Obama and Seniors

For all the somewhat vague talk about "white working class" voters, the more specific issue facing Barack Obama concerns older white people. The initial battle lines of an Obama-McCain fight feature a level of age polarization that's really unusual. Andrew Kohut, Jonathan Alter, and J.P. Green all have interesting commentary on this.

I would only add that this kind of consideration, combined with Obama's lead over McCain in the polls is fundamentally what makes me optimistic about his chances in November. There's no telling how many McCainiac seniors will be swayed by the Obama campaign pointing out that McCain has spent years waging war on Social Security and Medicare and basically thinks everyone should get on the "marry a wealthy heiress" retirement plan, but it's going to be more than zero people. Seniors have already hears a good deal of the sort of culture war attacks on Obama that are likely to be the biggest thing driving them toward McCain, but they've heard essentially nothing of the retirement policy attacks on McCain that are likely to be the biggest thing driving them toward Obama. Consequently, Obama's senior deficit is very big. But he's winning anyway, and though he'll probably never close the senior gap he'll almost certainly narrow it.

Comments

-"marry a wealthy heiress" retirement plan, -
Wow so he supports gay marriage?

Posted by eh? | May 10, 2008 5:00 PM

Plus you've gotta factor in the mortality rate - a percentage point or so worth of McCain voters might not make it to November.

Posted by TH | May 10, 2008 5:07 PM

An Obama/Hagel ticket will assuage more old white fears and secure the greatest margin of victory in the fall.

Posted by Richard | May 10, 2008 5:09 PM

TH is right. An early flu season and Obama can coast.

Posted by Ryan S | May 10, 2008 5:09 PM

You obviously forget about all the Obama-crazed 64-year olds who will surely defect to McCain by November. Obama is doomed...

Posted by Halfdan | May 10, 2008 5:27 PM

I don't think the problem will be as bad as some think. From the seniors I know, it will split, very possibly favoring Obama. Basically, they fall in two camps - die-hard Democrats still nostalgic for Bill, and conservative Dems (i.e, my stepfather) who will never vote for a black man. In fact, though my stepfather voted for HRC in the primary, he'd have still voted McCain in the general.

As for the senior female bloc? Even after all they said, I do believe Steinem, Ferraro & Co. will vote Obama in November. Two words: Supreme Court.

Posted by Judy | May 10, 2008 5:27 PM

There was a new Texas poll out Thursday that showed McCain with a strong lead over either Senators Obama or Clinton in the general elections. No real surprise there. But the "internals" on age were fascinating -- McCain led either Democrat by just for or five points among voters age 60+, almost identical to the spread among young voters under 30.

I asked a friend why he thought either Dem would be doing so well among the 60+ crowd, which one would assume to be in the bag for McCain. My friend suggested something that I was beginning to suspect privately as well -- it's his age. Seniors are often all too aware of their own health and limitations, and may actually be MORE concerned about McCain's age than middle-ages voters are.

Posted by Andy | May 10, 2008 5:31 PM

"For all the somewhat vague talk about "white working class" voters, the more specific issue facing Barack Obama concerns older white people."

Well, no.

While Obama is indeed very weak among the 45+ crowd, he is also very weak among the non-African-American downscale crowd.

Class is just as much an issue for Obama in a general election as age is.

-----

The best concise writeup of this comes from Mark Blumenthal.

He first quotes Obama reciting the talking points that Matt is mindlessly repeating here:

I have to say if you look at and I know my staff has talked about this: If you look at the numbers, in fact, our problem has less to do with white working class voters. In fact, the problem is that, to the extent there is a problem, is that the older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton.

Blumenthal then notes that Obama is simply wrong:

ABC's polling director Gary Langer combined data from exit polls to look at support for the two candidates among white voters by age and income. "Age clearly is a factor," he concludes, "but it’s equally clear that socioeconomic status, as measured by the education and income alike, is independently a factor, and a big one."

