Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's OTHER Forgotten Demographic -- Older Voters

While the Obama campaign and its surrogates have been trumpeting the fact that it is bringing in “new voters”, it seems to have forgotten a key component of the “old Democratic coalition” that it disparages.

“Old” voters. Literally.

The Clinton campaign consistently includes Hillary Clinton’s appeal to seniors when it discusses why she is the better choice to face off against John McCain – but the media seldom mentions older voters, choosing instead to concentrate on Clinton’s appeal to “white working class” voters to hype the race angle in the campaign.

The Obama campaign’s use of talking points involving “new voters” and a “new coalition” is sending a message to older voters – that “old” is worth a lot less to them than “new”, that young voters are more important than older voters, and that the “new coalition” means that the concerns of the “old coalition” members are no longer critical to the Party.

And all this is going on when the Republican Party will have a 71 year old as its nominee.

THE NUMBERS

Obama’s numbers are appallingly bad among voters 60 years old and older. In the twelve states that have chosen their delegates since Super Tuesday for which exit polling is available, Obama has not only lost the “older” vote to Clinton by an average of 13 points (Clinton 55%, Obama 42%), his support among older voter is 11 points below his overall support. (Obama support among all voters – 53%, Obama support among older voters—42%).

older_1

Data for Obama’s Forgotten Demographic—Older voters Chart 1
	% of 
       voters 60 
       & older	    Clinton %   Obama %
IN	25%	     65%	35%
NC	30%	     53%	44%
PA	32%	     62%	38%
OH	23%	     69%	28%
MS	29%	     52%	47%
RI	33%	     67%	33%
TX	22%	     62%	35%
WI	29%	     54%	45%
VT	26%	     41%	58%
MD	23%	     48%	47%
VA	25%	     44%	56%
LA	33%	     48%	41%
AVERAGE	28%	     55%	42%
    · Older voters make up an average of 28% of the primary electorate in these states. In only two of 12 states were older voters less than one quarter of the electorate.
    · Clinton carries the older vote in 10 of 12 states
    · In the five states where Clinton won the popular vote her margins among older voters by at least 30% (Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island).
    · In 5 of the states that Obama carried by double digit margins overall, he lost the “60 plus” vote (Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Louisiana.)

older_2

Data for Obama’s Forgotten Demographic—Older voters Chart 2
	OBAMA SUPPORT
	Voters 
        60 and   All
        older	voters
IN	35%	49%
LA	41%	57%
MD	47%	60%
MS	47%	61%
NC	44%	56%
OH	28%	44%
PA	38%	45%
RI	33%	40%
TX	35%	47%
VA	56%	64%
VT	58%	59%
WI	45%	58%
AVERAGE	42%	53%

THE RHETORIC
Is easy to understand why Barack Obama does so poorly among older voters: The rhetoric employed by Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters not merely fails to appeal to older voters, it seems to be designed to alienate older voters.

· The constant iteration of how important Obama’s appeal to “new” voters does more than simply sell an overt signal to older voters that they are not crucial to the Obama campaign, the constant use of the word “new” would have a subliminal negative impact because it is the opposite of “old”
· The constant iteration of how Obama is going to win with a “new coalition” sends the overt signal to older voters that their concerns will be given a lower priority because the concerns of the “new” coalition members must be addressed.
· The constant iteration of the “change” theme by a candidate with a virtually non-existent resume is not appealing to older voters. They’ve lived through decades of “change”, some of it good, some of it bad, and unlike younger voters don’t consider “change” itself a virtue absent a clear and unambiguous agenda.
· Obama’s overt and tacit disparagement of the concerns of white working class voters will not merely alienate “white working class seniors”. Many of the “middle” and “upper middle” class white seniors didn’t start out as “middle class”, but were born into working class families themselves.
· Obama’s willingness to adopt Right Wing framing on the issue of Social Security – that there is a “Social Security crisis” that he plans to address, is counter-productive to appealing to older voters. This is especially true given Obama “change” message, his emphasis on “new” (younger) voters and his “new coalition”, and his denigration of the concerns of“white working class” voters.

Obama may make promises to older voters, but he provides ample reason to believe that when it comes time to make the hard choices, the concerns of older voters will be low on his list of priorities.

And while the primary results show that Obama clearly benefits from “identity politics”, when it comes to older voters there is little question that in the general election “identity politics” is going to work against Obama among older voters. The GOP is running an “older” candidate with whom older voters can readily identify.

