Demographic Shifts, 2004 to 2008

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 15:15


Where did Obama gain the most relevant to Kerry four years ago? I've seen dozens of theories floating about. but no systematic analysis. Usually, the theories floated are connected to the organization of the person doing the floating. For example, a member of a youth vote coalition will attribute Obama's victory to young voters, a spokesperson for a Lainto coalition will say it was Latino voters, a spokesperson for a women's organization will say it was single women, etc.

In order to try and provide more than just speculation and organizational trumpeting, in the extended entry I provide a table that shows Obama's shift from 2004 across every major demographic. Check it out.

Chris Bowers :: Demographic Shifts, 2004 to 2008
2004 exit poll
2008 exit poll

Note: "Raw shift" means the change in the overall margin Obama earned from a given demograhpic compared. For example, if Obama won a demographic that makes up 10% of the electorate by a 60%-40% margin, than earned an overall +2.0% margin from that group. If Kerry earned an overall 1.0% margin from that group four years ago, then that group had a "raw shift" of 1.0%

Obama's demographic shift from 2004
Demographic Percent Shift Raw Shift
Gender
Women +10% +5.3%
Men +12% +5.5%
Ethnicity
White +5% +4.2%
Black +14% +3.5%
Latino +27% +2.5%
Asian +15% +0.3%
Other +21% +0.4%
Age
18-29 +23% +4.6%
30-44 +13% +3.8%
45-64 NA +2.7%
65+ -2% -0.3%
Income
Under $15K +21% +0.7%
$15K-$30K +18% +1.7%
$30K-$50K +11% +2.1%
$50K-$75K +12 +2.8%
$75K-100K +13% +1.9%
$100K-$150K +11% +1.2%
$150K-$200K +14% +0.3%
$200K+ +34% +1.2%
Education
No HS +27% +1.1%
HS Grad +11% +2.3%
Some College +14% +2.8%
4 year grad +8% +2.1%
Post Grad +7% +1.3%
Party
Dem +3% +2.0%
Rep +6% +6.3%
Ind +7% +2.1%
Ideology
Liberal +7% +2.3%
Moderate +12% +5.2%
Conservative +11% +3.7%
Religion
Protestant +10% +5.4%
Catholic +14% +3.8%
Jewish +8% -0.4%
Other +10% Even
None +16% +2.7%
My quick reaction to these numbers are that Obama's victory was achieved primarily by non-whites, voters under 45, and what seems to be heavily depressed Republican turnout. Obama's victory among those making over $200K is also shcoking. I'll work on tracking down more numbers later on. What are your thoughts on these figures?


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Can you explain a bit? (0.00 / 0)
What is "Percent Shift" and "Raw Shift"?

You'll also have to look at turnout as well as share of the vote...  Blacks, for instance, are already very loyal Democrats, but if they increased their share of the electorate dramatically, then that's a big part of the victory. On the other hand, young voters became much more Democratic, but if they didn't increase their share of the electorate, it might not be that big a factor (though it looks like their turnout did improve).

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


I'd be interested to see (0.00 / 0)
what the shift in the white vote was if you remove the south from the equation. Any ideas on that?

The Over 200K Is Not AS Surprising When You Consider (4.00 / 3)
(A) The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression
(B) Palin
(C) McCain
(D) The onslaught of centrist rhetoric pouring forth in torrents even as we speak.
(E) The potential room for a swing. (The 34% swing at $200K+ was 27% of the maximum potential 128% swing from 2004.  The 21% swing at $15K- was 29% of the maximum potential 73% swing from 2004.)

I think it's related to why the WSJ had a long reputation for more honest reporting than the NYT or anyone else.  They didn't need to fulfill a propaganda function.  To the contrary, their readers needed brutally honest reporting.  The brutally honest truth is that Bush had screwed things up so badly that Obama was necessary in order to start straightening things out.  Those in the $200K bracket represent the prime audience the WSJ was aimed at.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Over $200K (4.00 / 1)
Digby:


For those government helps directly, whether it's through educational opportunities or unemployment insurance or health care for their kids and elderly parents, the benefits are obvious. But there's nothing unusual about financially comfortable people also being willing to pay for a decent society in which to live and work and bring up their kids. The unnatural ones are those who think they can live a good life without contributing to such things. Apparently, they think they can live inside a castle and pull up the drawbridge behind them, leaving all the ugliness outside. And that is the perfect, time tested recipe for revolution. It's not exactly the smart move for the long haul.

Maybe Biden's "It's patriotic to pay taxes" and Obama's "you are your brother's keeper" bits did sink in.  Some rich people do get that it's better to be affluent in a comfortable world than filthy rich in an impoverished shithole.  


Its simple (0.00 / 0)
the largest percentage gains were in those who lost 30%+ of their retirement portfolios.

as I said before this election really had nothing to do with Obama, or people powered politics, or black, or white, or Iraq for that matter. the economy has been sliding off a cliff for a year, people suspected we were in deep shit, then Oct 9th and 10th fears were confirmed and the game was over. Democrats are blessed with a train wreck, but the public will just as soon turn on Obama and the Democrats if things don't improve in two years.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


which is to say (0.00 / 0)
few if any of any demographic shifts seen in this election can be considered permanent or part of a longer trend. this is all reversible.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Simple (0.00 / 0)
Yet totally unsubstantiated by the data presented to you.

[ Parent ]
FANTASTIC (0.00 / 0)
This work is invaluable in recognizing the payoffs to the type of campaign decisions made by Obama's teams.

The work and monies spent on strategies and tactics for youth outreach, message management, and media penetration show next-level improvement from Kerry's team, which only happened to pull in more Dem voters than any campaign in history before Obama.

And yet Obama's incredible campaign beat the Kerry standard on every level, in every demo, except possibly for 65+ and Jewish.

Truly remarkable.

Thanks so much for the work in pulling this together, it's excellent.  


Catholics (0.00 / 0)
It seems that all the kvetching about Catholics may have been unfounded (and unfair?)

Obama got more of the Catholic vote than Kerry, and Kerry is  Catholic.

Having been raised Catholic, I know that the ones you hear the most from, the loudest ones, don't represent the majority.  Catholics are very good at just living and voting their conscience, and not saying much about it, realizing that the church leadership is human and fallible and often are, at worst, wrong, and at best, inexperienced with living life in the real world.  I haven't been around the Church for a long time now, but I assume it hasn't changed all that much.


One thought (0.00 / 0)

 I think it helped slightly that Obama is not a Catholic. Anytime a non-conservative Catholic runs for a high-level office, his or her "differences" with the Church establishment become a Big Story, and there's usually a wingnut bishop somewhere weighing in on the possibilities for excommunication and whatnot. It's much less of a focal story when the candidate isn't a Catholic.

 Might be worth a point or two in the voting...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
You are ignoring the obvious results (0.00 / 0)
The biggest improvements were the rich $200K+ +34%, High school dropouts No HS +27%, and Latino +27%.  Surely this is the basis for Obama's coalition.

Signed,
A liar, A Damned Liar, and a Statistic  


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox