For those of you keeping score at home, the Baby Boomer Generation is made up of people born between 1946 and 1964, meaning that they are currently between 44 and 62 years old. The Blog Reader Project shows the following demographic breakdown for Daily Kos readers:
- Age:
<18: 0.3%
18-20: 1.2%
21-34: 26.3%
35-45: 22.8%
46-55: 25.7%
56-65: 18.0%
66-75: 4.6%
>75: 1.0%
The results show that the majority of Daily Kos readers are not Baby Boomers. The largest category (the plurality) is the 21-34 contingent, and more than 50% of readers (the majority) are too young to be part of the Boomer generation, while more than 5% are too old. This doesn’t prevent senior adviser to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s vice presidential and presidential campaigns, Dan Gerstein, from asserting:
The Kossacks and their activist allies — who skew toward the Boomers — believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove’s divisive, bare-knuckled tactics. Their opponents within the party — who skew younger and freer of culture war wounds — believe that the way to win is offer voters a break from this poisonous tribal warfare and a compelling, inclusive vision for where we want to take the country.
Technically, Gerstein said ‘Kossacks and their activist allies‘, so I guess he can try to defend himself by claiming that the ‘activist allies’ skew to the boomer generation, thereby tilting Kossacks in that direction. I don’t know, Gerstein is an asshat. But it’s kind of important that he’s screwed up the generational profile of Daily Kos because his entire essay depends on Kossacks (and by extension, the blogosphere as a whole) being about the politics of the past, in distinction from the hopeful, post-partisan politics of the future (as embodied in Senator Barack Obama).
Gerstein might be onto something about Kossacks (and the blogosphere more generally) but not because of the age distinctions, i.e., because non-Kossacks/Blogosphereites are “freer of culture war wounds.” Ironically, Gerstein hits on a better explanation (though he skips right over it) while he is in the process of distorting the history of the Lieberman/Lamont battle.
The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national — and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman’s communications director).
With a discredited Republican candidate in the race, the choice came down to two Democrats who actually agreed on most issues outside of Iraq, but differed on the kind of change we need in Washington. Mr. Lieberman called for a new politics of unity and purpose; Mr. Lamont mostly called for Messrs. Bush’s and Lieberman’s heads.
The hope candidate soundly beat the Kos candidate — Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont — by 10 points. More importantly, Mr. Lieberman won independents (the biggest voting bloc in the state) by 19 points, which is all the more remarkable because they opposed the war by a margin of 65%-29%.
When Democrats voted in the primary, they rejected Joe Lieberman. Lieberman won the general election because Republicans rejected their own candidate and voted for Lieberman by a 70%-8% margin. Democrats prefered Lamont by a 65%-33% margin and Independents preferred Lieberman 54%-35%. As the Republican numbers show, this was a highly unusual election, but there’s nothing in the exit polls to bolster Gerstein’s case about a Baby Boomer skew towards Lamont.
- VOTE BY AGE
TOTAL Lieberman/Lamont/Schlesinger
18-29 (10%): 40%/50%/10%
30-44 (23%): 45%/41%/13%
45-59 (39%): 51%/39%/10%
60 and Older (28%): 56%/36%/7%
The numbers decisively show that younger voters preferred Lamont and Baby Boomers gave Lieberman his victory. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Gerstein’s dishonest interpretation of polling data continues into the South Carolina results:
The outcome in South Carolina was the most telling — and arguably put the last nail in the coffin of Kos-ism. This was the state where Mr. Edwards and his drawl were born. This was the state he won by 15 points in 2004, even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire to John Kerry. And this was a state that was ostensibly most amenable to his arguments about being the most electable Democrat in red states. Yet Mr. Edwards was rejected by voters across the board, failing to win even a majority of the white vote (40%).
Gerstein makes a point of Edwards failing to win the majority of the white vote, when the most startling thing about the South Carolina exit polls is that Edwards won the plurality of the white vote, despite coming in a distant third place overall.
