (1946-1953). I know that Jefferson participated in (required) militia drills; maybe Madison did the same.

The Civic/Heroes are pretty much as S&H portray them, showing up for the crisis war, then going back to civilain life (never to return).

Of the Adaptive/Artist presidents, 5/11 had active military service. 3/11 were generals with independent field commands (Jackson, W. Harrison, and Taylor); all 3 had extensive prior military experience. As an old man during the ACW, Van Buren was in a part-time militia unit (no active service). I haven't found anything for JQ Adams, Tyler, Buchannan, Taft, or Wilson.

The Artist/Adaptives are the biggest surprise. S&H wrote that Adaptives don't dream of flying jet fighters, but they do serve (voluntarily). Jackson was the only president to serve as both a private (unenrolled militiaman during the AWI crisis) and a general, and was the only president to be a POW (Washington surrendered Ft. Neccessity, but not himself or his command). Harrison had an on-again off-again military career that was concurrent and/or alternated with his political career, while Taylor was a regular. Teddy Roosevelt and McKinnley were strictly wartime, but distinguished (S&H make McKinnley sound like a blue-suited Candy Striper).

Of the 11 Idealist/Prophets, I haven't found anything at all for 4 (Polk, Johnson, Harding, Coolidge). Fillmore was in the same militia unit as Van Buren during the ACW (after his presidency). [Polk was a Colenel in the (mandatory service) Tennessee State Militia], Pierce was a general in the Mexican War (I haven't found any prior military experience for him before that). Lincoln served in the Blackhawk War, and Hoover (as a civilian engineer) got caught up in the Boxer Rebellion, organizing the defenses at Tientsin. FDR toured the western front with the DON, Clinton was in ROTC, Bush '43 spent a year in officer/flight training, and did aircap afterward.

The Idealists are pretty much as S&H portray them. [Pierce served, but as an instant colonel with a fast track to general.] Lincoln served 4 months, and was the only president to go from officer to enlisted man (voluntarily); of the four presidential candidates in 1860, Lincoln's military record was actually the most "hardcore". Hoover got swept up in the Boxer Rebellion accidentally. Bush '43's stateside TX ARNG service is actually above average for Idealist/Prophets.

For the present field for the 2008 election, I count:

McCain ('36 Silent), whose active & reserve service is more typical of Adaptive/Artists than S&H realize;

Hunter ('48 Boom), whose military service is very unusual for an Idealist/Prophet. If he won (presently about as likely as me winning), he'd have the most extensive military record of any Idealist/Prophet president. (Kerry would have been below Pierce and above Lincoln, but Kerry's a '43 cusper).

Did I miss anyone?

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

I did some number crunching, and found a few interesting things (including stuff that S&H missed:

Reactive/Nomad presidents have high levels of active military participation (7/10), and are the highest ranking: 3/10 held the highest commands and ranks before becoming president (Washington, Grant, Ike), and another 3/10 were generals (Hayes, Garfield, B. Harrison). I wasn't able to find any active military service for Adams (manditory quarterly militia drills?), Arthur, or Cleveland (county sheriff in ACW).

S&H portray Reactive/Nomads as career military types, but only one (Ike) was a career officer. Washington was (in modern terms) a well-known National Guard officer with a political career and successful business who volunteered for active duty during a crisis war (AWI); he was the only one to serve on active duty AFTER becoming president. Grant was a regular who had long since resigned his commision, and only came back because of the crisis (ACW), then stayed on to handle reconstruction and the Indians. The other 3 ACW generals were strictly wartime, while Truman was a MO ARNG officer. Reactive/Nomads are typically in the "In Case of War, Break Glass" mode.

Civic/Hero presidents have the highest active military participation (8/10), with 3 (Monroe, JFK, Bush '41) seeing pretty harsh combat as junior officers. Carter was the only one with significant military service outside of a crisis war (1946-1953). I know that Jefferson participated in (required) militia drills; maybe Madison did the same.

The Civic/Heroes are pretty much as S&H portray them, showing up for the crisis war, then going back to civilain life (never to return).

