The Numbers

A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer

Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.

ARCHIVES

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Previous | Main | Next »

Is it Age?

April 24, 2008 11:45 AM

In the midst of the current discussion of the role of race in the campaign (see yesterday’s blog) comes the curious suggestion from Sen. Obama that his chief challenge is about age, not socioeconomic status. The data don’t seem to bear it out.

As The New York Times reports today: "‘Our problem has less to do with white working-class voters,’ Mr. Obama told reporters Wednesday in Indiana. ‘In fact the problem is that – to the extent that there is a problem – is that older voters are very loyal to Senator Clinton.’"

Age clearly is a factor, as we’ve covered before. But it’s equally clear that socioeconomic status, as measured by the education and income alike, is independently a factor, and a big one. That’s why we’ve focused on SES in the past, e.g. here and here.

Look just at seniors, for instance: Across all primaries to date, among less well-off white seniors (those with less than $50,000 in household incomes), Clinton has beaten Obama by 70-22 percent. Among white seniors with more than $100,000 in household incomes, by contrast, Obama’s actually run ahead, by 50-45 percent.

Put another way, Obama’s support from high-income white seniors has been 28 points higher than it’s been among working-class white seniors. That isn’t just a senior problem.

The results are similar by education – Obama does 21 points better with white seniors who’ve earned college degrees than with those who haven’t. College-educated white seniors have favored Clinton by just 8 points, 50-42 percent; those without degrees have backed her by a whopping 48 points, 69-21 percent.

The relationship is weakest in Obama’s best age group, under 30s, but it’s still there. He’s won under-30 whites in $100,000+ households by 65-33 percent; he’s won young whites in under-$50,000 households by a much closer 53-42 percent.

And the effect holds true in middle age groups as well: For example, Obama’s done 17 points better with white 30- to 44-year-olds who’ve gotten through college than with those who haven’t; and 14 points better with those age 45-64 who’ve been graduated.

It’s surely the case that Obama’s not connected as well as Clinton with seniors. But his relative shortfall with working-class voters is an issue in and of itself – especially if he’s the party’s nominee in November. Primaries attract an upscale crowd; in this year’s Democratic contests, 52 percent of white voters have been college graduates. There tend to be fewer of them in general elections – 44 percent in 2004. To compensate, improving his appeal to lower-SES voters - regardless of their age - is on Obama's plate.

         Among whites
         Clinton-Obama
No college
18-29      43-53%
30-44      56-37
45-64      63-30
65+        69-21

College grad
18-29      37-59
30-44      42-54
45-64      52-44
65+        50-42

<$50K
18-29      42-53
30-44      48-44
45-64      64-30
65+        70-22

$50K-$100K
18-29      45-50
30-44      48-47
45-64      57-36
65+        55-34

$100K+
18-29      33-65 
30-44      45-51
45-64      52-44
65+        45-50

April 24, 2008 in 2008 Primaries | Permalink | User Comments (60)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


All 3 candidates have problems with different groups of voters.

Obama can win back the senior vote more easily than Hillary or McCain could win over African American or young voters!

Posted by: Peace | Apr 24, 2008 1:25:25 PM

i am afraid it is bnot age problem.
It is his heart.why he Obama sadi""his grandmother is a typical white pwerson, a racist. he hurt the pwople's heart.

Posted by: typical white person | Apr 24, 2008 1:33:30 PM

I'm tired of people not reading the ed stats correctly -- yes, Clinton does dramatically better than Obama among those that don't have college ed. Among college educated, they're about evenly split -- Obama does better w/the under 45 college crowd, HRC does better with 45+.

The truth isn't that Hill's supporters aren't educated -- it's that she draws strong support from both the college grad group and the 'no college' group ... Obama's strength is only with the college ed.