Posted by Petey | May 10, 2008 5:38 PM

"Basically, they fall in two camps - die-hard Democrats still nostalgic for Bill, and conservative Dems (i.e, my stepfather) who will never vote for a black man. "

Of course, you omit the actually relevant group - the Reagan Democrats.

Those are the folks who wouldn't vote for Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry for class based reasons.

And those are the precise folks that Obama runs weakest among.

Posted by Petey | May 10, 2008 5:45 PM

So if Hillary doesn't vanquish the man who defeated my idol John Edwards, can we at least hope McCain does it?

Posted by Either Arnold Evans or Petey | May 10, 2008 5:58 PM

Judy, there may be a bloc older white women who consider McCain, but it's sure not the ones who would consider themselves in the "Steinem/Ferraro" camp.

Steinem and feminists like her are loyal Democrats, have been voting Democrat for years, and haven't given the slightest indication they would ever vote for McCain, or any other Republican presidential candidate. The Supreme Court is one reason, but they have plenty others. They more than deserve to be recognized as loyal Dems.

Posted by anon | May 10, 2008 6:01 PM

Of course, you omit the actually relevant group - the Reagan Democrats.

Those are the folks who wouldn't vote for Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry for class based reasons.

A faction who voted for Republicans in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2008 aren't Democrats. They're Republicans. There is a case to be made that a candidate that can increase his or her share of this Republican interest group provides an electoral advantage, but they're certainly not part of the party base, or even a large swing group. The youngest "Reagan Democrats" in the 1980s (ie, the working class whites with children) are now in their 50s. Considering that this was a faction of union-members, it's a shrinking, not rising interest group. Plus, insofar as they exist, they are pretty firmly in the Republican camp. You may as well argue that the Democrats should be chasing after white Southern Baptist men-- talking about chasing after their votes is about a game of inches, 2004-style, not about trying to put together a winning coalition.

Posted by Tyro | May 10, 2008 6:20 PM

Good analysis and well said.

Posted by Garuda | May 10, 2008 6:42 PM

Does Obama really have a problem with this demographic, or does he just have a problem with this demographic when they are democrats and have a chance to vote for Hillary?

If Hillary, or exit poll mind-readers, believe that she won the white working-class older voters because her opponent was Black, well guess what: the Republican isn't Black. If she believes that they the white working class democrats identify more with their skin color than the party to which they belong, then there is no guarantee who they will vote for in the Fall.

Her argument, while somewhat 'strong' in the primary is weak for the Fall election, because of the premise.

Of course what she is trying to pull off is that her voters voted against Obama, and will somehow vote for her in the Fall.

Posted by tomj | May 10, 2008 8:31 PM

Wow, how unclear can I write?

Maybe someone should ask Clinton: why did the white working-class voters vote for you? Because you are white? Because that is about all you have in common with McCain, that McCain would not have in common with Obama.

Posted by tomj | May 10, 2008 8:52 PM

You've missed the most important demographic of all: the Petey douchebags.

Petey douchebags are going to vote for Nader or write-in Edwards in November, and Obama does not do well with the douchebags. Thus, he is doomed.

DOOMED!!!

Posted by Jake | May 10, 2008 9:02 PM

Both the downmarket and the senior problems are why Obama can't lose by campaigning even where it appears he is going to lose.

His policies promise seniors a defense of post-employment Americans' resources and needs.

They also scan much more closely with the wants and needs of the lower-income quintiles.

There is less in the way of persuasive ideological interference than in the past (i.e., everyone is against the war; a rising tide has failed to lift all boats; unemployment is rising; health insurance is a slow-motion train wreck, etc.)

All of which says that Obama should go into Appalachia and into America's sunset communities and basically say, "I know many of you may not be comfortable with me for whatever reason; I haven't in fact been around that long--but here is who I am, and here is what I am for, and I believe that all of you ought to carefully examine your suppositions about me and John McCain before you go and cast your votes--because I am actually your political champion."

