‘Republican’ resurgence comes from shift in 65-85 year old group
American Conservative Magazine considers who is feeling the the new anger against ‘liberals’ from the Feb.17 Mt. Vernon statement of the Conservative statement of principles:
One of the things that many people have noticed since the release of Mount Vernon statement on Wednesday is the sharp contrast between the youth of the creators (my link) of the Sharon statement and the notable absence of students and young people from the latest gathering. Christopher Buckley quotes Sam Tanenhaus on this point, “The new/old submission seems more like Geriatrics Against Obama.” Fifty years ago, one could have written, as Nile Gardiner does today, that “conservatism is the future” with some reason for believing the claim to be true, and in the decades that followed there was a significant conservative political coalition that seemed to be growing in strength over time. Today it is increasingly difficult to believe anything of the kind.
On average, Millennials’ underlying social and political views put them well to the left of their elders. If you dig into the full report, you will see that the recent Republican resurgence owes almost everything to the dramatic shift among members of the so-called “Silent Generation,” whose voting preferences on the generic ballot have gone from being 49-41 Democrat in 2006 to 48-39 Republican for 2010. There have been small shifts in other age groups toward the Republicans, but by far it is the alienation of voters aged 65-82 that has been most damaging to the Democrats’ political strength*. As we all know, these are the voters who are far more likely to turn out than Millennials, which is why Democratic prospects for this election seem as bad as they do even though the Pew survey says that Democrats lead on the generic ballot in every other age group. Among Boomers, Democrats lead 46-42, and among Gen Xers they barely lead 45-44. In other words, the main reason why the GOP is enjoying any sort of political recovery is that many elderly voters have changed their partisan preferences since the last midterm. Republicans remain behind among all voters younger than 65. That does not seem to herald the future revival of movement conservatism of the sort Gardiner is so embarrassingly praising.
They don’t want the socialist in the White House to mess with their Social Security and Medicare!
Now that is a shock. Pew reports one reuslt and Rasmussen reports another: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Instead of concentrting on age groups, highlighting likely voters Rasmussen says: “Voters not affiliated with either major party continue to favor the GOP by a 42% to 22% margin, showing little change for several months now.”
Unaffiliated voters is a far more important group. 20 points might be considered significant.
Keep in mind that you are talking about the Rasmussen report, which has a very strong GOP leaning. That strong GOP leaning isn’t due to any overtly corrupt practices, but it has to do with the way Rasmussen weights data. All survey houses weight data and they all have some inevitable bias, and Rasmussen is a good and reputable polling outfit, but you need to be aware of some of the things that affects their numbers.
One of the problems with the Rasumussen report is that the elderly are overrepresented in the sample because the survey was a telephone survey. This is a big problem for all survey services, but it is an especially big problem for Rasmussen. Other pollsters use other communication media to try and compensate. And in this case the use of telephone surveys is especially problematic because there is a VERY strong correlation between AGE and the probability of having a land line. This problem was a nuissance factor in 2004, starting to become a problem in 2006, and by 2008 was a serious problem that people really started to pay attention to. Today it’s a big problem. I know that my wife and I are pretty close to ditching our land line. The only reason we keep it is that my wife likes having it because of her job. And quite frankly, I cannot think of a single friend under age 30 who has a land line.
2slugs, ther you go again with the misdirection. Rasmussen has actually been the more accurate poll, especially when compared to the Dem leaning Pew.
So which point of “likely voters” makes sense to you? The higher rate of Srs who vote versus the lower rate of the <30ers and their land line Vs Cell??? Misdirecting!
Rasmussen is a good pollster, but over the last several elections cycles Rasmussen has hardly been the most accurate. I think the general consensus is that Rasmussen ranks third in accuracy. And there have been some serious questions about the way Rasmussen has been wording their questions with some of the Senate polling they are doing.