And the unfortunate fact is that every single voter who is at least 60 years old what at least 16 years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 means that older white voters grew up in an environment where racial prejudice and stereotyping were a given, As a result, promises made by an African American nominee with a sparse resume employing the rhetoric of “change” and the crucial importance of the “new” are likely to be treated with a great deal of skepticism by this key demographic that has consistently supported Democratic Presidential candidates.

CONCLUSION

While the enthusiasm of Super-delegates for “new voters” is understandable, ignoring the preferences of constituencies that were key to the victory of the only Democrat to win two Presidential elections since Franklin Delano Roosevelt could well result in a disaster for the Democratic Party in 2008. Barack Obama has promised to bring “change” through “unify”. But not only has Obama failed to demonstrate that he can achieve meaning for change with or without unity, while talking about “unity” he divided the Democratic Party, and while talking about “change” has relied upon traditional “identity politics” to remain competitive in the race for the nomination.

Barack Obama has promised a “new coalition”, but to date it is merely an empty promise. There is simply no evidence that he can create a successful “new coalition” in crucial swing states, and in most traditionally Democratic states. Nor is there any evidence that his success during the primary season in heavily Republican states can provide the Electoral College votes to replace those he puts at serious risk in states that Democrats have traditionally relied upon.

The Democratic Party relies on the judgment of Superdelegates when there is no clear choice among Democrats for the Party nomination. That judgment, and the necessity of providing Democratic office-holders, members of the Democratic National Committee, and other “Party leaders” with an automatic voice in the nomination process is being tested. What isn’t at stake is access to Barack Obama’s donor list and “grassroots organization”, but the future of the nation and the world.

The choice faced by Super-Delegates is simple – do you go with a “sure thing”, even if it means alienating “new voters” and not forming a so-far imaginary “new coalition”, or do you roll the dice on an untested and unproven nominee?

SOURCE NOTES:
Data for charts and tables is from CNN election results and exit poll pages, which can be found at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari...

0
No votes yet

Comments

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

people who get things done, have a long list of things they've gotten done. Obama graduates from Harvard Law School, goes to work for a medium sized civil rights law firm, and doesn't lead on a single case. Does that mean in those years, there wasn't one civil rights case brewing in Chicago that needed a smart young attorney ready to make his name? I doubt that. I just don't think he does stuff. Clinton wasn't holding office, but that didn't stop her from finding federal funds to build medical facilities in rural Arkansas. That didn't stop her from creating a homeschooling program for the families of toddlers who didn't have access to HeadStart. That didn't stop her from creating a micro-loan program that funded business ventures for poor Arkansans. She got stuff done while working full time at Rose Law. She's always doing stuff.

I just don't see obama tackling projects that benefit other people. I think he's all about the schmoozing and not about the accomplishing.

Lastly, in the 90s, Chelsea got sick at school one day. When the school nurse went to call her parents to come get her, Chelsea told the nurse to call her dad. Her mom was too busy. I have no doubt that's a true story.

Submitted by lambert on

... if the rhetoric seems designed to alienate?

Isn't Obama supposed to be pretty good with rhetoric?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

white_n_az's picture
Submitted by white_n_az on

and if pressed, I am quite certain that Axelrod will tell us that the over 60 crowd never votes for Democrats anyway.

Seems that they're really good on identifying the ones that don't vote for Dems.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I think that what led McCain to call out Obama on his "new politics" yesterday was claiming Obama was dogwhistling "ageism" when he said Senator McCain had lost his bearings. This demo seems the most likely to be rich for McCain to mine in November.

I talked to a lot of older voters (60+) in NH and they openly disdained Obama as someone who hadn't done anything. I didn't get the feeling that when they said they thought experience was important they were kidding. If you look at the votes he gets from people who say experience is their number one quality, he's very, very low. Single digits sometimes.

It's amazing that he's gotten so many in the Democratic Party to revise the normal standards of "experience" as applied to presidents. I don't think they'll get the rest of America to go along so easily.

wasabi's picture
Submitted by wasabi on

Who needs the old folks anyway when you have all that young fresh blood entering the party? Someone smart should be able to corner the market on ice floes and make a mint.