- Vote by Race
White (Overall)
Clinton 36% (27%)
Edwards 40% (18%)
Kucinich 0% (0%)
Obama 24% (55%)
As I have written elsewhere, undecided white voters (and even some committed white Clinton voters) broke late for Edwards and Obama at a 3:1 ratio that clearly indicates how racially polarized the South Carolina primary became near the end and how much it hurt the Clinton campaign. If there is a lesson to take from that it was that Edwards’ peace keeping role in the South Carolina debate helped make him an attractive alternative to white voters that were disgusted with the Clintons. I guess Gerstein can take some comfort in knowing that hyperpartisanship doesn’t always sell, but the facts in every other regard make a mockery of his argument.
The one thing I will agree with Gerstein about is this: for many of my blogging colleagues, Obama’s approach does not resonate because it doesn’t conform to what actually worked in the battles of 2005-7. Gerstein acknowledges this, in part:
This analysis will likely be seen as a bit of grave-dancing on my part, given that I have been an occasional target of the wrath of Kos. But while I am troubled by their hostile, hyper-partisan tendencies, I think the Kossacks have at their best made enormous contributions to the party over the last few years — most noticeably by stiffening the Washington establishment’s spine in confronting President Bush and energizing and organizing the base. One could credibly argue, in fact, that Mr. Obama would not be in the position to inspire the base if Kos and his allies had not first helped to get them “fired up, ready to go.”
Taken in total isolation, I agree with that observation and think it helps explain why so many of my colleagues became hopelessly wanking imbeciles when they were confronted with Obama’s campaign. If he used a talking point on Social Security that they had spent effort to debunk, they went beserk. It’s like they couldn’t accept that the battle over Social Security was won and it didn’t matter anymore whether Obama stepped on their message. Moreover, my colleagues have consistently applied idiotic standards to Obama’s campaign, rarely taking into consideration the true limitations his race makes on his ability to embrace populist or partisan or angry messages and be successful. We wasn’t going to beat Edwards by out-Edwardsing Edwards, nor beat Hillary by showing more heat. His strategy has been calibrated to the moment and to reality, and so far it has been almost miraculous in its success and its ability to attract and excite a new generation of Americans.
Having said that, the need to fight is stronger than ever, and the Blogosphere won’t be taking any time off.
I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out. Not because he was a white guy, but because he was speaking about the class warfare that I feel is happening in this country. Obama and Clinton simply were not. To say people voted for him because he is white, is quite offensive.
South Carolina, like my state of Maine, is rural and I think Edwards would naturally pull voters with his message that the corporations have rigged the game.
You say Obama can’t sound like a progressive or a populist because of his race, which may be true. Or it could be he is just a politician trying to maximize his draw.
By the logic used, if I vote for Clinton, I hate black people, if I vote for Obama, I hate women. Seems like a lose/lose proposition to me.
Except for the part where you describe your own reasoning, this doesn’t make sense to me.
The Exit Polls in South Carolina are unambiguous that Edwards won the white vote. When you compare the exit polls to the pre-election polls, it is clear that white undecided voters broke to Edwards and Obama at a 3:1 clip and that Hillary lost some of her committed white voters in the last week of the campaign. Meanwhile, the same polling analysis shows that Obama got all of the undecided black vote as well as some of Hillary’s committed black voters.
Edwards got none of it.
The conclusion is that that white voters rejected Clinton and went to Edwards and black voters rejected Clinton and went to Obama. That’s just data, it doesn’t reflect on you as an Edwards supporter. It doesn’t mean that all of Edwards support came from white racists. Many of those white voters were rejected racism that they perceived to be coming from the Clinton campaign. Maybe we could talk about gradations of racism, but it is not a reflection on you to point out the data. And the data from other states does not show the same pattern.
