Sunday, November 13, 2016

Fw: TheList 4314




The List 4314
To All,
I hope you are all having a great weekend. In case you want a break from football here is some light reading.
Skip
 
Thanks to Mike

ONE MORE TIME

FLYING THE F-100 IS THE CHANCE OF A LIFETIME FOR FORMER FIGHTER PILOTS

November 1, 2016 By Alyssa J. Miller
Renowned as the first U.S. fighter to reach supersonic speeds in straight-and-level flight, the North American F–100 Super Sabre grew in infamy because of its unforgiving handling characteristics, including the so-called "Sabre dance," that claimed many aviators' lives. But the allure of the single-seat sweptwing fighter called as loud as its afterburner, making it a coveted assignment among Air Force pilots in training in the 1950s and '60s. Only those at the top of their pilot class were selected for the F–100, and then they had to survive training.
"By the time you got done, you were a cream-of-the-crop fighter pilot," recalled Robert "Hoppy" Hopkins, executive director and CEO of the Super Sabre Society. In 2015 Hopkins flew the F–100 for the first time in decades, and organized an opportunity for more than a dozen of the 1,400 members in the fraternal organization to fly the "Hun" (for 100) in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in May.
The experience brought much more than the thrill of flying the fighter, evoking the memories, fears, anxieties, and heartache of the war that they had buried for so many decades.
It was the first time some of the men had been back in the aircraft since their final combat mission in Vietnam nearly 50 years ago. As they felt a kick in the pants from the familiar burner light on takeoff, the sights, sounds, feel, and smell of Dean Cutshall's two-seat F–100F (the only one currently flying in the United States, thanks to crew chiefs Paul Swick and James Prezbindowski, who have decades of F–100 maintenance experience) brought the men back to their days as active-duty U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard pilots serving in the Vietnam War. The men paid $5,000 for one-hour flights—roughly the cost of fuel for the warbird that burns 1,000 gallons per hour—but they said flying the Hun one more time was priceless.
The experience brought much more than the thrill of flying the fighter, evoking the memories, fears, anxieties, and heartache of the war that they had buried for so many decades.
According to Hopkins, F–100s flew more than 360,000 missions in Vietnam, most of them to provide nighttime close-air support to troops in the south. Missions involved multiple aircraft working together to aid troops and required precision that would be stressful even in peaceful settings. Forward air controllers talked to troops on the ground and flew at 2,000 feet to relay the location of the fight to other pilots, while Douglas C–47 Skytrains cruised at 10,000 feet to drop phosphorus flares that "put out 3 million candlepower of light" and white smoke to illuminate the target areas. F–100 pilots dove through the flares from 8,000 feet to just 50 or 100 feet above the ground at 450 knots with their lights off to avoid detection before dropping two cans of napalm and two 500- or 750-pound high-drag bombs, and firing four 20-mm revolver cannons with 200 rounds each. Meanwhile intense firefights on the ground created "smoke and flames and things like that coming up to make it even more hazy."
Precision bombing was essential on these missions, Hopkins stressed: "They ask us to come in and drop such dangerous stuff like napalm and bombs and strafe extremely close to these guys, because the bad guys are literally climbing over the barbed wire trying to get inside of this compound to kill the Special Forces guys."

Robert Hopkins
303 combat missions

Stationed at Bien Hoa, Hopkins was called off the alert with only minutes to get in the air to fly three close-air support missions in one night to help U.S. Army Special Forces at a base along the Cambodian border. The troops were under heavy attack by the Viet Cong. "Usually they waited until they were in deep trouble" to call, Hopkins said. "I always wished they would have called for us earlier."
On that night, "as each one of us finished [dropping our ordnance], the next set of fighters would come in to keep the pressure on the enemy," Hopkins said of his most memorable experience in the Hun. By the time Hopkins went up for this third mission, "dawn was breaking, and the bad guys had broken off the attack because they prefer to fight at night. So they ran back across the Cambodian border.
"At that time during the war, we were not allowed—we, the American forces—were not allowed into Cambodia. That was a political decision and one of our rules of engagement." The forward air controller told Hopkins and his wingman to return to base, but pointed out the tin buildings that the enemy had fled to just a kilometer across the Cambodian border.
"By now I was physically and emotionally involved in this particular firefight that occurred all night long," Hopkins said. "So out of frustration—there was nothing else we could do—we went back about 10 miles into South Vietnam, headed back for these corrugated tin huts…and just before the border we pulled up our nose and we jettisoned all of our ordinance toward those things. I have no idea if we hit 'em or not. Maybe we didn't, probably didn't, but it made me feel better anyway."
Hopkins said that a few days later he was on desk duty when a Green Beret walked up to him. "He said, 'Do you know any of the pilots that have been up there that night?' I said, yeah, I was. He just said, 'Thanks for saving,'" Hopkins said, stopping mid-sentence as his eyes filled with tears. Clearing his throat, he continued, "He said, 'Well, thanks for saving my life.'"
That and another encounter, watching two soldiers come out of the jungle with scratches, welts, and mud caked on their uniforms and boots to get a can of boned chicken from the base exchange at Bien Hoa, led to a turning point for Hopkins. "The sight of these guys all of a sudden put, put it into perspective, you know, who we were protecting when we were doing this close-air support, and it made a big difference.… After that I never felt bad about risking my life to try and help those guys on the ground."
"By now I was physically and emotionally involved in this particular firefight that occurred all night long," Hopkins said.

