TOPICS
TOPICS
Generation Gap
It finally dawned on me that white Baby Boomers are the group that is really hurting Barack Obama. Of all people, the generation that brought us the Vietnam War protests and the Summer of Love is proving to be a very tough nut for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to crack.
First, the context: The political environment is wretched for Republicans. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted June 6-9, respondents preferred a Democrat to win the presidency by 16 percentage points, 51 percent versus 35 percent for a Republican. Forty-four percent strongly preferred a Democrat; just 27 percent strongly favored a Republican. By 19 points -- 52 percent to 33 percent -- voters also preferred Democrats to keep control of Congress. In terms of party identification, Democrats had a 9-point advantage, 33 percent to 24 percent. When independents were "pushed," that is, asked which way they were leaning, the Democratic advantage edged up to 10 points, 44 percent to 34 percent. And on a host of issues, Democrats beat out Republicans.
So why does that same poll have Obama leading by just 6 points, 47 percent to 41 percent? In other words, why the drop-off from party identification and the generic presidential and congressional ballot tests? Essentially, why does Obama underperform his party?
At the time this poll was done, not long after Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of the race, Obama was taking his victory lap, and most surveys showed him with a similar margin. Since then, most polls have found a bit of a tightening, with Obama's lead around 3 or 4 points. Whether his edge is 3 points or 6 points, the question remains the same: Why the drop-off?
Combing through cross-tabulations of three months of Cook Political Report/RT Strategies polls, taken April 17-20, May 29-31, and June 12-15 and involving a total of 2,484 registered voters (margin of error +/-2 percent), the overall trial heat showed Obama ahead by 2 points, 44 percent to 42 percent. But focusing exclusively on the 1,832 whites in the sample revealed something interesting, even allowing for the fact that Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win even a plurality of the white vote.
Obama trailed McCain by 9 points among both 18-to-34-year-old white voters and those 65 and older. He lagged by 10 points among 35-to-49-year-old whites. But among those 50 to 64, Obama is losing by a whopping 18 points, 51 percent to 33 percent.
By doing very well among African-Americans and reasonably well among Hispanics, Obama could easily overcome his deficits among whites under 50 and over 65. But losing whites born between 1944 and 1958 -- pretty much the lion's share of the Baby Boomers -- by 18 percentage points? Wow. That's a burden.
Some of this may be attributable to long-term voting patterns. These are voters who remember the disappointing -- some would say failed -- presidency of Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, which was followed by the fairly popular --many would say successful -- presidency of Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1989. The voters in this bloc were ages 19 to 33 when that 12-year downer period for Democrats began and 31 to 45 with their voting patterns set, most likely for life, when it ended. Obviously, there are exceptions.
It is often said that Reagan drew a whole generation into the Republican Party. And some observers wonder whether George W. Bush may have driven another generation away. If this is true, Barack Obama, meet Ronald Reagan, your real opponent.
But do white Boomers' past voting patterns explain Obama's problems with them? Or, is his difficulty that these are voters in their prime earnings years, when they are most sensitive to the issue of taxes? Do they view national security issues differently and want beefier credentials than Obama offers?
A dozen or more indicators could prove important in attempting to determine whether Obama or McCain will come out ahead on November 4. Trying to figure out what is going on in the minds of white Baby Boomers is going to be high on my list.
COMMENTS
- I have to laugh every time I see the word "elitest" used as a degradation. If you want to use the word to mean snob, then the Bushes, Roves, Cheneys, ex-Enron-type Principals are your people. They are the ones who don't know what a less-than- college educated person does for a living or how the poor inner city people survive or why they survive, or how a family making over the median salary can lose their home due to unleashed skyrocketing interest rates. They were all born with silver spoons in their mouths and never did an honest days work in their life, including GW, and yet they sit and bask in their wealth and their only aim is to preserve that wealth and make more, no matter how many hard working 2 middle income families lose their jobs and health insurance. Mr. Obama is educated as am I and so are many liberals. Our education evidently didn't focus on how to make "ME" rich, but how does what I do affect the whole community? Obama went home to Chicago and helped the people there who lost their jobs to the closing of the steel industries. Who is helping the people with lost jobs in the motor vehicle corporations or the employees in the banking industry where the banks are failing? Who is helping the construction workers who are laid off because only the "elite" as you have defined them can afford to build a new home? The dictionary defines elite as the best of class or the educated. But, I, as a liberal, do cry for the hurting and the downtrodden and I would attend a military funeral of a soldier I sent to war that was NECESSARY, not a choice because I like playing Cowboys and Indians and want to share the wealth with other war mongering industries who can capitalize on the suffering of other humans. As an elitest, I would have been at the shores of New Orleans the morning it flooded and moved help in immediately. Our greatest leaders have been men with "visions" of a better future for the whole country, not just the wealthy. My fear is that the "Change" isn't going to come in time to save us all from the results of the actions and policies of the current administration. disgusted in PA Posted June 30, 2008 10:03 AM
- Vote for Obama? I think not, wake up and spell the coffe. Sure it would be real stylish for Obama to be elected, one heck of price to pay just to be stylish, how about using your heads for something other than a hat rack people and read between the lines on this clown. Rick Posted June 27, 2008 3:44 AM
- For those like Forty-Niner who think a vote for Obama will raise your taxes; Ma’am, please consider that the dinner has already been served and sometime, someday the check will come due. Would you rather your children, or their children, pay our tab? We should have been paying our way since 2000. Now we are WAY too far in depth to Communist China for my comfort. But then, you relax; if John makes it in the office, he will have fulfilled his obligation to the Party Pachyderm and can, once more, return to his original vision and stance. Remember Shrub the first? AKA Daddy? No? Okay do you remember “READ MY LIPS!”? The PP has already seen the light and compromised in this candidate, I must echo Brad; do some research. Read the candidates lips, and their history… No one can foresee the future, but the past can be a good indicator. See you in November. Tip off Posted June 26, 2008 4:30 PM