Of the Adaptive/Artist presidents, 5/11 had active military service. 3/11 were generals with independent field commands (Jackson, W. Harrison, and Taylor); all 3 had extensive prior military experience. As an old man during the ACW, Van Buren was in a part-time militia unit (no active service). I haven't found anything for JQ Adams, Tyler, Buchannan, Taft, or Wilson.

The Artist/Adaptives are the biggest surprise. S&H wrote that Adaptives don't dream of flying jet fighters, but they do serve (voluntarily). Jackson was the only president to serve as both a private (unenrolled militiaman during the AWI crisis) and a general, and was the only president to be a POW (Washington surrendered Ft. Neccessity, but not himself or his command). Harrison had an on-again off-again military career that was concurrent and/or alternated with his political career, while Taylor was a regular. Teddy Roosevelt and McKinnley were strictly wartime, but distinguished (S&H make McKinnley sound like a blue-suited Candy Striper).

Of the 11 Idealist/Prophets, I haven't found anything at all for 4 (Polk, Johnson, Harding, Coolidge). Fillmore was in the same militia unit as Van Buren during the ACW (after his presidency). Pierce was a general in the Mexican War (I haven't found any prior military experience for him before that). Lincoln served in the Blackhawk War, and Hoover (as a civilian engineer) got caught up in the Boxer Rebellion, organizing the defenses at Tientsin. FDR toured the western front with the DON, Clinton was in ROTC, Bush '43 spent a year in officer/flight training, and did aircap afterward.

The Idealists are pretty much as S&H portray them. Pierce served because he got to be an instant general (nice offer if you can get it). Lincoln served 4 months, and was the only president to go from officer to enlisted man (voluntarily); of the four presidential candidates in 1860, Lincoln's military record was actually the most "hardcore". Hoover got swept up in the Boxer Rebellion accidentally. Bush '43's stateside TX ARNG service is actually above average for Idealist/Prophets.

For the present field for the 2008 election, I count:

McCain ('36 Silent), whose active & reserve service is more typical of Adaptive/Artists than S&H realize;

Hunter ('48 Boom), whose military service is very unusual for an Idealist/Prophet. If he won (presently about as likely as me winning), he'd have the most extensive military record of any Idealist/Prophet president. (Kerry would have been below Pierce and above Lincoln, but Kerry's a '43 cusper).

Did I miss anyone?

While elected to Congress, LBJ volunteered to serve the US Army soon after Pearl Harbor. FDR nixed that because LBJ was an elected public official.

I'm back.

[quote=pbrower2a;199340]
"While elected to Congress, LBJ volunteered to serve the US Army soon after Pearl Harbor. FDR nixed that because LBJ was an elected public official."

-LBJ joined the US Navy anyway, and wound up doing an inspection tour of the Pacific for DON. During one of his flights, the plane he was on got attacked, and he was awarded a Bronze Star (the validity of which was questionable).

I did some further checking, and it looks like I maligned Pierce's military service. He first joined as a private in '46, knowing that he would probably get a commission- he got colonel. His promotion to brigadier general didn't come until '47.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

For the present field for the 2008 election, I count:

McCain ('36 Silent), whose active & reserve service is more typical of Adaptive/Artists than S&H realize;

Hunter ('48 Boom), whose military service is very unusual for an Idealist/Prophet. If he won (presently about as likely as me winning), he'd have the most extensive military record of any Idealist/Prophet president. (Kerry would have been below Pierce and above Lincoln, but Kerry's a '43 cusper).

Did I miss anyone?

Ron Paul:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html

This bio does not give specific dates, but he is either a '35 or '36 (Silent). There are links to more detailed pages off this page:

http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/

[quote=Mustang;199566]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html

"...This bio does not give specific dates, but he is either a '35 or '36 (Silent)."

-According to wikipedia, he became a Dr. in '61, finished his internship, then served on active duty '63-'65, then in the Air Guard '65-'68.

Thanks.

I think it is interesting that the last four elections featured a veteran versus a draft dodger, and in all four cases, the draft dodger won. (Although in 2000, the veteran received more popular votes).

[quote=The Wonkette;199569]
"I think it is interesting that the last four elections featured a veteran versus a draft dodger, and in all four cases, the draft dodger won."

-There were other issues, of course, but-

First, the winners were Idealist/Prophets, who never seem to get elected based on their military service. But..

Bush 41 & Perot (veterans) got more votes than Clinton in '92, Dole & Perot tied Clinton in '96.

Gore did win the popular vote in '00.

I don't count Bush 43 as a draft-dodger. (Please send partisan attacks or support to me under "4TF", rather than clogging up this thread). His military service was tougher & longer than is typical for an Idealist/Prophet. It was not on the same level as Gore or Kerry- their defeat was not a matter of draft-dodger vs. non draft-dodger, but a matter of degree of "veteraness". Also, Gore lost points since he seemed to do the bare minimum to qualify as a war vet on his father's (bad) advice. Similar thing happened to Kerry in '04, and even goes back to the 1850's, when Gideon Pillow (Transcendental '06) tried to get the Dem' nominations in the 1850's; Pillow got ridiculed by his fellow veterans. Gore & Kerry also damaged their war veteran status by bad-mouthing their own war and by extension, their own military service. Lincoln denigrated his own military service, but in the humble sense of saying that his 4 months didn't amount to much; he didn't call the Blackhawk War immoral, or compare his comrades to Jenghiz Khan's horsemen. I guess the lesson is don't run as a veteran after you've spit on that status; a lesson universal to any generation, I suppose.

I'll be back in a few days.

[QUOTE=jamesdglick;199573]

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

"I think it is interesting that the last four elections featured a veteran versus a draft dodger, and in all four cases, the draft dodger won."

-There were other issues, of course, but-

First, the winners were Idealist/Prophets, who never seem to get elected based on their military service. But..

Bush 41 & Perot (veterans) got more votes than Clinton in '92, Dole & Perot tied Clinton in '96.

Gore did win the popular vote in '00.

I don't count Bush 43 as a draft-dodger.

Dubya is not so much a draft-dodger as a military failure in young adulthood and a leadership failure in near-elderhood.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Dubya is not so much a draft-dodger as a military failure in young adulthood and a leadership failure in near-elderhood.

Well, clearly his military service, or lack thereof, was not a significant turn-off for the pro-military crowd. As James writes, people don't expect Prophets to have military background -- the consultants should have recognized that Kerry's service wouldn't provide significant appeal. The same applies to the current crop of Boomer candidates (in which I include Obama.) I suppose there's a small chance of a Silent winning, but it's slim and getting slimmer by the day (unlike my favorite Boomer candidate )

Originally Posted by Finch

Well, clearly his military service, or lack thereof, was not a significant turn-off for the pro-military crowd. As James writes, people don't expect Prophets to have military background -- the consultants should have recognized that Kerry's service wouldn't provide significant appeal. The same applies to the current crop of Boomer candidates (in which I include Obama.) I suppose there's a small chance of a Silent winning, but it's slim and getting slimmer by the day (unlike my favorite Boomer candidate )

FDR and Lincoln are seen among the greatest war leaders in the US History. Lincoln never did any prior military service and FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in WW1.

Originally Posted by Tristan

FDR and Lincoln are seen among the greatest war leaders in the US History. Lincoln never did any prior military service and FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in WW1.

Capt. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois served in the Blackhawk War of 1832 for three months. He was elected to be an officer but did not sheridanize Mr. Blackhawk himself nor did his underlings.

Originally Posted by Finch

Well, clearly his military service, or lack thereof, was not a significant turn-off for the pro-military crowd. As James writes, people don't expect Prophets to have military background -- the consultants should have recognized that Kerry's service wouldn't provide significant appeal. The same applies to the current crop of Boomer candidates (in which I include Obama.) I suppose there's a small chance of a Silent winning, but it's slim and getting slimmer by the day (unlike my favorite Boomer candidate )

What may have mattered more in 2004 was not so much who was a hero of the War in Vietnam as who was likely to be the hero of the armaments industry, at least as the part of the electoral process that we know as campaign financing went. A bungled war (Gulf War II) offers far more profits to arms dealers than a well-pursued one (Gulf War I).