Ed Haerter
194 combat missions

During a night mission, the F–100 Ed Haerter was flying was hit by a 23-mm round from so close it "hadn't spun enough times to arm.…It just hit against that spar and fractured it, and the airplane started just wallowing."
He flew 200 miles back to base in Phu Cat, and it wasn't until later that he realized how severely the aircraft had been damaged.
"Several things were in my favor," Haerter said. The aircraft was hit on his last pass, when he didn't have any Gs on the airplane. Rain and a low overcast at Phu Cat required an instrument approach, so Haerter didn't fly the typical 360-degree overhead pattern, which would have put Gs on the jet and "pulled the wing off. And when/if you pull the wing off you can't eject, there's too much centrifugal force. So, I was very lucky."
He asked the crew chief to pull the aircraft off the line because it was "flying funny." "You tell a crew chief something like that, and they basically give you a look like, 'It sounds like a bad connection between the stick and the seat.' But they did; they put a different airplane on." Later, Haerter was called to the flight line. "I've never seen so many colonels in my life, and there was a tech rep from North American there. I heard the director of maintenance from our base ask the tech rep, 'Can we one-time flight it to Taiwan for a new wing?' And the answer of the tech rep was, 'Colonel, I would not taxi that bloody thing to the end of the runway.'"
Haerter recalled the tech rep asking him, "'Are you the one that flew this? You have to be the luckiest SOB I've ever met in my life. I just talked to the engineers at the factory, there's no way that wing should have stayed on.'
"The airplane never flew again. They pushed it off into the weeds and cannibalized it for parts," Haerter said. "My crew chief went out one day and took the stick grip off—I still have it."
He asked the crew chief to pull the aircraft off the line  because it was "flying funny." "You tell a crew chief something like that, and they basically give you a look like,'It sounds like a bad connection between the stick and the seat.'"

Dick Pietro
122 combat missions

When Dick Pietro was activated from Phu Cat Air Base to be part of a mission to provide close-air support to a Special Forces base camp that was under attack along the Cambodian border, he didn't know he would have a personal connection with one of the men on the ground he was fighting to save.
Pietro, who had served in the Army Special Forces before becoming a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard, was talking on the radio to the air liaison officer on the ground to get information about the target, when "this voice comes up and says, 'Dickie, is that you?' And I heard this voice, and it was just like an unbelievable experience that my friend John, then lieutenant colonel, was on the ground surrounded by the Viet Cong right in front of me," Pietro recalled.
Pietro had talked to his friend a couple of months earlier and told John that if he heard the call sign "BAT" that it might be him flying. That day, Pietro's flight was called BAT 01. "So, how do you think I felt about doing close-air support? You talk about pressing the target and almost having to lay napalm right on my own friend's troops."
F–100 pilots flew multiple missions that day to help hold back the Viet Cong. "I didn't know it at the end of the day, until several months later, my wife told me that John had been seriously wounded that day, on that mission. So, I don't know how I could top that. I mean it was an emotional experience." The two remain in close contact.
"This voice comes up and says, 'Dickie, is that you?'...and it was just like an unbelievable experience that my friend John, then lieutenant colonel, was on the ground surrounded by the Viet Cong right in front of me."