Maybe I am just reading it wrong when you say: If there is a lesson to take from that it was that Edwards’ peace keeping role in the South Carolina debate helped make him an attractive alternative to white voters that were disgusted with the Clintons.
I took the implication to be that Obama was never a consideration. I like to think that the vote broke the way it did because of the message. Maybe because I liked the guy, who knows.
Personally, I have no real preference now. Although Clinton and her crew seem to be working overtime to make sure that they lose my vote.
Here’s a look at how the voters broke late in SC (the McClatchy-MSNBC numbers are from the 14th-16th, before the candidates showed up to campaign):
As you can see, Edwards had the support of 28% of white voters and 2% of black voters before the campaign really began in earnest. After all the controversy over Bob Johnson and Bill Clinton, Edwards wound of with 40% (the plurality) of the white vote but still remained stalled with 2% of the black vote.
That speaks for itself. Now, 28% of the white vote supported Edwards before the campaign got underway, so the majority of his white support was already there.
On another note, his voters were more conservative and richer than the other candidates, and that basic breakdown was true in Iowa as well. I’ve written elsewhere that Edwards supporters were not who we would have expected them to be based on his campaign rhetoric.
Not quite on topic but brushing up against the next stall, Markos M. couldn’t find election fraud if it bit him on his ass, but maybe somebody here could explain why a precinct in Broward Co. in FLA’s primary on Tuesday could have 110% of its voters vote. My older Repub sister (close to the top edge of the Boomer demographic and from Florida) claimed it was illegal aliens with drivers’ licenses. I guess not only did they get drivers’ licenses with names of registered voters on them, they somehow hypnotized the people at the poll to let them vote twice. Or maybe it was those danged touchscreens that lost 18,000 votes in a congressional election in FLA last election.
well, you can’t usually find things that you refuse to look for. The policy at dkos is that there has never been election fraud, will never be, and it’s illegal to talk about it there.
Here’s a court ruling that will please Markos:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080202/NEWS/802020405/1417/RSS02
TALLAHASSEE — A little-known legal opinion issued days before Florida’s presidential primary has slammed the door on public oversight of the final vote tally in Florida elections.
The closure comes because of questions posed by Sarasota County Election Supervisor Kathy Dent, whose controversial District 13 congressional race drew national scrutiny in 2006.
Attorneys for the Florida Department of State say county election supervisors can eject outside observers from central computer rooms as they receive and add precinct results.
Their ruling hinges on where votes are actually counted, a process that state law requires be open to observers. They contend that “tabulation” occurs at individual precincts and that computers in the central room are merely “accumulating” those results.
What is more, the opinion states, observers and the public can be excluded from watching the local canvassing boards that must certify those vote counts — as long as there is alternative access, such as listening over a speaker system.
“Anytime you move something behind the curtain, people are going to get suspicious,” said Florida election law expert Mark Herron, who advised the Gore team in 2000.
Well, you’ve really captured the contradiction in terms of the Obama campaign:
Calibrated and miraculous.
I hadn’t thought of it, but you’re right.
While the largest SINGLE age bracket component of Kos readers may be the 21-34’s, it is important to note that Boomer’s age range spans THREE brackets, & total about 43% of Kos’ readers.
So, whatever else may be wrong about Gerstein’s pronouncements, it would be true that Boomers dominate the Kos readership (as they (we) will tend to do in most things about American life until a third or so of us are dead).
There only really span two (two years [44-45] lie in a third, while three years [63-65] lie outside in the oldest bracket).
And in what universe does a community skew to a population of 43% over a population of 51%?
I would make the argument that the 51% is really more like 44 or 45% younger-than-boomers vs boomers plus what’s left of the older generation. Those older voters almost certainly have less in common with the younger folks than they do with the boomers. I think this is a epochal election in more ways than one.
I’m right in the big middle of the boomer generation. For most of my life I have thought of us as the progressive force pushing against an older, more conservative culture. I think from now on we will be more and more the ones pushed from behind by those who have grown impatient with our complacence.
<18: 0.3%
18-20: 1.2%
21-34: 26.3%
35-45: 22.8%
That adds up 50.6%.
OK. First, I don’t want to quibble about the numbers. I’m fairly certain I’d lose. Still, if you take off the 45 year old boomers, what’s left is almost certainly less than 50%. Then there are the 5 or 6 percent who are older than 64. Those older folks are not all conservatives to be sure. Some of the most radical people I’ve ever met are retired and absolutely fearless in speaking out about the injustices they see around them. But in general, I think those older folks would tend to align more with the boomers than with those who come after.
I think there is an epochal divide between roughly the boomer-and-older crowd and those who come after. The younger folks coming into political awareness now are as far past us culturally as we were from the WWII and Korea folks before us. I grew up in a TV world dominated by three monolithic networks and a more or less unified consensus view of an Ozzie and Harriet culture profoundly different from the rest of the world. They have lived for most of their lives in a wired, satellite linked, multichannel, increasingly diverse multicultural global culture. We’re the old guys behind the curve now. And it happened while I wasn’t looking.
you might be right that a very slight majority is older than the the youngest boomer. In any case, it is about tied. What’s clear is that Boomers are not a majority, nor a plurality.
And for Gerstein, people older than Boomers do not bear their distinctive culture war scars. You and I might find that to be one more thing about Gerstein’s thesis that is faulty, but it is an important part of his argument.
Agreed on all counts. Every generation bears the marks of their time and place. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the Boomers is the conviction that we’re somehow special — more special than anybody else.
I dont see a single community in the group younger than the Boomers – maybe you do.
But, of the people I know, Gen X’ers & Gen Y’ers separate themselves from each other as much as they do from Boomers.
Young & Single vs over 30 with a family vs “Boomers”. Slice & dice it how you want -the real divide is Liberal vs Conservative.
That certainly doesn’t mesh with my perception of things — which could of course be completely wrong, but still. I’m 37, the child of boomers. While I have considerable admiration for the revolutionary spirit of the 60’s, it seems to me that the revolutionaries were always a minority, and the bulk of them have retreated from their youthful positions in a variety of ways, ranging from hysterical counter-reaction (Horowitz) to less extreme degrees of moderation. That’s totally natural, of course: as people age, their views moderate some, and in addition to that, as people become established with careers and families, they become less daring because they have more to lose. (I claim no exception here; there are a lot of unpopular political issues I would be more visibly involved in if I didn’t have a 15-year-old daughter that I’ll have to send to college in a few years.)
In any case, a lot of boomers were conservative to begin with, and a lot more have drifted in that direction over the years. Good, bad, or indifferent, they are generally not on the far left vanguard of the party, and the suggestion that the boomers, of all people, are radicalizing the party warrants a loud, derisive laugh. There are radical boomers, but they are a minority. DLC “moderate” politics are probably far more representative of Dem boomer views these days than anything else.
In other words, the 60’s are really over, and the conservative battle with 60’s radicalism is just as much a delusional, outworn reflex as the conservative tendency to see everything, even obscure terrorist groups, through the lens of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. And as much time as Markos and his fellows spend repudiating the left wing politics of the 60’s, there’s not much reason to believe that the next wave of leftist politics, even the radical left, is going to closely resemble the radicals of the 60’s, any more than those boomer radicals resembled the radical groups of the 1920’s.
For better or worse — and I’d say a big helping of both — history marches on, and however cyclical it may be, it’s nowhere near as repetitious as Dan Gerstein would have us believe.
The Idiot Dan Gerstein writes:
“Over the last year, the Kossacks themselves seemed to be waning — the number of monthly page views on the site is down dramatically.”
Easily provable false statement:
The Sitemeter on home page shows 22 Million pageviews in January … the highest of the past 12 months …
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm8dailykos&r=36
This Year’s Visits by Month