All I need to know about how the seniors view this election is to talk to my mother and her pals at her apartment complex. They are aware on the periphery of the general issues during this campaign. As they have weathered many election seasons and some have lived through some tough times, they have a good grasp of who has been a good president and what the characteristics are that are needed for the job. I didn't find much enthusiasm for Obama because they thought he lacked the required breadth of experience. Thank god most of them have never read blogs, where they'd find out they should just go die already to make way for the youngens. But they were White, so maybe they are all just racist.

Submitted by lambert on

prefer a younger demographic to target for advertising has nothing at all to do with their support for Obama.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I think that what led McCain to call out Obama on his “new politics” yesterday was claiming Obama was dogwhistling “ageism” when he said Senator McCain had lost his bearings.

yeah, it was that "ageism" thing that made me look at older voters. The GOP is setting itself up nicely -- they can use Obama's lack of experience in a genuine dog-whistle effort, and any protests about 'dog whistling' will be met with hostility by voters who identify themselves as representing the virtues of "maturity" and "experience"

Boston Boomer's picture
Submitted by Boston Boomer on

when Obama made it clear that he didn't need or want votes from us baby boomers. I'm an early baby boomer. I turned 60 in December. After the baby boomer remarks and the McClurkin episode, I knew I couldn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't a Hillary fan back then, but she won me over in the debates. The woman is brilliant and knows the issues inside out. Once I started to listen to her, I realized she was a really likeable person too.

If the superdelegates give the nomination to Obama, we will lose the election. I've pretty much resigned myself to President McCain. Hillary can run again in 2012. But the Democratic party will be done if we lose this year. We are going to need a new party.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I honestly think most people believe that there's no way Obama would be considered a serious presidential candidate, let alone the (likely) nominee if he wasn't experienced. So they just assume he must be. Combine that with misogyny and the fact that actually questioning Obama on any legitimate issue, let alone basic qualifications or experience, is radioactive (Racist!) and we have our current catastrophe.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

p'luke

this good work.

i was wondering after indiana if anyone would take a look at the older vote.

p.s. you write "where the data" is available. i'm not sure what that means, but i have become annoyed with "holes" for critical data in the cnn exit polls data.

i have found that cbs news "election 2008" (or some such title), does a more complete job across states on demographics.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

I'm astounded at how much even his own supporters don't know. I challenge them on what he's done all the time, and they never have any idea. They talk about what a potent legislator he is or how he was this blazingly brilliant civil rights attorney - and they have no idea that he has a genuinely subpar record by any objective standard. I start listing things Clinton has done in and out of office, and they just refuse to believe that Obama doesn't have similar accomplishments. But, of course, he doesn't.

Pat J's picture
Submitted by Pat J on

Axelrod is an idiot. As long as this bashing keeps up it only strengthens my resolve to either stay home in November or write in Hillary on my ballot. I am not about to cast a vote for an inexperienced, unqualified, race baiting, smug character like The One. Assuming that by November I will just get onboard and vote this trainwreck into the WH just ain't going to happen. I marched in the 60s for civil rights, marched against the Cambodia bombings, supported the Women's movement, held signs in the rain outside voting precincts, supported Democratic candidates on local, state and national levels to have my presence dismissed this easily? I won't vote McCain but if he wins too bad. The Democratic Party is a farce.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

who voted Democratic in the primaries are going to vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall. Claiming older voters or white working class voters who voted for Hillary are going to swing en masse to McCain is as silly as saying all those black voters, college educated voters and kids who voted for Obama would vote for Johnny boy.

Boston Boomer's picture
Submitted by Boston Boomer on

I'm an older voter (age 60). I not only won't vote for Obama in November, I won't vote for any Democrat who has endorsed him--and that means in future elections. That means I won't vote for Kerry or Kennedy again, and I'll work to replace them, with women if possible.

I've learned my lesson. The Democratic Party no longer wants my vote, because I'm and "older woman." But I'm from a long-lived family, and I've been voting Democratic in every election since 1972. Next week, I plan to change my party affiliation to Independent. I've had it.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Older voters and white working class voters who vote in Dem primaries actually have a record of swinging to the republicans, whereas Obama's supporters don't.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

p.s. you write “where the data” is available. i’m not sure what that means, but i have become annoyed with “holes” for critical data in the cnn exit polls data.