Richard Graham
352 combat missions

During a night mission from Phan Rang Air Base to support Green Berets, Richard Graham's F–100 was hit, unbeknownst to him, causing his artificial horizon to stick in one attitude.
"You're flying into bright lit [areas] like a football stadium at 500 or 600 miles an hour and then pulling up into the absolute inky darkness, so you had to go into the instrument panel right away," Graham said. Not knowing his attitude indicator was stuck, Graham put himself into a barrel roll and was flying "into the ground at a high rate of speed. I get a flicker somewhere in my canopy, and I look back, and I'm…pulling myself into the ground. That got my attention."
With the afterburner still engaged, Graham recovered from the unusual attitude and climbed to 15,000 feet before an engine compressor stall "made a terrible noise and blew 60, 80, 100 feet of fire right out the nose, which is shortly right in front of you, and a big explosion. I thought I'd been hit by a SAM [surface-to-air missile] missile, but I didn't think they had any in Vietnam, in South Vietnam."
While he was trying to take the airplane out of afterburner and regain control of the jet, the control ship that was with him offered to give him a bomb damage assessment.
"And maybe one of the coolest things I did in Vietnam, I talked to myself in my high squeaky voice until I could get my voice down to level. And then I said, 'Standby One,'" Graham said, imitating the deep, calm voice he used.
Not all of the pilots in Graham's 352nd Tactical Fighter Squadron were as fortunate. While Graham was in Vietnam, his squadron "lost 17 pilots, good friends of mine," he said, tearing up as the memories came flooding back about an hour after his flight in Cutshall's F–100F. "And I want to cry. I don't think you want those memories.… I think we all, we all thought our country's worth our life, and some of us had to give it."
 
 
Interview with Robert Hopkins:
Interview with Ed Haerter:
Interview with Richard Graham:
F-100 Video – only F-100 still flying:
 
 
 
 
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Thanks to Carl…Maybe I can find Dutch in here
Oshkosh Air Show 2016: Aviation spectacular
Amazing aerial action and static display photos:
 
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
 
Thanks Carl
 
(Excellent point of view and something to think about!!)

A New Fighter On the Horizon

NATE JAROS - November 5, 2016

Former F-16 pilot Nate "Buster" Jaros alerts us about a new fighter that is secretly being developed, but it appears to have lots of challenges.

