Tuned In, TV Blog, Television Reviews, James Poniewozik, TIME

May 6, 2008 10:05

The Media's Generation-Gap Gap

Posted by James Poniewozik | Comments (30) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

A question to consider as the Indiana and North Carolina returns come in today: What's the biggest determining demographic factor in the Democratic primary? It's gender, right? God knows you can't open a newspaper politics section, or even a style section, without reading about the great war between the boys and the girls in the Democratic party. Or, wait—it's got to be race. That, and religion. I mean, look at how much Jeremiah Wright dominated the news! Or, oh yeah, I forgot—class. It's about the latte liberals versus the Dunkin Donuts Dems! It's the lunchpails versus the bento boxes! Right?

Wrong. Across the electorate as a whole, the single most significant factor in determining whether a Democratic-primary voter goes for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is age. Take the number 45 and draw a line through the middle of it: if you're over 45, you're more likely to go Clinton, if you're under, you're more likely to go Obama. Period. (The one exception, as this New York Times article points out, is race, but only for African American voters. The white vote splits much more evenly.) For all the attention paid in Pennsylvania, for instance, to the number of blue-collar white voters and how best to reach them, in the end the state that has the second highest percentage of senior citizens in the nation went for Hillary.

If that's the case, why doesn't age get more attention in the political coverage and the analysis of election returns? Why aren't there anguished analyses of why Clinton can't reach young people or why Obama can't win over seniors? I'm not saying the media never covers it, of course—given how much airtime the election gets, the political media is bound to cover everything eventually. (Update: And to be fair, the reason I know about the age gap at all is, duh, media reports). But proportionally it doesn't get nearly the play and headline coverage as race, gender and class have.

What gives? A few theories, if not actual answers, after the jump:

* We don't want to talk about it, because it makes us feel old. This is my first, knee-jerk guess, but on further thought it's probably wrong. Certainly it's true that by and large the major decision-makers at TV networks, magazines and newspapers are Boomers, and Boomers have never cared for admitting that they're on the older side of an age divide. But coverage decisions aren't made entirely top-down, and a big chunk of the high-profile reporters covering the campaign are under 45, from our own Ana Marie Cox to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo (and, of course, a big chunk of the blogosphere). Besides, if Boomer vanity is a factor, then you also have to consider that a lot of media Boomers are, or appear to be, pro-Obama—so if anything, generation-gap coverage would make them feel younger than their peers.

* It's not sexy. Also a knee-jerk explanation, but probably more plausible. Unlike in 1968, people just don't fight about age the way they do over race or sex. (They don't yet, anyway. See if that changes if there's a convention fight.) You can guarantee a zesty back-and-forth on a cable show asking whether Obama voters are sexist or Clinton voters are racist. Age is not seen as the same kind of attention draw.

* Guilt, or lack thereof. Given the number of culture wars that have been fought in the media over race and gender—not just in the election but in scads of stories from the Duke lacrosse case back to O.J. and beyond—there's an ingrained sensitivity to those issues in the media. (Which is complicated by our knowledge that our profession's top positions are dominated by white men.) And as in the Kurt Andersen column we discussed yesterday, especially among the higher-paid national media, there's a certain amount of class guilt or self-consciousness about being out of touch with regular people. So when someone makes elitism an issue in an election (see: Kerry, John, windsurfing and) we go into overdrive. Age, on the other hand, isn't much of a source of guilt in the media. If anything—working in an advertising-based business in which sponsors pay more to reach younger audiences—we're trained to see dividing people by age as being natural and part of business.

* The campaigns don't talk much about it, except through the code words "change" and "experience." If true, a very lame reason indeed.

* Condescension. I wonder if part of the reason is simply that, where we see racial, gender and economic schisms as troubling, we see generation gaps as being natural and not worth talking about. And part of the reason for that, I suspect, is a simplistic view of how voters think. We look at the age gap in voting and assume that people are just simple-mindedly joining their affinity groups, without any deeper issues behind the decision. Young people like the younger guy, the new, cool "product"; older people like someone their age, a familiar brand they know from way back when. But there's more to it than that, and the reasons for the age breakdown should be at least as interesting and worth analyzing as those for age and gender.