First off, thanks for the CBS link -- its actually the exact same exit polling stuff as CNN, but its much better organized! All news organization rely on the same exit polling -- some are more agressive than others in adjusting their polls to reflect reality (which isn't actually a bad thing -- the first exit polling data come out of 'key precincts' that are supposed to be representative of the entire electorate, and have already been "adjusted" to be consistent with expectations for those precincts.) The New York Times, for example, winds up with different results from CNN/CBS based on the exact same polling data, the differences are occasionally important (for instance, NTY has 14% AA turnout in Indiana, while CBS/CNN has it at 17%. The difference in those numbers translates into 5 to 6 points in the Clinton/Obama overall margins -- and understanding election results is all about where the margins came from). But I checked the the CNN data against the Times data, and while there are diferences, those differences are statistical noise when compared to the huge differences found in Clinton's and Obama's support among older voters.

this was really just a "fast and dirty" analysis. Usually, when I do this kind of stuff, I use every data point available (i.e. all primary/caucus states with exit polls). But it would have taken me at least a full day to do the "full" analysis, and spot checking other states told me that the overall results of a "full" analysis would not be significantly different.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Don't mean doodly. Ask President Kerry.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Older voters and white working class voters who vote in Dem primaries actually have a record of swinging to the republicans, whereas Obama’s supporters don’t.

You would think that a supporter of a candidate who is wholly dependent upon the exploitation of identity politics for his status as "presumptive nominee" would be a little more concerned with the potential for McCain to exploit the same kinds of techniques used by Obama.

But, who are we kidding. "Obama Rules" trump all logic and data.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

That corresponds to experience.

I was talking to Obamaphiles and I asked why one supported Obama. The answer? He makes me feel good. Why? His multicultural upbringing? I was a racist for mentioning he went to very elite private schools.

Then I asked what Obama would mean as president. Oh, he's against lobbyist influence. Didn't he have a lobbyist as state chair in NH, NV, and IN? Well its not the details, its the intent. But didn't you just put your entire stock on an Obama presidency on his position on lobbyists? you're dishonest, not all lobbyists are bad. But you just said...

Whatever, Obama voted AGAINST the war. Do you know when AUMF was? 2002/3. When was Obama elected? Uh, I'm guessing around 2001. Wasn't it 2004 so he didn't have to vote on it? Well, he never voted for the war.

In a nutshell: many support Obama because of the thrill up their legs, per their own admission (look at the text of his prominent endorsers speeches). The last refuge of scoundrels when they can't find a good reason to support Obama is AUMF (again, look at his endorsers statements).

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Or do you really think that the votes in Ohio were accurate and untampered with?

I really need some Kewl-Aid(we need to start differentiating this).

Exit polls are the metric the UN uses to verify the veracity of elections worldwide. Nov, of 2004 was the 1st time they had ever been substantially off. The first exit polls are usually wildly inaccurate, but that is because they haven't finished consolodating the data yet.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Showed that there was some 'splaining to do... this charge of vote rigging swings both ways.

(President) Kerry has nothing to apologize except for conceding before the count was finished in Ohio- the exit polls were correct.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

Older voters and white working class voters who vote in Dem primaries actually have a record of swinging to the republicans, whereas Obama’s supporters don’t.

The record of younger voters is to not show up at all.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I keep agreeing with Aeryl -- which must mean she's really smart! ;-)

The first exit polls are usually wildly inaccurate, but that is because they haven’t finished consolodating the data yet.

Hell, when the first exit polls are released, they haven't even been adjusted to reflect the returns in the precincts that were polled.

And if you're polling 100 out of 600 people in a precinct, the odds that the results of the poll of that precinct being off by at least 5-6% are pretty high...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

all the Boomers are now late 40s-60something, and they're the ones who have already swung (to Reagan if not others)....plus, they're considered more moderate if not conservative compared to younger Americans, and they're far more reliable voters overall--when you've been voting for decades, you automatically go vote each time--young voters don't, as we've seen over and over.

Plus, many are parents, too, which means they care about govt actions that affect kids and families--and many also have their own parents still alive as well (the Sandwich generation).

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

And the unfortunate fact is that every single voter who is at least 60 years old what at least 16 years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 means that older white voters grew up in an environment where racial prejudice and stereotyping were a given, As a result, promises made by an African American nominee with a sparse resume employing the rhetoric of “change” and the crucial importance of the “new” are likely to be treated with a great deal of skepticism by this key demographic that has consistently supported Democratic Presidential candidates.