There is a new fighter under development. In fact very little is known about this new asset as most of what is happening has been done under cover, and withheld from the public eye. Recently declassified documents have been located and what I'm about to report has never been heard before. This is said to be a possible next-generation fighter!
Before I reveal what this new fighter is, let's take a look at what has been secretly emerging with its development process and highlight some of the important high points and low points that this fighter aircraft is facing.
Secret Fighter Testing
Reportedly, this new secret twin-engine aircraft is being developed by Lockheed. It was originally designed as a bomber-interceptor and actually never intended to be a fighter. Lockheed built it with weight savings and speed in mind, and it is actually far more advanced than any other modern counterparts. Once the initial model was finished, engineers quickly saw just how incredible this new technology would be, and gave the final design record-breaking agility and speed.
So by accident actually, a fighter was born.
Reports say it was actually flown for the first time a few years ago, and engineers were amazed to find that on a steady course, in level flight, it surpassed all known fighter speeds, and set a new aircraft speed record to boot. It set incredible time to climb records as well. It is reported that Lockheed also invested nearly $1M dollars of its own money to produce the prototype.
The mystery fighter has also had some setbacks and failures. During its initial test flight, recently declassified reports reveal that the test pilot reported heavy vibrations in the controls. This was later determined to be due to tail flutter. Installation of new fairings or "fillets" in the wing roots to improve airflow, as well as counterweights and horizontal stabilizer angle of incidence seemed to mend the control issues. Not a great start to an extremely fast new fighter, the first of its kind.
Another setback also occurred. On one of the early test missions, there is a report of an engine failure during approach to landing. This caused some instability and caused the aircraft to bank steeply and drop altitude at more than a rate the pilot could compensate for. The pilot, who was named in the report, Lt. Ben Kelsey, elected to not eject and salvaged the approach. The aircraft impacted short of the runway, and was destroyed. Kelsey barely survived.
What is even more incredible is that despite these significant setbacks, Lockheed actually received an under-the-table contract for this new aircraft. It is reported that at the time of the engine failure and crash of the prototype, that aircraft only had been flying for 16 days and had just short of 12 hours of actual flight time on the airframe! Yet the government awarded a contract and gave Lockheed the go ahead.
The crash of the only flyable version of this new fighter is reported to have set the secret program back two years. When later versions of this fighter emerged and began flight test, they too saw significant airspeed and flutter problems.
In fact, the issue was so bad that engineers completely redesigned the tail surfaces. One of the new-tailed designs was launched on a test flight to see how it would work. That pilot, also revealed, was Mr. Ralph Virden. He entered a dive with the new aircraft to test its speed limits and upgraded tail…and never recovered. He was killed instantly when the aircraft impacted the ground. Regardless, the shroud was somewhat lifted from this mystery fighter and low scale production began.
In fact, early secret squadron pilots of the new fighter were told to begin training and fighting in their new machines, but to not fly faster than a certain speed, for fear of controllability issues. They were basically speed limited, but told to keep flying!
How's that for development before all the kinks are ironed out?
Seventeen months elapsed before the engineers figured out what happened when the new tailed aircraft crashed, they even continued wind tunnel tests like never before to determine the cause. What they found was incredible. They were the first to discover a new aerodynamic effect based simply on the incredible speed that this new fighter could easily attain.
Engine Woes
It was revealed that the twin-engine fighter has also been fraught with multiple powerplant glitches. The new more powerful engines were causing many failures and in a few cases, these failures happened shortly after takeoff. A few more crashes occurred due to this, and it wasn't until much later in the program did better procedures evolve to help pilots faced with an engine failure after takeoff. Additionally, the new engines were having difficult problems performing while at altitude.
Due to the high rate of engine failures, a prominent and high-level Three-Star General who commands over 42,000 US military aircraft actually canceled the use of this new fighter for the emerging secret squadrons that flew it. In fact, the new fighter was completely removed from service in one theater of operation.
Other key performance limitations were also found. The size, shape, and design of the fighter made it easy to gain a 'tally' by enemy aircraft, cockpit environmental controls were weak and often failed thus freezing the pilot, airframe speed restrictions remained in-place, engines kept failing as no fix has yet to be identified, and unfortunately, some of the aerobatic performance and roll rates of the new fighter are turning out to be abysmal.
Lockheed's new "fighter" seems to be another turkey, with so many problems. Why would a government back it and fund it? Especially so early in the secret program.
The Truth
Okay, so you may have figured out by now that we are not talking about a new secret fighter jet that has recently emerged from the black. We are in-fact talking about one of the most famous and capable fighters ever produced. The P-38 Lightning. Everything you read above however, is true.
The mighty, and deadly P-38. Courtesy Getty Images
The P-38 Lightning would enter WWII as the proverbial turkey, but it would emerge as one of the best, and finest fighters in the war. Despite its shortcomings with engines and tail flutter, crashes, and even being removed from the European theater by General Jimmy Doolittle, the P-38 was an exceptional fighter. Pilots of the P-38 racked up thousands of air-to-air kills (1,800+ in the Pacific alone).
The P-38 shot down more Japanese airplanes than any other airplane in the war. Seven of the top U.S. aces flew the Lightning. The P-38 was also used in the mission to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto's plane and at the time it was the only American fighter that could fly this lengthy of a mission at 750 miles. It was also the first fighter to fly faster than 400 mph, and could reliably shot and hit targets at 1,000 yards. Most other fighters at the time were only effective out to 100-250 yards.
It was an impressive design with amazing capabilities well ahead of its time, even despite some of the limitations and problems found in test.
Both Lightning Fighters. Courtesy Lockheed Martin
Takeaways
Airplane and airplane design, as well as development, has always been a moving target. New designs are tested, broken, and fixed or adjusted, and tested again. Sometimes designs are even funded and built during the on-going test phase, before a final version is agreed upon.
Things are no different today with the F-35 than they were in the late 1930s when the P-38 was under development. Rushed into service due to the obvious need of the day, the P-38 rose to the challenge and became one of the finest aircraft of its time, with the guidance of the exceptional pilots and engineers of Lockheed.
What do you think the comments would have been if the world had social media in the late 30s and during WWII? I'm sure the failures and adjustments of the P-38 would have been hotly debated and discussed, and even war-tattered pilots would be touting its merits as well as voicing concerns over its limitations. And news agencies would be quick to bite.
What's important to remember, is that aircraft are built and flown by professionals, problems are identified, and changes are implemented. The aircraft gets better, and in the end one heck of a machine emerges as a result. No aircraft is perfect right off the drawing board.
Especially when you are looking at quantum leaps in technology like we are with the F-35, or the twin engine racy design of the P-38.
 