Posted by: Lex | Apr 24, 2008 1:47:48 PM

Mathematically, Hillary has already lost. You can't count Florida and Michigan, those states knew the rules, they broke them, their votes will not be counted. The fact of the matter is that if Hillary is made the Dem-Nom the only way she can be now...by having Superdelegates turn against the will of the people...she will lose a huge voting block. Hillary cannot win a general election w/o the black vote.... Like it or not she has pretty much said FU to black people. Her husband was smart enough to understand the importance of the vote...she has not yet. I've heard white people complaining about the black vote and that Barack Obama is getting it. Of course he is...and Hillary is getting the vote of old white people...same difference. Here is the problem, if the nom is handed to her...the black population, WILL NOT go to the polls in Nov. They will not be betrayed again and let it go unpunished! Specifically with how vile Hillary has been in her Kitchen Sink stratergy. I can't wait for Bush to get out and I want Mccain to lose whoever the Dem-Nom is...but Hillary has a 0% chance of beating Mccain w/o the black vote.

Posted by: Concerned citizen | Apr 24, 2008 1:52:46 PM

I am a 51 year old woman and have not thought of myself as angry or old. I am simply backing Hillary because she can handle the pressure. She is smart and tough. When a president has to deal with leaders of countries such as Iran,
he/she better know they are not going to "play nice." We can whine over here
in our country,write letters to the editor of our local paper stating that question were too hard, or the Iranian/terrorist/insert appropriate adjective her/ leader was mean. Call me naive but I don't think the opposing people in power will care. What people don't like about Hillary is exactly what we need in a president. I'm glad she is on our side!

Posted by: Polly | Apr 24, 2008 1:57:55 PM

So let me see if I got this straight. Hillary claims that she is more electable, because she is more prepared to answer the phone at 3:00AM, whereupon she could immediately decide to "obliterate" Iran, right? This a plausible senario, extracted from her own stated positions, proving that she craves power so much she would say and do anything to usurp it. She is as scary as Bush, and every bit as untrustworthy. Please get rid of these despots.

Posted by: aver | Apr 24, 2008 2:10:04 PM

excellent analysis and good point.
why vote for someone who is gettign most of his voters from people making a lot of money. that is elist! it is a bad sign. we dont need a democratic bush.

Posted by: kurt | Apr 24, 2008 2:12:29 PM

I am an almost 60-year-old Hillary supporter. One of my objections to Obama is somewhat age-related. He has consistently sidelined the people of my generation and denigrated our accomplishments. For example, he seems to enjoy criticizing the previous Clinton Administration. Although I believe Bill Clinton seriously undermined his presidency, his administration put the country on a sound economic footing and adopted many effective policies. Anyway, when Obama says that it is time for something new, that he wants to turn the page and write a new chapter, I object to his language because it fails to acknowledge that the people of my generation are still making important contributions to American politics, to the economy, to social programs, and to cultural and educational life. To me, "Washington" is not the enemy. I find Obama to be incredibly arrogant in his belief that after his limited experience that he has the expertise to govern effectively. Maybe he will some day. But for now, I value what Hillary Clinton brings to the governing table. What my generation advocated in the 60s -- social, racial, and economic justice -- has still not been achieved. But we are not ready to pack it in. What is changed in my thinking is that I recognize that experience is highly undervalued in resolving contentious issues and achieving critical goals.

So, I'm not sure Obama can count on my vote if Hillary loses. I'm still thinking about it.

Posted by: dissertator08 | Apr 24, 2008 2:12:36 PM

The FACT is that Obama is simply a
weaker candidate than Cinton or McCain.

Posted by: sandi | Apr 24, 2008 2:14:53 PM

I am a 51 year old man and have not thought of myself as angry or old. I am simply backing Hillary because she can handle the pressure. She is smart and tough. When a president has to deal with leaders of countries such as Iran,
he/she better know they are not going to "play nice." We can whine over here
in our country,write letters to the editor of our local paper stating that question were too hard, or the Iranian/terrorist/insert appropriate adjective her/ leader was mean. Call me naive but I don't think the opposing people in power will care. What people don't like about Hillary is exactly what we need in a president. I'm glad she is on our side!