You’re the one who is misdirecting. The article that Rdan posted was not about whether Republicans would do well in 2010, it was about the demographic composition of voters. The point being that one reason the GOP will likely do well is that the GOP is doing very well among the age group most likely to vote. In your first post you tried to pooh-pooh that idea by pointing to some Rasmussen poll that showed a lot of independents leaning towards the GOP. That’s fine, but when you cite Rasmussen you need to be aware of some of the biases, and in the case of Rasmussen there is a sampling bias because of Rasmussen’s reliance on telephone surveys. That means the old are overrepresented, which means that you have to be skeptical about the breakdown of independent voters. The actual leanings of independents is likely to be skewed towards the GOP simply because of Rasmussen’s reliance on telephone surveys.
And after all that you seem to have conceded Rdan’s original point, which was that GOP luck in 2010 largely hinges on the elderly voting in big numbers. You said:
So which point of “likely voters” makes sense to you? The higher rate of Srs who vote versus the lower rate of the <30ers and their land line Vs Cell???
So you agree that the GOP wins in 2010 will be driven by turnout of elderly voters.
And if you agree, then why did you disagree with Rdan in your first post? You seem confused.
If you dig into the full report, you will see that the recent Republican resurgence owes almost everything to the dramatic shift among members of the so-called “Silent Generation,” whose voting preferences on the generic ballot have gone from being 49-41 Democrat in 2006 to 48-39 Republican for 2010.
And for the GOP this is a long range political problem. It is bad news for 2012 because there will be higher voter turnout, but it’s also bad news in the sense that the GOP has hitched its wagon to a rapidly diminishing base. The “Silent Generation” is now increasingly facing the permanent silence of the grave, and that’s a real problem for conservatives. Growing up as a Chicago kid I was never shocked about voter turnout in the cemetary precincts, but I don’t think that’s something that the GOP should count on.
Who here thinks 2slugs speaks truth? He said: “…but over the last several elections cycles Rasmussen has hardly been the most accurate. I think the general consensus is that Rasmussen ranks third in accuracy. ” There’s those personal projections again!
The actual results: “The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)”
And that’s how I remember the past election cycle.
Uh, CoRev, didn’t you just post this: “Rasmussen has actually been the more accurate poll, especially when compared to the Dem leaning Pew.”
From the list you just posted, Pew is *tied* with Rasmussen.
Then you follow this with “And that’s how I remember the past election cycle.”
If you can’t remember between two posts on the same thread, to you really expect us to believe you remember the past election cycle?
But it’s not just the Presidential election popular vote that goes into a ranking. You also have to look at how well the pollster did state by state, how well they did in predicting Congressional races, how well they did in predicting Senate races, etc. And there are different measures of accuracy…MAD, MAPE, RMSE, etc. They all weight forecast errors differently.
And speaking of pollsters, the guy who best interprets polling data is Nate Silver. Here is one of his lists of rankings:
And note that I said over the last several election cycles.
Silver has far and away the best prediction record. He is not a pollster, but uses polling data to make predictions.
Joel, what part of tied for first makes Rasmussen third? My point.
You posted this: ““Rasmussen has actually been the more accurate poll, especially when compared to the Dem leaning Pew.”
Your subsequent post falsified your statement.
I expect that the blogs will be filled with excuses, blame games, and endless whinning for the next twelve months regarding the November 2010 elections. I find the exercise to be a waste of time as an independent voter. Both of the major political parties are a bit of joke at this point.
Democrats who are seeking positive election outcomes would be well advised to read this opinion piece:
How to avoid a repeat of 1994
by Stanley B. Greenberg
Feb 19, 2010
Democrats eager to dispute various poll findings (playing out the excuse games) may benefit from reading the results of a recent Democratic poll located here:
Democracy Corps – Third Way Frequency Questionnaire
February 20-24, 2010
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
Take on these poll results if the intent is to whine and make more excuses.
The Reagan democrats put Scott Brown in the Senate. They’re generally not in the 65-85 age range. I’m not sure what the author here is trying to sell us, or what he’s smoking. Anyway, wait until the young yet forced to buy a $1,500 worth or insurance for over $4,000, see if they still love Obama after that.