The generation gap in voting is a question not just of different ages but different worldviews: for instance, the Obama message of grassroots networking and "we are the ones we've been waiting for" is essentially a Web 2.0 view of politics, while the Clinton argument that voters want to hire someone experienced who will do the job for them is very different. And that difference says a lot about where the country may be headed, not just in politics but in communications, in business, in culture. Surely that's as worthy of analyzing as wearing a flag pin or drinking a whiskey shot?

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (30)

CMR:

Interesting. I thought religion was more of a factor (and not in the Rev. Wright sense). People who attend church regularly vote overwhelmingly for Clinton and Clinton is really crushing Obama as far as the Catholic vote is concerned.

Posted by CMR | May 6, 2008 10:36 AM

Lulu Lulu:

Hmm...the more I think about it, the more I think that the #2 argument is probably the most spot-on. The race/gender divide makes people uncomfortable and is therefore more interesting to talk about. It also makes people feel either superior or defensive, depending on which candidate they are going for. Age just isn't that way.

Posted by Lulu Lulu | May 6, 2008 10:59 AM

James Poniewozik:

@CMR: To be clear, for all I know there are probably subgroupings where one candidate does especially well in a certain group (again, like with black, but not with white, voters). And I'm sure in individual states, there are bigger differences in certain individual groups. My point is that among the big ubergroups—race, gender, income/class—age is far more dispositive nationwide, especially in comparison to how much press attention it gets. I really am frankly puzzled why there isn't the kind of soul-searching over the generation gap that there is over, say, the (narrower) gender gap.

Posted by James Poniewozik | May 6, 2008 11:00 AM

Molly:

I would guess the lack of discussion regarding age by the Boomers in media is less that it makes them feel old and more that they don't recognize a real difference between their generation and Generations X/Y -- especially if they are Obama supporters. I've heard my mother tell plenty of stories characterizing her parents as old and out-of-touch, but I would doubt she'd view the 30 years difference between our ages in the same way. And I'll hand it to her, she can text message with the best of them...

However, she did vote for Clinton, so I'll have to break it to her that she is, in fact, old. (Kidding!)

But I also don't think the age and gender thing are unrelated. I think many women of my mother's generation view the chance to vote for a female president as the culmination of a movement they've been living for 40 years. Maybe I'm taking all of their efforts for granted, but not having fought those battles myself (I could take dance classes AND play flag football as a kid), I don't identify with that "sisterhood" that my mother refers to, and therefore don't feel the insinct to vote for Hillary because she is a woman.

Posted by Molly | May 6, 2008 11:23 AM

Tom Shaw:

I'd think its a mixture of two things:

1) Pointing out the breakdown does neither side any good. "Obama: The choice of naivety", and "Clinton: The choice of dinosaurs" benefits neither.

2) The whole "Barring any "convenient" plagues, Medicare, Pensions (especially at the state level), and nonexistent Social Security reserve funds will bankrupt the country inside of 20-30 years". Sure, we could start talking about age, but that could lead to issues that should scare any economic-minded person senseless.

Posted by Tom Shaw | May 6, 2008 11:30 AM

cougian:

I think it's none of these explinations do the trend justice. I'm 29, and my parents and grandparents are lifelong Democrats. I support Obama, while they support Clinton. Young people want to believe change is possible. Clinton is the "safer" choice, we know more about her, all her demons are out there. She's got no more skeletons in her closet. People who have suffered through the last 30 (or 60) years of Republican politics want someone they know and can trust. They've fought and suffered with Hillary for 15 years, suffering as she suffered, and believing she'd get her chance. Now that she has it, I think some people are resentful that an upstart would presume to take that chance away. I think a lot of people over 45 or so have an emotional attachment to Clinton, and those under 45 have less of that connection.

Posted by cougian | May 6, 2008 12:47 PM

DM:

Anecdotally, I think Molly's sentiment echoes mine about older women: Now is their chance, and if they don't leap upon it now, they think they might not get another shot for years (if during their lifetime). Perhaps African Americans feel the same way.

I think younger people like Obama because we've only lived long enough to remember the tail end of Clinton's Presidency and the Bush II years. That's a legacy of disingenuity, lies, and divisiveness in the White House, and the "change" is honesty, sincerity, and candor.

So both groups have a chance to get something they haven't had. As for older men, I've got nothing. There's theorizing for you :).

