Perhaps I'm a little sore that Hillary Clinton cited Karl Rove's electoral map analysis in her letter to superdelegates and not ours here at 538, but there's one passage in that letter that's particularly misleading.
The increase in participation in the primaries has been driven by core groups favoring Hillary, led by women, Latinos and older voters.There is no doubt that the share of Latino voters increased dramatically in the primaries, nor that the share of women voters increased somewhat. But older voters?
Overall, more than 22 million Democratic primary voters were over the age of 45 this year, as compared to less than 10 million who voted in the 2004 Democratic primaries.
At the end of this article is a comparison of the composition of the Democratic electorate in the 23 states in which exit polling data was available in both 2004 and 2008. The key findings are as follows:
* The share of the electorate aged 65 and older decreased in 21 states, increased in one state (Wisconsin), and was unchanged in one state (New Hampshire).
* The share of the electorate aged 45 and older, likewise, decreased in 21 states, increased in one state (Delaware), and was unchanged in one state (New Hampshire).
* The share of the electorate aged 18-29 increased in all 23 states.
* Weighted by the turnout in each state, voters aged 65+ made up 18.0 percent of the electorate in 2008 as compared with 23.3 percent of the electorate in 2004; a 22 percent decrease.
* Weighted by the turnout in each state, voters aged 45+ made up 60.9 percent of the electorate in 2008 as compared with 67.9 percent of the electorate in 2004; a 10 percent decrease.
* Weighted by the turnout in each state, voters aged 18-29 made up 14.5 percent of the electorate in 2008 as compared with 9.4 percent of the electorate in 2004; a 53 percent increase.
Did the number of older voters increase in absolute terms? Of course -- since something like three times as many Democrats cast ballots in the primaries this year. The turnout of midgets of mixed French Creole/Albanian ancestry also increased in absolute terms. But the average age of a Democratic voter decreased from about 52 in 2004 to 49 in 2008.
I don't know who runs the Clinton communications shop these days, but there is a certain amount of bottom-feeding in their argumentation that tends to impeach their credibility on other issues. Why not make the argument about women and Latinos -- which ain't a bad argument at all -- and leave it at that?
33 comments
Bill Clinton just said, Hillary failure to cite your maps is part of an ongoing "cover-up"!
Karl's maps?
Oh yeah, the maps he fabricated and sent to Terry McAullife.
Ahhhh, what a priceless Grift.
Check your quotation on this. You cite Clinton as writing:
"Overall, more than 200 million Democratic primary voters were over the age of 45 this year, ..."
The actual quotation from her letter is:
"Overall, more than 22 million Democratic primary voters were over the age of 45 this
year, ..."
(Which at least sounds in the realm of possibility.)
Another way to show the relative proportions of Dem supporters by age is to calculate a measure of over- underrepresentation relative to the share of the VAP or VEP in each age group. (The question of interest isn't only in the overall share of the Dem voters by age.)
Indeed.
I'm going to go further than you, Pablano, and say that ALL of Clinton's arguments, except PERHAPS the women voters one, is total BS.
The latino voter surge was mainly due to a latino population surge and the recent latino political mobilization effort. In addition, the election has actually mattered in a lot of states with a high latino population... there aren't a lot of latinos in Iowa or New Hampshire.
The women voters argument has a slight bit of merit, but she's exaggerating it greatly. Women are a traditionally democratic demographic who traditionally vote in November, but are traditionally not as politically active in other ways as men, so the heightened profile of the primary has increased the voting share among Women in the democratic primary. This argument could probably be applied to latinos as well. And it should be noted that while This is her one argument which is semi-valid, Women haven't favored Clinton by the margins she likes to pretend.
Come pare this to the youth voter increase. You voters have traditionally had a poor track record on voting, both in primaries AND in November. Yet there's been a voter surge in these previously despondent voters. And they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
I'll leave off the messy details of my argument about how this is really more of a generational mindset thing than an age thing, and that therefore this is more important for the future of the democrats than just some random demographic, because it stands perfectly well as a purely demographic argument, and people who don't already get that argument probably won't be convinced.
Furthermore, Rove's putting Minnesota as safe for Hillary but not for Obama is total BS. Obama runs better in Minnesota. (In that whole region, for that matter)
When you are grasping at straws, you do not take time to carefully examine them. Why on earth would a democratic candidate go to Rove? Much less trust what he says?
Hmmmm.... so can we infer from Clinton's use of Rove's map that her campaign has nobody in house capable of doing a similar analysis?? That might explain a few things...
