A well-reported five-point bump in turnout among younger voters helped propel Barack Obama to victory in Iowa, and a look behind the numbers shows just how different this new generation of caucusgoers is from the historically more "reliable" group of over-65 voters.
Last Thursday evening, 22 percent of Democratic caucusgoers were under 30 years old, the same proportion of the electorate made up by those 65 and older, according to the network entrance poll (Democrats, Republicans). (In 2004, the seniors made up 27 percent of all caucusgoers; those aged 17-29, 17 percent; in 2000 those under 30 were just 9 percent of caucusgoers.) And this year, younger voters were worlds apart on ideology, party identification, issues and the election's primary flashpoint: "change."
Politically, Iowa caucusgoers under age 30 were more likely than the senior set to call themselves independents: 26 percent of 17-29 year olds called themselves "independent," more than double the percentage of seniors (12 percent) saying so.
Young caucusgoers are, however, more ideological than their older counterparts. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of 17-29 year-olds described themselves as "liberal" (including 29 percent "very liberal"), while a majority of those 65 and up said they are moderate (55 percent). Thirty-seven percent of seniors called themselves liberal.
74% of young caucus goers self-identified as Democrats, and 73% self-identified is liberals. Yeah, that's some post-partisan and post-ideological generation coming through the ranks.
This is actually one of my great frustrations with the Obama campaign and Obama supporters. Even when Obama wins a victory on the back of the liberal, creative class vote, both his campaign and his supporters--most of whom are liberals--repeat the mantra that the victory was some sort of post-partisan and post-ideological wave. Obama's self-identified liberal supporters aren't even willing to claim what exit polls clearly show to be the case: Obama won because of liberals. Among moderates and conservatives in Iowa, Obama led Clinton by only a 31%-30% margin, while among liberals, Obama led 38%-25%. Without liberals, this Obama surge wouldn't be happening.
This brings me to one of my major problem with Obama: if his campaign and his supporters can't even credit liberals and progressives for a victory they quite obviously delivered to him, then what possible credit or influence will liberals and progressives ever receive in an Obama White House? Iowa progressives and liberals just handed the nomination the Barack Obama, and his campaign won't even give them credit. In fact, Obama's progressive supporters seem to, in large measure, have been convinced to not give themselves credit, either. If the campaign won't promote progressivism now, and if it has the ability to convince progressives to shift credit for their victory to a false post-partisan and post-ideological narrative, how can we ever think that Barack Obama will promote progressivism? If you are interested in having an ideological progressive movement, that is a question that should worry you.
Obama won because of liberals and progressives. I guarantee that New Hampshire exit polls will show exactly the same thing. Hopefully, once they do, the liberal and progressive core of Obama's coalition is something people will start to acknowledge.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