John Kerry, whatever his skills and virtues, was simply unable to speak this language--both because America was not ready for his message on the war (and it was a notably weak trumpet), and because he really demonstrativley wasn't someone who could relate to these constituencies in an unmediated way. Pace the cynical, perverse Krauthammer claque, Obama does in fact simply transcend these distances in many cases when people give him a chance.

This is the way the tide moves, even if only in parts....

Posted by elle loco | May 10, 2008 9:03 PM

It seems to me that the vote of a white 60 year old factory worker in Michigan gets counted against Obama 3 times. As a working class white, as a senior, and as a Reagan Democrat.

Posted by Just Karl | May 10, 2008 9:12 PM

The Blumenthal article states that there's a strong income correlation as well as an age correlation in regards to White voter preference in the dem primary. Specifically, seniors in households making over $100,000 a year actually went for Obama 50-45% in Penn.

But isn't this a good thing? For all the moaning about "what's the matter with Kansas", hasn't it been demonstrated that poorer white voters are actually more likely to vote for Dems than wealthier white voters? In other words, the white voters least inclined to vote for Obama in the Dem primaries, are those most inclined to vote for a generic Dem in the general election. They are also the group of whites most inclined to be swayed by Obama's message on Social security.

In other words, this is in fact excellent news for Obama.

On the issue of Reagan democrats, Tyro is right to maintain that folks who've voted Republican in 4 out of the last 6 elections are Republicans. It would be nice to win them but not crucial.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 10, 2008 10:04 PM

Having gone through the same cycles many times, I will keep this brief:

Obama isn't losing Reagan Democrats to Clinton, but rather Bill Clinton Democrats. So assuming the Clintons endorse and campaign for Obama, I think there is little reason to believe they will defect to McCain in abnormally large numbers.

Posted by DTM | May 10, 2008 10:10 PM

Actually, Clinton has a lot in common with McCain - which is why she will never be able to beat McCain.

Why go for "McCain Lite" when you can have the real thing?

This is why Kerry lost - he couldn't distinguish himself on Iraq from Bush.

Not to mention that the Republicans would bury Clinton under unbelievable amounts of negative ads, dragging up every Bill intern, every Bill and Hillary corruption scandal, every lie from either of them, and on and on.

The bottom line: if working class white voters don't vote Democratic for Obama in the fall, they deserve the McCain they get - and the wars and the destroyed economy McCain will produce for them.

They can bitch all they want about Obama being black and elitist and all that other shit - but unless they want to be poor and their sons dead in foreign wars, they'd better vote the Democrat. Not that Obama will do all that much better than McCain in those regards, but it won't be hard for him to do somewhat better than that lunatic.

And that's all the Dems have to point out: you got a bad choice between Obama and McCain. Make your choice.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 10, 2008 10:18 PM

I look forward to the Battle Royale over entitlements this fall. Obama almost seems to have grasped the likelihood of this becoming an issue from the start -- he had a viable Social Security plan from the beginning. Seniors are very worried that their children and grandchildren won't have Social Security, and saying "their isn't a crisis" or "appoint a commission" or whatever won't assuage those concerns.

Posted by Jim D | May 10, 2008 10:30 PM

What Tyro said: 'Reagan Democrats' is as useful a term in modern politics as 'Southern Democrats' in reference to the pre-Civil Rights Act realignment. That's to say, it's a historical term for people who have generally voted for the Republican in the last seven presidential elections.

In the meantime, there are 80 million potential voters to register and/or get to the polls.

33rd time of asking, Petey: where are Clinton's electoral votes coming from, and where are the Senate votes to pass her healthcare bill coming from? I'll stop asking when you answer: surely a master political strategist like yourself can come up with a response.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 10, 2008 10:59 PM

McCain will lock up the senior vote when he nominates Matlock as his running mate. But he won't be pandering, he'll do it for personal reasons.