The numbers listed above are rather misleading. Of course Clinton is playing the hyperbole game, but so too is Poblano (who I like and respect, etc.). When you look at the change in the NUMBER of voters, and take into account their relative heft, it is clear that baby boomers (when tend to go for Clinton, albeit less so than seniors) have the best claim to driving rising turnout.
Lets go stateside to find a good case in point!
Texas would seem to be a strong point in Poblano's favour. Percentage-wise the electorate was made up of 32% fewer seniors and 11% fewer boomers, while 18-29 turnout rose 60%.
How many people are we talking about? In 2004 roughly 870,000 people voted in the basically uncontested Texas primary. In 2008, that number was 2,875,000 (I am taking this from David Leip's electoral atlas if you are curious). So turnout more than tripled.
What did this look like on a group by group basis?
18-29
2004: 87,000 (10%)
2008: 460,000 (16%)
Change: +373,000
30-44
2004: 191,400
2008: 805,000
Change: 695,600
45-64
2004: 418,000
2008: 1,236,000
Change: 818,000
65+
2004: 165,000
2008: 373,000
Change: 208,000
So seniors don't look very impressive, but neither do students - and of course we can't stop talking about how wonderful that is (actually having TA'ed intro to American politics, it is decidedly NOT wonderful that more 20-somethings are voting - I would strongly support 21 as the voting age).
Well done. Love your work. --- And I agree she should have used your map as well! If I were here I would have a link to your maps and percentages and would promote it 24/7.
Everyone is going to want to take credit for the new Democratic Majority, but it is a combination of factors that is responsible for it. But, if anyone does get credit, it is Obama ... not Clinton.
You're comparing apples and oranges. She's talking about the raw number of voters and you are talking about percentages of the electorate. It's silly to treat the two as if they are comparable.
"You're comparing apples and oranges. She's talking about the raw number of voters and you are talking about percentages of the electorate. It's silly to treat the two as if they are comparable."
...Which proves that Clinton either has a week grasp on or is deliberately distorting statistics. The voter share rose across the board. The percent of electorate rise is the only meaningful statistic if you want to look at specific demographics, because otherwise, every demographic goes up.
Anon @ 1724, you should be listening, too.
Ron Paul has the midgets of mixed French Creole/Albanian ancestry vote locked down tight. We're boned.
Those who say that absolute numbers matter are right, but clearly the Clinton argument is a sophistry. If indeed "The increase in participation in the primaries has been driven by core groups favoring Hillary" then the simple outcome ought to be a Clinton victory. In fact we can easily see that (a) the votes are evenly split between Clinton and Obama (let's be fair and admit that), (b) on 2004 demographics, Clinton would win. Hence the increase in participation must have been "driven" (whatever that means) by Obama supporters. This is really elementary algebra, you hardly need Poblano to give you nice tables on that!
XANAX WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION
OXYCONTIN ONLINE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION
Didrex without a prescription
BUY CHEAP LORTAB
Ambien Online
in 2000 a huge turn out of students at the primary,but not the election bush won. in 2004 a huge turnout over students at the primary not the election bush won.2008 a huge turnout of students at the primary .can oyu say deja vu. the fact is older voters vote and younger ones dont.
Anonymous @ 5:27 -- Now you're just making stuff up.
I agree with hosertohoosier. First of all, I really like your analysis. I think you have done a spectacular job. In fact, I think you may have been cited (but not by name) in the memo--when they mention poll analyses showing Clinton with over 300 electoral votes.
But anyway, the point they were trying to make is to think about all the new voters, including three critical groups in the Dem. coalition for the general. It is not "particularly misleading" as you claim. I think you might do a better job here if you'd be more objective in reporting (why not just say "Their claims should be dissected, and it depends no whether you look at % increase or numeric increase." It is much more balanced.
Anywya, seniors have numerically risen in primary turnout, even though no one is talking about it. These new senior voters count just as much as all the new young voter on the numeric comparisons. And we all know these seniors matter in the general (as a %) more than young voters based on past experience. That's why increasing seniors as much as young voters, can marginally make the difference if they are in your camp. And then, as you explain, the evidence for % and numeric increases in Latinos (which is definitely attributable to Clinton in Texas and California, of not elsewhere--the evidence of that is pretty incontrovertible) and women also help her cause.
The point on seniors is, what coalition of "new" voters wins the general? A lot of new senior voters is a significant achievement, as much as the # of new young voters.