Posted by DM | May 6, 2008 12:54 PM

Verdao:

Perhaps one of the answers is that the media simply has a short attention span. They talked about this issue briefly, then moved on to another narrative.

Way back in the old days of January there were loads of stories about all the young people Obama was bringing out to the polls and to rallies for the first time in their lives. There were also stories about older women in Iowa and New Hampshire backing Clinton.

Then the narrative moved to religion, class, race, and whatever else people could come up with. It's true that, now that the rate of primaries has slowed down, the race and class narrative have gotten more play, but perhaps that just because there's no other fresh narrative for everyone to move to.

Posted by Verdao | May 6, 2008 1:38 PM

Chaddogg:

@James - I think you hit it right on the head, and this is, sadly, one of the great UNDERreported stories (perhaps the ONLY one) in this Clinton-Obama death-spiral of a primary.

When the pundits discuss the fallout from this primary, it's almost always in terms of "will Hillary/Obama's supporters support the other" if they won the nomination.

But what no one (at least that I've been seeing) is discussing is the long-term health of the Democratic party. Face it - the Democrats (and in particular the superdelegates) are playing with demographic fire here. Sure, they might assuage the older, greyer voters by giving Hillary the nomination under some strange logic (because, let's face it, she can't beat Obama in pledged delegates, regardless of what she does) for this election.

But the long term damage in terms of young voters if the Democrats overturn the pledged delegates and Obama? They might, out of bitterness alone, either turn an entire generation PERMANENTLY off of politics, or worse, turn them to Republicans (particularly if a more socially moderate Republican party emerges, as MANY Republicans - including me - hope to see.)

Posted by Chaddogg | May 6, 2008 3:21 PM

beerbaron:

Chaddogg's right. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, I'm moving to Canada. For real this time.

Posted by beerbaron | May 6, 2008 3:49 PM

shara says:

@ Chaddog:

I never had much use for the Democratic Party in the first place, and see them as generally the lesser of two evils. I'm a Green Party girl usually, and have returned to the Democratic Party just to support Obama and oust the Republicans this time 'round. If they overturn the pledged delegates, I for one will be done for good.

Posted by shara says | May 6, 2008 3:52 PM

Chaddogg:

@ shara says - I've never had much use for the Democratic Party in the first place. I'm a fiscal/size of government conservative, and turned to Obama only because I'm appalled at what the small government GOP became under Bush - a big spending, big government, infringing on the Constitution party that turned its back on federalism, small government, humble/reasonable foreign policy, and Constitutionally limited government.

And while McCain speaks a little more like a fiscal conservative, I think McCain-Feingold is the worst/most-unconstitutional law ever enacted by Congress, a tool for incumbent protection, and I simply cannot vote for the man....well, unless Hillary is the Democratic candidate (I hate dynastic politics/mendacity/pandering more than McCain-Feingold).

So I'm for Obama, in the hopes he actually does change politics as usual, reaches out and works with (and not merely against) Republicans (and there are some reasonable ones out there, I certainly hope), and forces the Republican party to reassess what it has come to stand for under Bush (which is not the party I signed up for).

Plus, I think we have a pretty good track record with Presidents from the Midwest, don't you? Truman (Missouri), Lincoln (Illinois), Reagan (also born in Illinois)....the Midwest KNOWS how to govern!

Posted by Chaddogg | May 6, 2008 4:31 PM

Quickdraw:

I'm for Obama, in the hopes he actually does change politics as usual, reaches out and works with...Republicans...and forces the Republican party to reassess what it has come to stand for under Bush

AMEN Chaddog!!

I'm for Obama but I don't think that has much to do with my age (under the 45 year mark). I think it mostly has to do with my virulant dislike of the Clintons. I don't trust them and I don't believe they (because he'll be her #1 advisor) can fix this country. I believe we need a fundamental realignment in America. We need to think beyond tomorrow or the next quarter. We need to think 25, 50 years down the line and think of what kind of world we want to give to our children and grandchildren.

Posted by Quickdraw | May 6, 2008 6:04 PM

aj:

Condescension seems to be the closest to the heart of it... and it's not sexy. When choosing a story for people to connect to, would you choose to cover the ones that have been addressed by significant amounts of legislature, and is a disparity which many groups are always working to correct? More people have more personal feelings invested in race and gender issues--it's an intrinsic, (generally) unchanging part of a person.