“Anyway, wait until the young yet forced to buy a $1,500 worth or insurance for over $4,000, see if they still love Obama after that.”
Ah, yes. More dire prophecy from conservatives. The same folks who predicted disaster from Social Security. The same folks who predicted disaster from Medicare. The same folks who predicted disaster from the Clinton tax increases. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Won’t they ever learn?
A cornerstone of the Obama healthcare plan is to force healthy people to buy overpriced insurance and then skim off the top using their premiums to subsidize the poor and the sick. This is just a fact and if you don’t believe it I suggest you do some research.
I’m not sure the silent majority is so silent these days. And when the old die off the democrats will still need money and take from the living which will provide fresh new recuits of people that don’t want their money taken away. So the trends are not really going the way of the democrats.
Look at the election of Scott Brown — it tells me the support for democrats is very soft — even in their supposed strongholds.
“This is just a fact and if you don’t believe it I suggest you do some research.”
I’ve done enough research to know this is just standard Republican party bafflegab.
The cornerstone of the Obama plan is to insure as many people as possible. In order to succeed, healthy people should not be allowed to game the system by hanging out until they are injured, then buy in.
As a healthy person who only used his insurance only once in 30 years to cover an accident, I’m well aware that it was “overpriced” until I needed it.
What’s “overpriced,” Cantab, is American healthcare. Every other developed nation in the world can deliver universal healthcare for a per capita rate half that of the US, while covering everyone and getting as good or better outcomes.
Only an idiot would defend our current system.
Despite Republican claims that Democrats are increasing taxes, Grayson (D-Fla) on Friday introduced a bill that would allow ALL Americans to buy into Medicare if they so chose.
The bill (H.R. 4789) would give the option to buy into Medicare to every citizen of the United States. The “Public Option Act,” also known as the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,” would open up the Medicare network to anyone who can pay for it.
In order to succeed, healthy people should not be allowed to game the system by hanging out until they are injured, then buy in.
You are in denial and this line just does not cut it. If the plan wanted to recover the expected cost of young healthy people their healthcare cost would be something like $1,500 a year. You can call it republican talking point but Obama says his plan won’t work without the mandatory coverage. This means those forced to buy coverage that now choose not to will be paying way more than actuarial expected value of their coverage. They are the source of funds that balances the system. Without this overcharge Obamacare is toast. Obama knows this, he says as much but with a different spin.
The Republican will either destroy America or themselves. Eight years of Bush and the lowest income tax rate since the income tax came into existance and they almost destroy the economy. Eight years of Bush and he double the National Debt and turn a budget surplus into the largest deficit of all times. Eight years of Bush and we now arrest and torture people and hold them in prison forever without a trial and without access to lawyers and defend it by saying we are keeping the country safe from terrorists but not safe from them.
“Without this overcharge Obamacare is toast.”
Without health care reform, the US health insurance system is toast, Cantab. Healthcare cost growth is unsustainable, under a system in which more and more are not insured at all.
Healthcare will change.
In other words, those born before desegregation.
>>That does not seem to herald the future revival of movement conservatism of the sort Gardiner is so embarrassingly praising.<< “Embarassingly”….spoken like true Pravda journalist.
Healthcare cost growth is unsustainable, under a system in which more and more are not insured at all.
If the rate of cost increase is not sustainable then by definition they will stop growing.
Obama care goes the wrong way. The solution is to get individual involved in price seeking.
J Godwin. Huh! Says more about you than anything.
MLR will kick in and rebate portions of the premium to those who have little payout for illness or injury. In many states, the MLR exists now but at a 70/30 ratio and not the 80/20 (individual) or the 85/15 (group) ratios. It is my understanding this still exists in the Obama plan as well as the variance in payments based up age, smoking, individual, family, etc. Young individuals will still have the lowest premiums and those whose payments exceed the payment caps or are below the cap income for subsidies will receive help in the form of government subsidies. They will not pay “way more” than the actuarial value of coverage in any one year.
Being in denial is refusing to purchase healthcare insurance the same as riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Lack of responsibility and resulting sickness and/or injury should not be solely society’s burden.