I could interpret that in at least a couple of ways, one of them I'm not thrilled about, but before I pounce I wanted to ask for a clarification.

trishb's picture
Submitted by trishb on

I'd put down every penny I have. I lived in Lebanon where the votes were being counted for Warren County. Supposedly, the vote count was closed because of a warning from Homeland Security. The county commissioner claimed on a scale of 1 to 10, the threat was a 10. Makes me wonder if Al Qaeda was supposed to be targeting the cows, the soybeans, or Joe's produce stand.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You're gonna have a hard time convincing me that all those boomers (I'm 52) who protested the Vietnam War, who make up a large portion of the 60 to 70% of this country who are against the War in Iraq are going for McCain. Reagan's dead, GW Bush has exposed conservative theories of government for what they are: fraud.

We had less than $1 trillion dollars in debt when Jimmy Carter left office. It took two world wars, a civil war, umpteen recessions and depressions, all of US history from 1776 to 1981 to run up that tab. IN 27 short years of the Republican "revolution", trickle down, supply side tax cuts for the richest one percent that debt has ballooned to $9 trillion and counting.

John McCain said in 2001 Bush's tax cuts "offended his conscience", now he wants to make them permanent. That's unsustainable, your kids and grandkids are going to have to pay for it whether or not you got rich off those tax cuts.

That's how you win votes of older folks, white, black, rich, poor Democratic, independent or Republican. Nobody wants to leave our kids or our country in the poor house.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

is that everything else being equal, "older voters" are far more likely than "younger voters" to be skeptical of promises made by an African American candidate than a white one.

I'm not talking about voters who won't vote for a black candidate. I'm saying that because Obama is black, he's going to have a harder time gaining the trust and support of older voters because the way the mind works, the stuff you learn as a child has a considerable impact on how you process information.

Because she's a woman, Clinton has had to work extra hard to gain the trust and support of these same voters -- people who grew up in a society where "womens libbers" were considered "radical". The Feminine Mystique wasn't published until 1963 remember. No one objected to "a woman's place is in the home" when older voters were growing up, and to suggest that women should be equal to men in all things was a truly radical concept.

Bottom line here is that I think that Obama has already done considerable damage to his prospects among older voters --- and any candidate, white or black, would have difficulty repairing that damage. The fact that Obama is black just makes it more difficult for him to do so between now and November.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

that is getting me to not vote for my Representative, Anna Eshoo, its her silence on FL and MI. I'm most likely moving after June, but I will be forced to sadly vote against Anna Eshoo in the June 3 primary. Not sure who to write in yet, though.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

You're telling me that the majority of boomers didn't go for him 2x? They did--in giant numbers.

And even more recently, they went Bush in 04--a majority did.

And McCain already has been getting anti-war voters in primaries--god knows why, but it's fact.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

The Vietnam War was long over. Reagan won because Teddy tore the party apart. In the fall Reagan ran against Kennedy's urban agenda even though his opponent was Carter. The battleground had shifted to the suburbs and suburbanites didn't care for Great Society programs and aid to big cities that Kennedy and big city mayors wanted to restore after Nixon and Ford. Neither did blue collar workers who were seeing their industries and jobs gutted by foreign competition.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

You’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that all those boomers (I’m 52) who protested the Vietnam War, who make up a large portion of the 60 to 70% of this country who are against the War in Iraq are going for McCain.

Kerry protested the Vietnam War too?

That worked out for him how?

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Were you for the Vietnam War and are you now for the War in Iraq?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

You’re gonna have a hard time convincing me

we know...

but as someone who referred to police officers as "pigs" as a teenager, who thought that the Weather Underground were heroes, and had nothing but contempt for anyone stupid enough to get drafted and serve in Vietnam, allow me to assure you that older voters aren't all still living in the sixties.

But despite the fact that my attitude has changed considerably toward respecting people that you disagree with, a lot of the core values that I picked up while growing up in the 1960s remain.

And those values are why I'll sit it out in November rather than vote for Obama, whose racist-baiting of the CLintons was a violation of those core values.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That's a myth of the sixties. The anti-war protesters were overrepresented by middle and upperclass white college students.

You know, today's latte-sipping liberals.

My dumb redneck older cousins (I was too young) volunteered to go.

I enlisted when I was 18, but the war was already over.

-----------------------------------------------

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

And those values are why I’ll sit it out in November rather than vote for Obama, whose racist-baiting of the CLintons was a violation of those core values.