John Kerry had a split personality on the Vietnam War, admiring his own heroism but hating the war that he fought. Dubya had no such problem. He showed more concern for the current war, and his handlers brilliantly cast doubts about Kerry. Dubya was 100% reliable to his backers.

Love him or hate him -- and that goes for his handlers too -- one must admit the mastery of two campaigns which played a masterful shell game with the American electorate, creating illusory virtues while hiding his gross deficiencies of leadership and sowing question marks about the opponent.

What I think is intersting is after every 4T war, the general associated with winning the war wins the presidency, serves two terms, and is very popular despite their failings. Each also departs from public life with a valedictory message that is considered fairly memorable (Washington's "farewell address", Grant's memoirs, and Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" speech). Odd too that all three used troops to deal with domestic unrest (the Whiskey Rebellion, Reconstruction, and Little Rock, AR).

Not only did I malign Pierce, it turns out that Polk spent time in the Tennesse State Militia, ending up a colonel (the going thing for a politician in those days, particularly when quarterly militia drills were still mandatory). However, I still can't find any evidence for any sort of active duty (even a 1 week summer encampment). I'll put him in the same category as Jefferson.[Edit Note: Errata corrected in Post #1]

[quote=DonRobbie;199961]
"What I think is intersting is after every 4T war, the general associated with winning the war wins the presidency, serves two terms, and is very popular despite their failings..."

-I touched on that in my intro', and I discussed the next General-turned-President in the "Generals in Training" thread (although in hindsight, the next one might be born in the late 60's, rather than 1961-1964).

"...Odd too that all three used troops to deal with domestic unrest (the Whiskey Rebellion, Reconstruction, and Little Rock, AR)."

-Could be a 1T thing.

[quote=Virgil K. Saari;199623]
"Capt. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois served in the Blackhawk War of 1832 for three months. He was elected to be an officer but did not sheridanize Mr. Blackhawk himself nor did his underlings."

-Young Abe actually served four months. He served three as a company commander (as you point out) until his unit's enlistment ran out (they enlisted as a group). He then enlisted in another company as a private. As I wrote in my intro', I think he's the only president to take a wartime bust (voluntarily, in this case). How many guys would do that nowadays?

Again, Abes service was longer and harsher than that of most Idealist/Prophets.

Wonkette might have a point about Vet's not having a big edge for now (late 3T or early 4T). More Number Crunching:

1T Elections (16 Total):

8 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
1 case of Vet' with more prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with less prestigeous service;
1 case of Vet's with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
2 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

63% of presidents elected in 1T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 or 1792, when Ueber-Vet Washington was (effectively) unopposed; including 1792 brings the average up to 66%.

---

2T Elections (18 Total):

8 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
2 case of Vet' with more prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with less prestigeous service;
3 cases of Vet's with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
1 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

72 % of presidents elected in 2T were Vet's.

---

3T Elections (15 Total):

0 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
2 cases of Vet's with more prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with less prestigeous service;
2 case of Vet' with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

33% of presidents elected in 3T were Vet's.

---

4T Elections (6 Total):

1 case of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
0 case of Vet' with more prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with less prestigeous service;
1 cases of Vet's with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
0 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

33% of presidents elected in 4T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 with Washington, or 2004, which might be 3T or 4T (the argument goes on). Including 1788 & 2004 raises the average to 50%.

---

All Elections (52 Total, not including 1788, 1792, 2004):

17 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
5 cases of Vet' with more prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with less prestigeous service;
7 cases of Vet's with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
10 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
13 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

56% of winning candidates in these elections were Vet's. Adding 1788, 1792, & 2004, it's 58%.

---

I couldn't find cohort-by-cohort figures for military participation, but if there are presently 9.5 million veterans over 65, and 37 million people over 65, this would give an average of 25.6% for the GI & Silent (close to 52% of males); these two generations had the draft and fought a crisis war (plus); most generations would be lower. I'd be surpised if there were more than a dozen year-cohorts between 1750-1980 which had over 80% of it's males as vet's. Does anyone have hard data?