Posted by aleks | May 11, 2008 12:01 AM

Petey - here are some demographics from NC and IN. Do you have the breakdowns by income?

% of vote %Obama
IN: People with college degrees 35 56
NC: People with college degrees 44 57

IN: First time primary voters 19 69
NC: First time primary voters 22 60

IN: Independents 23 54
NC: Independents 19 45*

IN: Liberals 39 56
NC: Liberals 42 63

IN: Urban 33 60
NC: Urban 27 66

IN: White 17-29 year-olds 12 54
NC: White 17-29 year-olds 8 57

IN: All 17-29 year-olds 17 61
NC: All 17-29 year-olds 14 74

IN: 17-64 year-olds 86 52
NC: 17-64 year-olds 80 60

Well, no.

While Obama is indeed very weak among the 45+ crowd, he is also very weak among the non-African-American downscale crowd.

As you can see from the above numbers, I think you're very wrong.

Posted by justinb | May 11, 2008 12:25 AM

McCain will lock up the senior vote when he nominates Matlock as his running mate. But he won't be pandering, he'll do it for personal reasons.

Alas, that likely won't happen: Andy Griffith endorsed Bev Perdue for NC Governor (in the most pander-tastic ad imaginable), and she endorsed Obama.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 11, 2008 12:49 AM

This is a pretty Pollyanna-ish view. Given Obama's flirting with privatizing social security and rubs up against GOP solutions to economic problems, I don't see how he can modulate his message to appeal to them. Race will probably be a problem for some but I think it's much less of a problem than Obama's ties to radicals. Obama will painted by the GOP as the embodiment of left-wing radicalism in the 1960s.

People are already suspicious of his patriotism given the flag-pin flap and since he is unknown (no record to fall back on, no years in the public eye to make an assessment, no federal experience he can claim, no military service etc.) his associations with folks like Rev, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Auchi and others will be used to judge him much more harshly once the GOP starts tearing into to them than they would be if he were a more familiar figure.

Although, it's a good tactic for Dems to hang Bush firmly around McCain's neck, I'm not sure it's as effective as others think. Even though we say it, does anyone actually believe that ANYONE could be as bad as Bush? Attacking McCain on SSI/Medicare is also a good tact but it has at least two big flaws (1) Obama has himself entertained privatization and his economists and advisers are decidedly not progressive and (2) John McCain can dismiss a great deal of it by simply saying, Senator Obama that sounds good but do you have anything to actually back it up? He may also point to Obama's waffling on the issues.

I'm not saying Obama can't win them or that his attacks and appeals won't work just that it's by no means a certainty.

Posted by jb | May 11, 2008 4:21 AM

flirting with privatizing social security

He used the word "crisis" approximately once. That is not "flirting with privatizing."

Posted by LittleMac | May 11, 2008 6:12 AM

Seniors are very worried that their children and grandchildren won't have Social Security,

Thanks but no thanks. Many of those children and grandchildren would love to be out from under our national pyramid scheme. But no, I can't invest my own money because old farts think privatisation makes the ghost of Franklin Roosevelt sad.

Posted by matt foley | May 11, 2008 8:15 AM

The best thing about this election will be banishing the "Reagan Democrats" to the dustbin of history. Not so much because the "Reagan Democrats" aren't actually Democrats anyway, as others have pointed out, but it will actually shove loquacious commenters like Petey off into their little self-serving hovels, at least temporarily.

Face it, "Reagan Democrats" are teh st00pid.

Posted by FL!CK Reagan Democrats | May 11, 2008 9:35 AM

McCain has spent years waging war on Social Security and Medicare and basically thinks everyone should get on the "marry a wealthy heiress" retirement plan

Thanks for a wonderful little phrase, Matt! Sometimes your wit is just what's needed!