It is unfortunate Liberman flipflopped on Medicare coverage for 50-55 and over.
More accurate polling…………..
In simulations and modeling we do validation, verification and accreditation (VV&A) of the models and the result still are horrid to represent real life.
What kind of VV&A do you suppose pollsters do??
And what is it worth?
And what has labeling some non VV&A’ed idea patriotic got to do with anything?
Oops we are not talking texas textbooks here…………….
or are we.
Scott Brown is an opportunist who sold himself to more than a few loser constituencies who would usually be at odds.
Also, before you say his is Hercules look at his opponent.
While you are at it check out how far the Red Sox went in the AL playoffs, the Celtics, Bruins….
The poor Mass voters needed something to cheer, after NY won THE SERIES.
Aside from Masachussetts’ third world infrastructure which cannot handle a Nor’easter, what would the poor Mass folk have of note but Playgirl Scottie?
The young should no more bear the burden of paying for Grandpa’s health than they should go off to war for the militarists!
Cantab is a class generational warrior using psywar blither to keep the US of serfs impoverished.
The housing bubble was unsustainable.
ABS, CDS, MBS all were unsustainable trash.
The militarist adventures which plunder US productivity are unsustainable.
Sending technoogy and jobs overseas with not limit is unsustainable.
When the cards all fall wha happens?
The banks are sustained, but the population can rot.
The war machine will be untouv=ched but medicare will suffer.
When it all collpases the serfs are the victims.
Cantab will no succor the poor, sick or needy.
His serf’s cottage is worth keeping the status quo of wage slavery based on “employer provided” health insurance for the employed healthy.
Insurance is a privilege not to be meted out for the mob…….
Just pay some attentin to the poeple who took this so called poll,
it is not to be trusted
“Confused” is generous. CoRev, in general, means to confuse. Reality is often unfriendly to his views, so he attempts to confuse teh unwary about the nature of things.
A case in point would be his claim that you, in stating facts entirely germain to the issue at hand, are somehow attempting misdirection. When reality is unfriendly to CoRev’s view, “misdirection” means “getting us back on topic”.
Under the circumstances, I think it’s fair to ask — Who here thinks CoRev speaks truth?
Well, personally I find the left right arguments boring. Sorry.
But the question posed by the original blog entry is interesting. I have noticed this phenomena since the tea parties and town hall disruptions. What of the 62-65 crowd? Are they uncertain of whether to protect their future entitlements or are they hoping to be entitled earlier?
“Fix” is a frightening word for this 65-85 group. Recall the result of Bush’s push for privatization of SS. Also, within this group is a sandwich that fell between WWII and Vietnam. I am not sure how the Korean Police Action affected the general population of draft eligibles.
I understand “boomers” and “greatest generation” but who is this group? How have they always voted? And it is an important point that many were pre-1965 in the history of this nation. I think this is hard for people younger than myself to grasp.
Look, no one seemed to notice during the election that Obama had a tone of saving the young at all costs. He bought into the SS crisis but was going to look at it. He suggested “means testing” (really income testing) of entitlements. But no one was listening since they just escaped Bush’s solutions.
Because retirees are fixed income they are especially afraid of anything that might lower that income or change the status quo that they have budgeted for.
Another musing is that one of the things that retirees keep hearing everywhere is that “major” changes to Medicare are coming. I think this makes the Medicare C spin effective because it feels like any change is this looming big change beginning and targeting an entitlement reduction.
The Dems have been totally ineffective at communicating with this group and have adopted the “my chullen and grandchullen” talking point from the Reps. They sound like a totally schizophrenic party jumping from place to place rather than selling the American society’s welfare as they used to be able to do.
I imagine this group is not so much Republican leaning as self-preservation leaning. I don’t think it is selfishness because many have little they can afford to share.
I guess I am wondering if the results have nothing what-so-ever to do with political parties. Any party in power that started talking about “fixing” the status-quo might see this result. This group has good reason to fear “change”. They can’t really assess if they should fear the “status quo” so it seems better.