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Thanks to Carl….We can't get rid of this guy fast enough
 

While Everyone Was Distracted Over the Election, John Kerry Just Signed UN Gun Ban Treaty

Friday, November 11, 2016 
If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has his way the United Nations will be able to say if Americans are allowed to have their Second Amendment rights. He signed an anti-gun treaty with the United Nations that the U.S. Senate has already said it is against.
The treaty Kerry signed without authorization from the Senate would create an un-Constitutional registry of all US gun buyers and would lead to the UN controlling American's gun rights.
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."
U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.
He claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."
The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an "invasive registration scheme" by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on "end users."
"The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom."
Once again Obama's regime tries to end the Second Amendment by stealth.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Thanks to Chuck
For political junkies who want a real breakdown about who voted for whom broken down by every category
The Exit Polls 2016: A to Z
What did the exit polls tell us about the 2016 electorate? Below is a quick rundown of some of the interesting findings from the national exit poll conducted by the consortium of the five news networks and the Associated Press.
Anger. Twenty-three percent of voters said they felt angry about the federal government, and 77 percent of them voted for Donald Trump. A larger share, 46 percent were dissatisfied, and they voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton by 49 to 45 percent.
There were other indications of dissatisfaction: 62 percent said the country was on the wrong track, and 63 percent in another question that the economy was poor.
Blacks. In 2012, black voters cast their ballots at a higher rate than white voters.  Their strong support for Barack Obama was a key ingredient of both of his victories. They represented an identical share of voters in 2012 and 2016, 12 percent. They supported Obama more robustly than Clinton. Black women were much more supportive of Clinton than black men (94 to 80 percent).
College graduates and those without a college degree were each 50 percent of all voters. Those with a degree voted for Clinton, 52 to 43 percent; those without one voted for Trump, 52 to 44 percent.
White college graduates were 37 percent of all voters and they voted narrowly for Trump, 49 to 45 percent. But whites with no degree (34 percent of voters) swamped Clinton, voting for Trump over her by 67 to
28 percent.
Democrats were 37 percent of the sample; Republicans 33 percent. Both groups were loyal to their party, with 89 percent of Democrats voting for her and 90 percent of Republicans voting for him. Independents (31 percent of voters) supported Trump, by 48 to 42 percent.
Foreign policy. Thirteen percent of voters said this was the most important issue facing the country. They voted solidly for Clinton, 60 to 34 percent. Slightly more selected terrorism (18 percent), and they voted for Trump by 57 to 39 percent. The economy was the top issue at
52 percent. Those voters pulled the proverbial lever for Clinton.
Immigration, the only other issue the exit pollsters asked about in this question was mentioned by 13 percent as the most important issue.
Those voters supported Trump by 64 to 32 percent.
Gay, bisexual, lesbian, or transgender. Five percent of voters in this years exit poll checked this box. With the addition of transgender this year, it is a slightly larger group than in past exit polls. The group voted for Hillary by 78 to 14 percent.
Hispanics were 11 percent of all voters, up from 10 percent in 2012.
This year, they voted 65 percent for Clinton and 29 percent for Trump.
In 2012, 71 percent of this group voted for Barack Obama.
Immigration. Thirteen percent of voters said it was the most important issue facing the country. They voted 64 percent for Trump. Immigration ranked last of the four issues the exit pollsters included.
On another question, 70 percent said most illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status (they voted 60 percent for Clinton); 25 percent said they should be deported to the country they came from (they voted 84 percent for Trump).
On another, 41 percent of voters supporting building a wall along the entire US border with Mexico. They voted for 86 percent for Trump.
Ninety-one percent of voters said they were born a US citizen; they voted for Trump by 50 to 45 percent. The 9 percent share that were not voted for Clinton by 64 to 31 percent.
Key quality. When asked which candidate quality mattered most to them,
39 percent of voters (the highest response) said a candidate who can bring change. They voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, 83 to 14 percent. Hillary Clinton won on every other quality. Of the 15 percent who said a candidate who cares about people like me was most important to them, 58 percent voted for her. Of the 21 percent who said the right experience was the most important quality, 90 percent voted for her. Of the 20 percent who said good judgment, 66 percent voted for her.