Even allowing for the percentage of potential candidates who are veterans immediately after a crisis war, the 1T results for veterans are striking; non-vet's get slaughtered (their best bet is against another non-vet). 2T is less impressive, particularly since the crisis vet's are now all of presidential age (35+). In 3T and 4T, vet' candidates are relatively few, and vet' status doesn't make much a huge difference, but I'd bet the 33% figure for 4T is still higher than that in the general 35 year old+ male population. At no point does it seem to be a disadvantage.

---

Here are the Stat's (not including 1788, 1792, 2004), with notes:

Vet's defeat Non-Vet's (17): 1816, 1820, 1828, 1832, 1840, 1860, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1888, 1896, 1904, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1984.

In 1832, Ole' Hickory beat the original chicken-hawk, Clay. In the 4T election of 1860, Lincoln, with his minimal military service, was still the only vet' in a 4-way race. In 1868, Grant beat Seymour, who had been anti-war. In 1872, Grant beat Greeley, who managed to be something of a chicken-hawk and anti-war, sometimes in the same month (Greeley was a little old to fight though- b. 1811). In 1876, Hayes beat the previously anti-war Tilden in an election with disputed results. I put 1948 in the vet' beats non-vet category; although Thurmond was a vet', the Dixiecrats were only a third party. Dewey and Wallace were non-vets.

---

Vet's with more prestigeous service defeat vet's with less prestigeous service (5): 1848, 1900, 1960, 1964, 1988.

Previous non-vet William Jennings Bryan got a commission during the Spanish-American, changing his status (the war ended before he went overseas). Arguing "more prestigeous" vs. "less prestigeous" is something of an arguable judgement call, and could get infantile, but I don't think I'll get much argument on the above.

---

Vet's with less prestigeous service defeat vet's with more prestigeous service (7): 1852, 1864, 1880, 1972, 1976, 1980, 2000.

In 1864, Lincoln beat McClellan, who was seen as anti-war (more properly he was against Lincoln's handling of the war, and against some of his objectives). In 2000, Gore but with more of the popular vote. Some of the above are debatable over whose service was "cooler". 2004 (3T or 4T?) would belong here.

---

Non-Vet's defeat Vet's (10): 1804, 1808, 1824, 1836, 1856, 1892, 1908, 1912, 1992, 1996.

In 1824, JQA beat Jackson in a divided electorate; a similar thing in 1836, 1912, and 1992.

---

Elections with no Vet's (13): 1796, 1800, 1812, 1844, 1884, 1916-1944!

I'm still counting Polk as a non-veteran (I could change my mind). The 1916-1944 string (3T & 4T) is striking.

---

Based on all of this, and assuming that 4T ends in 2024, a calculating presidential wannabe who plans to run between 2032 & 2056 should enlist at the first chance (JFK). On the other hand, if your time-frame is 2008-2020, it probably won't help. The 2024 & 2028 elections will probably be won by a very senior general, so if you don't already have a commission, you might as well forget about it.

I think these are ALL the veteran candidates and quasi-candidates for the two major parties so far:

The Ds
Wesley Clark ('44): The only career military guy on the D side (retired). Not an official candidate, and not particularly on track to become one (as far as I know), although I've seen polls where he "blips". Possible VP for Hillary Clinton?

Chris Dodd ('44): US Army Reserve 1968-75. An official candidate, but not getting anywhere so far.

Al Gore ('48): 2 years, 5 months of them in RVN. Not an official candidate, although he does well in polls (of registered Democrats, at least)

The Rs:
Duncan Hunter ('48): Described in Wiki as a VN vet with the Third Herd. An official candidate, but a long-shot. Possibly running for VP.

John McCain ('36): The only career military guy on the R side. The Once Front-Runner, now somewhere around 3rd place among registered Republicans.

Ron Paul ('35): Acitive & reserve service as a doctor in the 60s. An official candidate with a small but loyal fan base, but would probably get more votes from Libertarians than Republicans (i.e. not many).

Have I missed anyone? I haven't found anything on 3rd party candidates (unless you include Paul).

The percentages seem to be in line with previous late 3T/ early 4T elections (see post, above).

Of the 42 men who have been president, 23 (54%) had active military service, which I'm certain is far above the average for men of the likely age cohorts (1723-1961) overall. (BTW, does anyone have cohort by cohort stat's?)

Excluding 1788 and 1792 (Washington), or 2004 (3T or 4T?), fewer veterans get elected during 3Ts and 4Ts:

3T: 12 out of 24 (50%) major party candidates were veterans; 4 out of 12 were the winners (33%);

4T: 4 out of 12 (33%) major party candidates were veterans; 2 out of 6 (33%) were the winners.

(Note: The inclusion of the 1788, 1792, and 2004 elections would increase the percentages)

There is only one major veteran candidate remaining: Senator McCain.

Updates & Corrections for the List:

1T Elections (16 Total):

6 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
4 cases of Vet's defeating Vet's;
2 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

50% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 63% of those elected in 1T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 or 1792, when Ueber-Vet Washington was (effectively) unopposed; including 1792 brings the average up to 66%.

---

2T Elections (18 Total):

7 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
6 case of Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
1 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

64% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 72% of those elected in 2T were Vet's.

---

3T Elections (11 Total):

0 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
3 cases of Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

46% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 27% of those elected in 3T were Vet's.

---

4T Elections (6 Total):

1 case of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
1 cases of Vet's with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
1 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
3 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

33% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 33% of those elected in 4T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 with Washington, or 2004, which might be 3T or 4T (the argument goes on). Including 1788 & 2004 raises the average to 50%.

---

All Elections (51 Total, not including 1788, 1792, 2004):

14 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
14 cases of Vet' defeating a Vet';
11 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
12 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

52% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 55% of those elected in all Turnings were Vet's.

(Note: I corrected for Adlai Stevenson being a WWI Navy vet', Wendell Willkie being a WWI Army vet', and for Walter Mondale being a 1950s Army vet'. I'm still counting Polk as having no active military service. I got rid of the "more prestigious service" vs. "less prestigious service" for simplicity, and because some are toss-ups, like LBJ vs. Goldwater)

With the exception of 3T, Vet's tend to beat Non-Vet's. Even in 3T, tho', Vet's are more likely to be chosen as candidates than the average male citizen.

Senator McCain served a full active duty military career (1958-1981); the only other POTUSs to do this were Zachary Taylor & Ike.

Washington, Jackson, and Harrison, all had extensive military experience, all made flag rank, but none stayed in the military for long outside of major wars; they were essentially businessmen and politicians with a lot of military service. (Note: Like Washington and Jackson, McCain was a POW. Washington surrendered long enough to be allowed to march himself and his command back to Virginia; Jackson had a much rougher time)

Grant had extensive military experience, and eventually made flag rank, but he never intended to make the Army his career, and resigned his commission soon after making Captain in 1854; he didn't return to military service until 1861.

Carter intended to make the Navy his career, but resigned his commission in 1953 to help out at the farm. (Note: Like Carter, McCain is a US Naval Academy grad')

Truman served in the Missouri National Guard before, during (in combat) and after WWI, but was never a "Regular Army" guy.

Senator Obama has no military experience, but his grandfather (or grand uncle, or somebody) served in Patton's Third Army...

Actually, a complete lack of active military service isn't unusual in the 3T/4T timeframe:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...3T Elections (11 Total):

0 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
3 cases of Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

46% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 27% of those elected in 3T were Vet's.

---

4T Elections (6 Total):

1 case of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
1 case of Vet's with less prestigeous service defeating a Vet' with more prestigous service;
1 case of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
3 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

33% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 33% of those elected in 4T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 with Washington, or 2004, which might be 3T or 4T (the argument goes on)...

Historically, the cohort years with the highest rates of active duty military participation tend to be clustered on 4T Crisis Wars; AWI hit the "Republicans", ACW hit the "Gilded" and the very earliest "Progressives", and WWII hit the "GIs" and the very earliest "Silent". These cohorts typically run for POTUS during 1T and 2T.

Prophets generally have low rates of active duty military participation; first wave "Missionary" men may have had the lowest rate in Anglo-American history, at less than 5%. They tend to run in 3T & 4T.

Yes, and WWII also hit the Lost. I remember thinking in MASH that their first Colonel was G.I., but tough old Sherman T. Potter was archetypical Lost, and he (like others of his generation) had served in both wars.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Yes, and WWII also hit the Lost...