It is frustrating that with such a complete media saturation surrounding the primaries, it is still mostly the same issues over and over. It is that wide coverage, and its repetative treatment of issues, that is actually creating the frustratingly drawn-out primary season. When was it decided that the candidate had to be chosen before the convention takes place? It is more likely that more people feel connected to voting when they see how closely the vote is tied to the candidate, rather than letting party politicians choose it for us. Maybe it is the close vote that is making for record poll numbers?

On the other hand, the media's constant coverage of issues which people are closely connected to is another reason for such mass interest.

Posted by aj | May 6, 2008 6:21 PM

thosfiore:

When Bill Clinton was running for President the boomers weren't concerned about how young he was and at the time he was younger that Obama is now. Could it be that the boomers, or at least the leading edge of them, are having trouble with the onset of middle and old age and the passing of their time in the sun? I remember the line from the song Bye Bye Miss American Pie, "the players tried to take the field but the marching band refused to yield". I don't blame them (in fact I'm one of them, albeit from the tail end) for being concerned that their time may be passing, but I think that they should be able to see that Obama could be the best person to lead them into the future. The best part about this race is that we may be able to finally quit fighting about the 1960s and get on with our future.

Posted by thosfiore | May 6, 2008 7:49 PM

Morgan:

I missed Generation X by one year (born in 1977) so I count myself as one of the older part of the Millenial generation. The one thing I can say about my generation is that we're sick of our parents' baby boomer baggage (their divorces, their culture wars, their greed, their arrogance, etc).

What is most disgusting about baby boomer politicians is the terms they have given to political debate. Rather than trying to find the good in what their opponents are saying and working toward a reasonable compromise, baby boomer politicians prefer to politically crucify their opponents so they won't have to engage them in serious conversation. They spend most of their money on public relations and opposition research rather than trying to find out anything about what the public really wants. They throw out fake carrots like this hilarious gas tax holiday which gives money back to oil companies, not to people at the pump. Everything is a PR stunt for them.

I also will say that in my generation being religious does not at all mean being right wing. I identify with those who are called the New Evangelicals. We view fundamentalism and liberalism with about equal contempt. We want to clean up our filthy culture and to root out its injustice at the same time. Family values and social justice are two sides of the same coin to a New Evangelical. So a pro-life politician who votes against funding for single mother support programs will never get my vote. Neither will a liberal who hides behind identity politics and political correctness but never does anything substantive to create a more just government.

I voted for Barack today here in North Carolina because he represents a perspective that transcends the spiritual bankruptcy of most Republicans and Democrats alike.

Posted by Morgan | May 6, 2008 10:44 PM

wildcat69410:

Chaddogg, you call yourself a fiscal conservative, and yet you support Obama? I mean, I understand that the Bush administration utterly failed in upholding the small government ideology, but is Obama any better?

Honestly, this is the same guy that is promoting all kinds of government spending initiatives including Universal Health Care and environmental subsidies. If Bush was bad from a fiscally conservative standpoint, then I don't understand how Obama COULDN'T be worse.

Besides, at least McCain has constantly fought against excess expenditures like porkbarrel spending. Given time, I think McCain will act more like a fiscal conservative than any of the other candidates left.

Posted by wildcat69410 | May 6, 2008 10:45 PM

Malcolm:

I think one reason why this gets less play in the media than the gender or racial gaps is that it's not easy to turn this into an accusation of bias. One can argue that whites who are vote for Clinton or blacks who vote for Obama are racist, but no one would claim that some sort of ageism is involved, in either direction.

Posted by Malcolm | May 6, 2008 11:12 PM

Ryan:

I agree with Malcolm. There isn't ageism involved so it's not remarked upon. What I think is quite remarkable is that for the past two decades, society has had this impression of young people as being uninvolved in politics and apathetic. I think what Obama is illustrating is that the 'millenial' generation is not like GenX. We are involved. We are motivated. And the fact that this demographic is so energized and so savvy bodes well for the future of the Democratic party. But I will say, as someone pointed out earlier, is that if Hillary takes it from the pledged delegates, you will see young people return to their stereotyped apathetic natures.