Posted by: rupert | Apr 24, 2008 2:16:18 PM

Frankly, Obama's negatives are simply
overwhelming.....

Posted by: frank | Apr 24, 2008 2:17:29 PM

What issues is Hillary facing? Oh, the issue of sniper fire! Oh, I forgot that was not a lye it she mis-spoke!!! O.K. She has all this experience. So as we thought it was her running the White House and not Bill??? I wonder would their marriage survive if she Bill does not help her get back in the White House! I hope she does not plan on sharing her duties with Bill. We know she will not be playing stand by your man making cookies!!!!!!! GO OBAMA GO

Posted by: Whitewoman | Apr 24, 2008 2:28:43 PM

The older americans recognize that qualifications and experience are important. they are not likely to fall into the latest fad (obam). they have been there and done that. they are WISE and experienced. that is why they vote hillary!

hillary '09!

Posted by: krist | Apr 24, 2008 2:37:00 PM

MI and FL will not, and should not be counted. They will be seated at the convention in a fair way. The republicans that currently control FL are to blame for FL moving the date up illegally. Only an idiot would vote for the other candidate because the FL republicans caused part of this mess. Obama 2008!

Posted by: pt | Apr 24, 2008 2:47:05 PM

I was an ardent Clinton supporter all through Bill Clinton's Presidency. I often wondered at the time how Bill and Hillary got up each day only to fight the libels and slanders waged against them incessantly. They obviously and understandably did not escape unscathed, but why must they turn their residual anger on Obama. How about more issue concern and less political propaganda. Democrats could then feel
more comfortable with the eventual nominee.

Posted by: Nancy King | Apr 24, 2008 2:49:23 PM

To me, many of Hillary's older white supporters are the last holdouts of lower income/less educated Americans with racists’ leanings that will never vote for a black man. Young white Americans are more 'colorblind' and open to embrace MLK’s dream for Americans to judge a person by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. As her older base dies off, hopefully so will the hypocrisy that keeps this country divided along racial lines.

Posted by: JB | Apr 24, 2008 3:05:53 PM

Actually the article is wrong. If you look at the very numbers given in the article, age is more of a factor than SES. For example, Obama wins among 18-29 with no college, but loses 65+ among college grads. So age is more significant than education in determining who votes for Obama. Age is likewise more significant than income bracket.

Posted by: Gene L | Apr 24, 2008 3:37:45 PM

The data presented here only show the effect of age, education degree and income, not the effect of gender and race, which may show stronger effects. The result of primary in PA show women of middle and old age are more likely to vote in favor of sen. Clinton than younger women. Race may be a stronger factor as 90% of the blacks in Philadelphia voted for Obama, while sen.Clinton got more votes among Catholic and Jewish voters.

Posted by: austin b | Apr 24, 2008 4:07:01 PM

Kirst speak for yourself I am older ,white and educated and I voted for Obama so that does not hold water. I don't consider him a fad...Hilly is a liar,and has much baggage she will never win, the Republicans want her to be on that ballot ....Her experiance is WHAT first lady Ark,first lady and a poor one at that) senator and poor at that.All the promise she made to NY but could not deliver ohhhhhhhhh why Bush got in>>>>> always an excuse for the wench.....Never her fault never answers a question ,just what we need is Billy boy back in the white house....Gads he made this nation a laughting stock and even more so now on the campaign trail for her,he is a has been and so is she.Same ole #### will be going on in Washington..She won't cut off her bread and butter.She cares for herself and herself only,,,Got you fooled hasn't she?????

Posted by: h | Apr 24, 2008 4:17:02 PM

White America claim that they are not racist.
How come they never accept biracial children as theirs,thank God for few white folks like Obama's family.
Obama please ride on for the sake of those poor children and give them hope.
Obama does not have an ounce of racism in him,besides he can't cut his nose in order to spite his face,he owes a lot to his white cousins.

Posted by: y2k | Apr 24, 2008 4:49:01 PM

Post a comment