-When I wrote of a war "hitting" a cohort, I meant in large numbers (10% of males, or more). In WWII, the Lost weren't eligible for the draft until 16 FEB 1942, when the draft age was expanded from 21-36 to 20-45. By then, however, few men over the age of 27 were drafted for several reasons:

1) They tended to be "married with children";
2) They tended to have protected jobs in industry or agriculture;
3) The military didn't want to waste time on inducting them, since they usually got stamped IV-F anyway.

Of course, some Lost served during WWII, but most were active duty professionals (like Ike or Patton), reservists, national guardsmen, or re-called retirees; i.e. relatively few, and not typical of the Lost cohorts.

(An odd case was ex-SGT York, who was commissioned as a Major and put to work on the Army's marksmanship training program. He suggested that the targets should look like actual human beings, that they should pop-up and down, move, and should be concelaed and/or covered positions at ranges between 25-100 yards away. The Army didn't listen, since what would he know about it? )

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

...I remember thinking in MASH that their first Colonel was G.I., but tough old Sherman T. Potter was archetypical Lost, and he (like others of his generation) had served in both wars.

-First, MASH wasn't exactly a documentary (although Playwrite doesn't seem to realize that), but I recently saw an old episode, and thought about that in generational terms. IIRC, Sherman T. Potter enlisted at the age of 15 ("...I had big thighs for a boy...") sometime before WWI, probably in 1916 (I think he was with Pershing's Expedition in Mexico), making him a either a 1900 or 1901 cohort i.e. either late Lost (cusper GI) or early GI (cusper Lost).

And again, a Regular Army COL in the Medical Corp is not exactly typical of any cohort.

As far as WWII goes, Marshall & MacArthur were Missionaries.

Updates & Corrections for the List:

1T Elections (16 Total):

6 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
4 cases of Vet's defeating Vet's;
2 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

50% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 63% of those elected in 1T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 or 1792, when Ueber-Vet Washington was (effectively) unopposed; including 1792 brings the average up to 66%.

---

2T Elections (18 Total):

7 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
6 case of Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
1 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

64% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 72% of those elected in 2T were Vet's.

---

3T Elections (11 Total):

0 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
3 cases of Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
4 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

46% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 27% of those elected in 3T were Vet's.

---

4T Elections (6 Total):

1 case of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
1 cases of Vet's defeating Vet's;
1 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
3 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

33% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 33% of those elected in 4T were Vet's. This does not include 1788 with Washington, or 2004 and 2008, which might be 3T or 4T (the argument goes on). Including 1788, 2004, & 2008 changes the average to 44% for both candidates and winners.

---

All Elections (53 Total, not including 1788, 1792):

14 cases of Vet's defeating Non-Vets;
15 cases of Vet' defeating a Vet';
12 cases of Non-Vet's defeating Vet's;
12 cases when neither major candidate was a Vet'.

52% of the "Top Two" candidates were Vet's; 55% of those elected in all Turnings were Vet's. If you throw in 1788 & 1792, then Vet's won 31 out of 55 elections, or 56%.

With the exception of 3T, Vet's tend to beat Non-Vet's. Even in 3T, tho', Vet's are more likely to be chosen as candidates than the average male citizen.

Not exactly a generational issue, but FWIW:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ss/#more-18459

...Perhaps the most consistent predictor of presidential greatness, Messrs. Uscinski and Simon found, is military service. Serving on active duty during both wartime and peacetime, as well as the number of years of service, is associated with higher scores in many domains, including crisis leadership, international relations, and economic management.

Service in the federal government, either the executive or legislature branch, has few apparent effects. It typically matters only in narrower domains. So previous service as a federal administrator is associated, unsurprisingly, with perceived skill as an administrator. And previous service in Congress is associated with higher ratings in terms of relations with Congress...

What about those governors? As it turns out, being a governor does help, but only if you’re a governor of a large state (defined here as states with a larger number of Electoral College votes than the average state). Modern presidents who have served as governor of large states are evaluated more positively on several dimensions, including relations with Congress, public persuasion, moral authority, and a few others...