Posted by Beth in Va | May 11, 2008 11:48 AM

Older Dems realize Obama is a media creation and a con - high on hype and low on substance.
"He dribbles! He texts! He's coooool" - are qualifications for president according to the kidz.
But older Dems will vote for experience. McCain is not neocon Bush and he'll have a Dem congress to keep him in check.

Posted by Frank | May 11, 2008 12:54 PM

Older Dems realize Obama is a media creation and a con - high on hype and low on substance.
"He dribbles! He texts! He's coooool" - are qualifications for president according to the kidz.
But older Dems will vote for experience. McCain is not neocon Bush and he'll have a Dem congress to keep him in check.

Posted by Frank | May 11, 2008 12:56 PM

It's a shame that the "unity" candidate purposely offended so many Democrats.
But it was expected since his campaign has largely been based on race-baiting and manufacturing racist charges against the Clintons.

Obama told his Billionaire donors WHY the white working class wasn't voting for him - because they're racists, clinging to their religion and guns.

White Dems who have fought against racism are repulsed by Obama using bogus charges of racism against the Clintons in order to win the nomination.

We don't vote for racists and won't vote for Obama! who is as much a racist as Wright and Brazile.

Posted by William | May 11, 2008 1:07 PM

Frank,

If McCain is not a neocon then how come he supports the war in Iraq?

William,

When has Obama said that if so and so doesn't vote for me therefore that person is a racist. It is foolish to not acknowledge that racsim may be a factor in some older Dems not liking Obama.

Posted by Micheline | May 11, 2008 1:32 PM

All this hand-wringing about Obama and his various weaknesses makes me wonder: how did he go from two points behind McCain in February to six points ahead in May?

Posted by Davis | May 11, 2008 4:06 PM

All this hand-wringing about Obama and his various weaknesses makes me wonder: how did he go from two points behind McCain in February to six points ahead in May?

Posted by Davis | May 11, 2008 4:08 PM

Obama is the candidate of the affluent and African-Americans. He actually beats Clinton among seniors making more than 100K a year - there just are not alot of these rich old people. Obama's margins in the 18-29 demo also shrink 10-15% in the under 50K and no-college groups.

Posted by it is not old people | May 11, 2008 4:25 PM

Obama's margins in the 18-29 demo also shrink 10-15% in the under 50K and no-college groups.

The "Establishment candidate" always does well among these groups. I'm sure Mondale did better than Hart, Dukakis did better than Jackson, and Clinton did better than Tsongas here, as well. Did that help them in the general election? I'm not sure it helped any more than being the establishment candidate does, by itself.

Posted by Tyro | May 11, 2008 4:56 PM

"There's no telling how many McCainiac seniors will be swayed by the Obama campaign pointing out that McCain has spent years waging war on Social Security and Medicare and basically thinks everyone should get on the "marry a wealthy heiress" retirement plan, but it's going to be more than zero people."

Does "waging war on Social Security and Medicare" mean being concerned about their spiraling costs? If so, than did the president of the Progressive Policy Institute just declare war on Social Security and Medicare too? I realize that acknowledging the alarming fiscal trajectory of our current entitlement programs would make it more difficult for you to continue to shill for new ones, but that doesn't mean you have to be a hack about it.

Posted by Fred | May 11, 2008 11:34 PM

The general will be interesting if the candidates are actually allowed to discuss and compare thier policy positions. The Democratic primary campaigns have, even with Wrightgate, Tuzlagate, and Bittergate, focused more discussion on the issues. People seemed to demand it - witness the flap about the ABC News debate. Americans who are listening have had an opportunity to hear where the Democratic candidates stand on global warming, the Iraq war, the economy, and many other worthy topics. My impression of the issues discussed by the Republican candidates during thier primary, on the other hand, seemed to focus on the Bible being the word of god, creationism, and terrorism. That's about it. I look forward to a chance for issues to be compared and contrasted. Finally, the Republican's policies laid out on the table might persuade some voters, like seniors, to rethink thier options.

Posted by SN | May 12, 2008 10:30 AM