And the reason why we go for Obama is that we don't like the divisive politics of President Bush and the Clinton years. We are sick of it and Obama, despite sometimes sinking to that level, has clear distaste of it. If Hillary is rewarded for being seen as a fighter (for engaging it), I think the millenials reward Obama for staying above it.

Posted by Ryan | May 6, 2008 11:27 PM

Brainiac:

I'm sure there are many factors, but trying to explain them can make one sound accusatory and there's no gain in that. I think two big reasons for the age gap are 1.) Those most excited about changing America's image, aware of and unhappy about being the hated Americans, are more likely to be captured by Obama's speeches of course, and those most concerned by global issues are young. And 2nd, race. This isn't to say everyone who votes for Hillary is racist, but as you get older odds are higher. Many of us probably have encountered that in our own family. How many of our white grandparents would *consider* voting for a black man? Only 50%? What about parents... 75%? Sure, I made up the percentages but point being that odds of a white voting for a minority would decrease the higher the age. But who would want to say that on TV?

Posted by Brainiac | May 6, 2008 11:55 PM

SC:

Age is a very interesting topic. So are older people 'older and wiser' or are they 'old fashioned and out of touch'? Are younger people 'tech savvy and current' or are they 'inexperienced and rash'?

Posted by SC | May 7, 2008 12:02 AM

CMR:

wildcat, I don't understand how Sen. Obama couldn't be worse than Pres. Bush as far as being a fiscal conservative, either. I understand why the media loves Obama, but I don't understand why so many Independents and conservatives/Republicans do. Obama is an opportunist who will throw anyone under the bus if it helps him get to where he wants to go. He sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. Even Oprah left that church because of the things being said there. Barack Obama did not. Michelle Obama did not. This says a lot more about Mr. and Mrs. Obama than it does about Rev. Wright. Ironically, Rev. Wright hit the nail on the head when he explained to Bill Moyers that Obama is a politican who has to say certain things in order to get elected. He is not the Second Coming.

Posted by CMR | May 7, 2008 7:17 AM

Chaddogg:

@wildcat69410 - yes, I am a fiscal conservative. And yes, I'm supporting Obama.

My vote is (at least in my head) more of a wake-up call to Republicans, who have completely turned their backs on fiscal and federalist conservatism during the Bush years. Remember, one "re-birth" of Republicans as fiscal conservatives happened in 1994 with the "Contract for America," which itself was a reaction to losing an election to what Republicans saw as the liberal Clinton.

Hopefully, my vote and those of other Obamacans, who are supporting Obama because of (his tone/desire to end the war/because he's not Clinton/to end dynastic politics/because its time for a new generation to lead and for us to stop fighting the Boomers' self-involved fights that have lasted 40 years now), will return the Republican party to its fiscal and federalism conservative roots, and turn away from its ludicrous descent into being liberals but with social conservative beliefs.

Posted by Chaddogg | May 7, 2008 9:59 AM

Chaddogg:

Plus, let's remember, if you're a true "conservative," in the sense that you believe in:

1) A federal government limited in power by the Constitution, and the Constitution's supremacy and primacy to our political life,
2) A federal government that allows states autonomy to embrace policies that are favored in that state so long as they don't infringe on the very small segment of "federal government only" territory, and
3) A foreign policy of humble approach, meaning it does not engage in nation-building, but rather solely pursues America's immediate national interests through a mix of diplomacy and military power;...

...it's hard to argue that McCain can and/or should be your candidate. He supports McCain-Feingold, which is arguably the most unsconstitutional abridgement of speech ever, in that it limits and controls political speech - the lifeblood of democracy. He has not spoken out against Republicans who want the marriage "protection" amendment (a "true" conservative might be against gay marriage, but would leave it to the states to figure out), or to overturn Roe v. Wade (again, a true conservative might disagree with the ruling and rightfully see it as judicial overreaching, but it would be just as activist for the judiciary to now overturn 35 years of precedent, and besides, this issue again should be a state-by-state decision). And he supports continuing the war in Iraq - a financial boondoggle that is an example of ridiculous overreaching in foreign policy that does little to nothing to support American national interests (and indeed may actually inflame antagonism towards America from other quarters).

Posted by Chaddogg | May 7, 2008 10:12 AM

karim:

عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار