Obama's Age Gap: Is It Race?

CBS's Dick Meyer Says Older Americans Have So Far Proven Unwilling To Vote For Barack Obama

(CBS)  This analysis was written by CBSNews.com Editorial Director Dick Meyer.

---

Now that Democrats have voted or caucused in three states in three different parts of the country, it appears there is one crucial voting bloc that will not support Barack Obama: older Americans.

Obama was able to overcome a consistent age gap in Iowa because of an unusually high turnout by young voters who supported him overwhelmingly. And he may be able to carry South Carolina, where roughly half the Democratic primary voters are expected to be African-American.

But Obama’s weak performance so far among older voters substantially increases the odds against him scoring big victories in the slew of states voting on February 5th, "Super Duper Tuesday."

Hillary Clinton has dominated among voters of a “certain age.”

In Iowa, Clinton grabbed 45 percent of the 65 and up while Obama took just 18 percent. In New Hampshire, she won 48 percent to 32 percent. Among voters 60 and older in Nevada, Clinton mopped up with a stunning 60 percent to Obama’s 31 percent.

Nationally, Clinton led Obama 44 percent to 18 percent among voters over 65 in a CBS New/The New York Times poll taken January 9-12.

This could be Hillary Clinton’s secret recipe for success. That’s because older Americans turn out to vote.

Voters over 65 were a solid 22 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in Iowa.

But in Nevada, a dazzling 36 percent of the primary voters were over 60. Turnout for the caucuses was huge. Nearly a third of the state’s registered Democrats participated. All Democrats, even the over-65 crowd, are unusually motivated this year - not just the young voters Obama has energized.

Clinton has solid support among other populations, especially women and voters down the income ladder. But Obama has had at least some success with those groups. In Iowa, he carried women 35 percent to 30. And voters earning less than $50,000 a year preferred Obama 34 percent to 32 percent.

Before real voters began casting real votes, it was natural to wonder if older Americans were more ready to consider a woman president or a black president. It appears that the answer is in and it is to Hillary Clinton’s advantage.

In the CBS News/New York Times national poll, 94 percent of respondents said they were ready to vote for a black candidate for president. But when asked if “most people” they knew were ready to make the same choice, only 71 percent said yes.

When asked if the whole country was ready to elect a black president, just 54 percent said yes. By contrast, 65 percent said the country was ready to elect a woman president.

There is no reliable way to tell exactly what role race has played in the voting decision of older Americans. Older voters might also be expected to place a higher premium on experience. Whatever the reasons, the pattern of voting behavior so far is clear.

It is a pattern that could be a key to making Hillary Clinton the first female presidential nominee in American history.

[kaliveotin]

Young people dont have a clue. 28% of them cant find the Pacific Ocean on a map. They grew up on MTV (whwn it wasnt a music station anymore, and shows like real world and the bachelor) These shows only pick people apart for thier flaws and define masses of losers. They are NOT politically active as the older generation was and is. Watch the votes this year, since you obviously havent in the past. Young people on thier best day, vote against the status quo for the sake of opposition, but they dont really vote for anything. Only a very few young people, mostly in Washington and Oregon are standing up FPR anything.
They changes in my generation were a relection of younger people. That definately isnt true today.

[realpatriot1]

Kaliveton,

I''m 57 and I think your condescending attitude about young people is ***.

The truth is that young people aren''t fighting about and living in the past like our generation.

What gives our generation the right to lecture to the younger generation when it''s been us who has screwed everything up?

Young people didn''t elect Bush, we did. Young people didn''t ignore the energy crisis for 30 years while driving their SUVs, we did. Young people aren''t talking about what America can''t do, we are.

It''s time for our generation to realize that rather than "changing the world'' we''ve become part of what''s wrong with the world. The next generation is smarter, more open-minded and not stuck in the past.

Just because we screwed up doesn''t mean they will.

[kaliveotin]

Young people think it''s race, because they don''t know any better. People under 30 still believe that we can bring about change quickly. Obama wont be elected, even though he''s shown he has the support of one third of the democrats and independants who have voted so far. Hillary has a shot at being able to change things because she''s been working at it for 35 years. Osama''s having to act like a Republican just to be competative. Actually its failures from the past, like Kerry and Hart and ambitious democratic conservatives,knowing they would not be insiders in a Clinton administration, such as Nepolitano and that
ex-prosequtor who barely won in Missouri or Arkansas (whats her name) thanks to the 2006 Democratic landslide, also both conservatives. Real Democratic Moderates and liberals are supporting Hillary in Spite of The Bill is a drag factor. We love Hillary. She will be our best President since FDR, unlike Bill.

[tibu987]

Unfortunately, there are many air-heads out there that have or will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. How simple-minded.
Eight years as First Lady, planning menus and serving tea simply does not equate into all the experience Hillary would like us to believe.
Nor does having traveled to 82 countries equate into presidential experience. Hillary did not sit in on any national or international meetings.
Just more b^llsh^t that Hillary would like us to believe.
Don''''t fall for it.
I am an old guy (71, white) and I would like to see more young, idealistic people get into politcal office and get the old, more than two term pols out of office. Just look where all that experience has gotten us in the last 40 years, not a very impressive record. Two terms max. Vote for term limits when possible.
Only Obama fits that model, young, intelligent, idealistic, someone who can mediate with our enemies and better understands the position of the average American.

[wync]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:00 AM : Jan 21, 2008

Understood. It is my sincere hope the younger generations do stand up and be counted. It is time that we take responsibility for the future course of America. OBAMA ''08

[wync]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:00 AM : Jan 21, 2008

[l00ker]

It''s not race; it''s the Clintons.

[kansas1946]

I am 61 and I love Obama and would vote him in a heart beat. I don''t think it is race, because he doesn''t do as well with older blacks either. I think it is the comfort level older Democrats feel for Hillary. Things were good when Bill was in the Whitehouse, they know her, they view her with more experience, and Obama is young, so older people may trust someone their own age. Younger people are more accepting of change.

By continually asking the "race" question, I think that is harmful to the whole process. There are too many white people who are crazy about Obama for it to be a race issue.

[l00ker]

If Hillary Clinton is elected, there may be an attempt to create a third party in earnest.

[l00ker]

I don''t think so, she''s poll and media driven, and the media was war central.

[samthetvcat]

Oh, another weak point of Hillary''s isn''t just that she voted for the Iraq war while Obama was speaking out against it. Instability in the middle east is one of the key causes of the sharp rise in oil. And the sharp rise in oil is one of the key causes that our economy is failing. Did she not foresee that as a possible consequence to her vote in favor of giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq?

[l00ker]

And what about her pledge to freeze interest rates? Traditionally the chair of the Federal Reserve is given wide latitude to craft a monetary policy independent of politics (except so far as it furthers the fiscal policy of the President). Isn''''t Hillary essentially advocating an expansion of the Presidential powers into an area even George Bush didn''''t go?


As soon as she''s president ( if that happens ) she will let that die down, or give a half hearted effort to follow through, again avoiding being pinned down for her pledge. Presidents can''t freeze interest rates, unless there is something catastrophic going on, like a severe depression.

[samthetvcat]

Yeah, you''re right, you''re right. I think it threw him off when Hillary cried and so many women rallied around her and blamed him and Edwards for making her cry. As a female, I see the aspect of women just saying that to get their way. But that does add a unique wrinkle to the situation.

Hmmm . . .

[l00ker]

And what about the conflict of interest that arises when Hillary''''s accepting $ from financial institutions - is that going to prevent her from cracking down on unscrupulous lending practices?




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

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 05:58 PM : Jan 21, 2008


No, she won''t crack down. Just like a certain president that we had who was beholden to the mob, and they got a little perturbed that his brother was giving them a hard time, after they ( the mob ) had helped the brother'' old man deliver the votes. She will be beholden to her benefactors no doubt.

[l00ker]

Actually, Bill is the one campaigning, with Hillary sitting on his lap, just like Mortimer used to do with Edgar Bergen. Hillary has yet to disclose her "35 years of experience", so this goes to show how strong she is, but Barack has yet to really call her on the carpet, so she slips through the crack. Moreover, she has Bill to step up and return fire for her, which covers all that up, thus guarding her weakness'', while her opponent suffers damage.

[samthetvcat]

And what about her pledge to freeze interest rates? Traditionally the chair of the Federal Reserve is given wide latitude to craft a monetary policy independent of politics (except so far as it furthers the fiscal policy of the President). Isn''t Hillary essentially advocating an expansion of the Presidential powers into an area even George Bush didn''t go?

[samthetvcat]

"Not only does your message have to be heard, but your opponent''''s message must be decisively neutralized, and then rendered ineffective. It takes energy and determination, but it can be accomplished if all of your facts are presented in orderly fashion."
Posted by l00ker

Yes, yes - and preparation is key too . . .

Okay, yeah I think you were right about attacking Bubba on his Presidential record. His achilles heels are NAFTA and the China trade deal, not just substantively but in terms of his legacy and whether Billary is really willing to admit they screwed up.

And what about the conflict of interest that arises when Hillary''s accepting $ from financial institutions - is that going to prevent her from cracking down on unscrupulous lending practices?

[samthetvcat]

Well, probably you know why Hillary is going so negative is probably because she really doesn''t have great strengths. So that''s all she''s got to play with.

So maybe that''s the way to go - expose the whole fraud of Hillary''s ''experience''. Hammering away with his resume to demonstrate hope in concept translated into a better life in practice - more years in legislature, greater results in his time in office. She can''t win on substance, because the only two accomplishments she''s cited to back up her claim of ''vast experience'' are the children''s health insurance program and health insurance for national guard. *** Morris said Hillary was out promoting her book when S-CHIP was passed, and anybody actually believe Hillary had to actually DO anything to convince people to give health insurance to the national guard in a time of war? And was it passed before or after the Walter Reed scandal - either way, a case could be made to work against her.

[l00ker]

Not only does your message have to be heard, but your opponent''s message must be decisively neutralized, and then rendered ineffective. It takes energy and determination, but it can be accomplished if all of your facts are presented in orderly fashion.

[samthetvcat]

"This is the preferred method, but when you''re dealing with unscrupulous people, and fighting a two front campaign, you need to return fire as well as stay on message; this must work in tandem."
Posted by l00ker

That''s it - that''s what was missing from the ABC interview . . . important to make sure one''s own message is what gets heard the loudest I think.

Probably you''re right about the fighting too - hard for me to say because it''s the least preferred method of competition for me. Although when I used to debate, what I''d do is look at strengths and weaknesses for my competition and strengths and weaknesses of myself. I guess in that respect, I would ''attack'' the competition - like when you have mutually exclusive strengths and weaknesses and the opponent attacks your weakness, then the appropriate rebuttal to neutralize the attack has to be to point out your competitor''s. Which can only ever at best be a lose-lose for both parties (or in this case the Democratic party as a whole).

Hmmm . . .