Liberals were 26 percent of voters, conservatives 35 percent. Liberals and moderates (39 percent of voters) supported Clinton. Conservatives supported Trump, 81 to 15 percent.
Money. Voters with incomes higher than $200,000 voted narrowly for Clinton. Voters with incomes below $50,000 supported her by 52 to 41 percent.
None. Those who checked the box none when asked about their denomination voted 68 percent for Clinton to 26 percent for Trump.
This share of voters is growing. In another question, 22 percent said they never attend religious services.  They were 62 percent for Clinton and 31 for Trump.
(Obama)care.  Forty-seven percent of voters said Obamacare went too far; they supported Trump by 83 to 13 percent. Thirty percent said it did not go far enough; they voted for Clinton by 78 to 18 percent.
Fifty-three percent of voters in another question approved of the job Obama was doing, including a third who did so strongly. Forty-six percent of voters said they wanted the next president to be more conservative than Obama, 17 percent be more liberal, and 28 percent continue his policies.
Post-graduates. Since 1992, majorities of those with post-graduate education have voted for Democratic presidential candidates. This year, they voted 58 to 37 percent for Hillary Clinton.They were 18 percent of voters.
Questions arose throughout the campaign about her use of a private email server and his treatment of women. Sixty-three percent said the email served bothered them. Seventy percent said his treatment of women did.
Religion. Mormons voted for Trump by 61 to 25 percent. Catholics voted for him, too, by 52 to 45 percent. Protestants voted 60 percent to 37 for him. White born-again/evangelicals (26 percent of voters) voted 81 to 16 percent for Trump. Jews were 3 percent of voters. Seventy-one percent of them voted for Hillary.
Supreme Court. Twenty-one percent of voters said this was the most important factor in their vote and they voted for Trump by 56 to 41 percent.
Trade. Thirty-eight percent said trade with other countries creates more US jobs, and they voted 59 percent for Clinton. A slightly larger share, 42 percent, said it takes them away, and they voted for Trump,
65 to 31 percent. Eleven percent said it does not effect jobs.
Unfavorables. We heard throughout the campaign that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had record high unfavorable ratings. In 2012,
46 percent of voters leaving the polls had an unfavorable view of Barack Obama, while 50 percent gave that response about Mitt Romney.
This year, 60 percent had an unfavorable view of Trump; 54 percent had an unfavorable view of Clinton.
Among those who voted for Clinton, 12 percent had an unfavorable view of her. Among those who voted for Trump, 20 percent had an unfavorable view of him.
Veterans. Thirteen percent of voters said they had served in the military. They supported Trump by 61 to 34 percent.
Women. The gender gap, at 24 points this year, was slightly larger than any previous gender gap. It was 22 points in 2000 and 17 points in 1980 and 1996.  Women were 52 percent of all voters this year, and they voted 54 to 42 percent for Clinton. Men were 48 percent of voters and supported for Trump by 53 to 41 percent.
Republican men and women voted in roughly identical shares for Trump,
90 to 89 percent, respectively. Democratic women were slightly more loyal to Hillary than Democratic men, 90 to 87 percent.
White men and white women voted for Trump, but women did so more narrowly (53 to 43 percent). White men voted for him by 63 to 31 percent.
The marriage gap was once again larger than the gender gap, at 27 points.  Married voters were a larger share than non-married ones (58 to 42 percent). Their votes went in opposite directions.
Next generation. Thirty-seven percent of voters said life for the next generation of Americans will be better than it is today. They voted for Clinton, 59 to 38 percent. Voters who said life will be worse for the next generation were an almost equal share of the electorate (34 percent). They voted for Trump, 63 to 31 percent.
Younger voters. The share of the electorate represented by 18-29 year olds was identical to its 2012 share (19 percent). But in 2016, they voted 55 percent for Clinton. In 2012, 60 percent of them supported Obama. In election years with third party candidates, younger voters usually cast more votes for them than other age groups.
Eight percent of them voted for someone other than Clinton or Trump.
Only 2 percent of those over age 65 did. Older voters ages 50-64 were
30 percent of voters and those 65 and older were 15 percent.
Zip: Well, not quite zero, but only 2 percent of voters said both candidates were honest and 2 percent in a separate question had a favorable opinion of both.
2016 presidential election
AEI on Campus
Demographics
Public opinion and polls
 
 
 
 
 
 

_______________________________________________

No comments:

Post a Comment