A life long commitment to ineffectual politics. Maybe you should rethink.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and mark makes it seem like none became Yuppies later either--and that all boomers were old enough to protest (all Boomers born in the mid-50s and later were really too young--they didn't turn 18 til 73 or later).

(i'll also throw in that they've always been incredibly selfish on the whole, and have voted for selfish economic reasons a lot too)

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

can you work up a graph tracking that generation to see who the majority voted for from 72 til 04?

I know for a fact that my group -- the very last boomers, including Obama himself (i was born 64 and that's the last year births were over 4 million/yr, til this new millenial boom) have all along been more likely to vote GOP, they say.

also, most boomers were born 50s, no? that would have made the majority of them too young to vote before 76 or later, i think. this list shows that the majority of boomers were born from 1954-1964 -- http://pages.prodigy.net/wrjohnston/poli...

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Most baby boomers were not protesting the war OR going to college in the 60's. Fifty-something thousand of them were dying in Vietnam. Most of the rest were starting families, going to high school, or paying the rent.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

especially over college deferments. The poor kids had to go fight, but the rich kids didn't. The rich kids protested a war they didn't have to fight.

That's why the "draft-dodger" issue was used against Bill Clinton.

BTW - Bill Ayers of Weather Underground fame was a rich kid. His dad was very rich.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

from 99, and about how Xers vote less (millenials haven't yet proved they'll vote more, btw, i don't think) -- http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199908/gen-x

--
"... Voting rates are arrestingly low among post-Boomers. In the 1994 midterm elections, for instance, fewer than one in five eligible Xers showed up at the polls. As recently as 1972 half those aged eighteen to twenty-four voted; in 1996, a presidential-election year, only 32 percent did. ..."

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

And those values are why I’ll sit it out in November rather than vote for Obama, whose racist-baiting of the Clintons was a violation of those core values.

Not to mention he speaks so fondly of Roberts and GOP ideas on "regulation". Ever noticed how pro-life judges are also anti-regulation? Obama's been subtle, but he hasn't been completely silent. A big f-you to women who didn't vote for him is just the sort of petulant behavior we should be expecting.

SunnyLC's picture
Submitted by SunnyLC on

think of what's going on today???
Recent Posts

"Today’s Foreign News that Obama Probably Doesn’t Know a Thing About…"
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

Who can forget that interview way back in 2000 when George W. Bush was asked who was heading Pakistan? Bush dismissively answered that it was some general and that it didn’t matter if he couldn’t recall the name, because he would be surrounded by advisers who knew all this stuff.

Were you impressed then? I sure wasn’t and I’m not impressed with Obama’s “expertise” on foreign policy either. His policies speeches may come chapter and verse straight from the party platform and he can buddy all he wants with Jimmy Carter…but that sort of “foreign policy by association” doesn’t cut it with me, especially after seeing Bush and Cheney in action. Spending a few years in Indonesia as a kid, having a dubious relationship with Odinga in Africa, and never having the curiosity to explore Europe doesn’t count either.

So, when I ask if Obama knows the name of the current Japanese prime minister it’s because I want to see his ATTITUDE when he answers. Is he going to act like Bush?

I wake up to the BBC World Service news every morning via shortwave radio and in about 5 minutes I learn more than I could ever learn from the American media. Today was a BIG NEWS DAY on at least 3 fronts–Russia, Lebanon, and, yes, Japan. Having followed a lot of the related news while churning out the World Media Watch for Buzzflash for quite a few years, the stories I heard really woke me up, fast! Because the spectre of Obama (or McCain) reacting to some of the situations reported gave me a kick in the gut.

MORE MORE MORE at my blog post...

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

During the Vietnam War. (30)

Iraq War, no.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

The only single issue voters I see on our side are female abortion rights activists.

Case in point, my idiot Repub congresswoman Judy Biggert is pro choice and gets support from Planned Parenthood though she never mentions it. She's voted with the Repub majority 93% of the time overall.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You can always try and re-up if you believe in the Iraq War. They took a 70 year old doctor from MN a few years ago.

I went down to the post office when I turned 18 in 1974 to get my draft card so I'd have something to burn if they ever reinstated the draft.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

(i’ll also throw in that they’ve always been incredibly selfish on the whole, and have voted for selfish economic reasons a lot too)

Coming from people who seem to vow to they'll take their ball and go home if Hillary isn't the nominee.

Pages