Keep this post by Kevin Drum in mind. We should be wary of the numbers for subgroups in exit polls if the subgroups are too small. Nonetheless, look at those numbers for Obama and Clinton among the 20-somethings and the over-65s. Well, especially look at the preference of those in their early 20s. In New Hampshire I did indeed see a few youngish people with Hillary signs. And yes, some (perhaps the same people) were prominently featured directly behind her in her tv events over the last week (perhaps b/c the backdrop behind her on caucus night was widely derided as nothing but old people and Clinton administration retreads). But generally speaking what I saw among her supporters was something akin to the bizarro version of the Logan's Run universe. Obama had masses and masses of the young (and a good number of older people too), while Hillary ... well, the number of her supporters born after the 1960s seemed few and far between. Very few and far between.
People will no doubt discuss how that'll play out in the election cycle this year. But the point I want to raise about it in this post is this. Is it really a good idea for a party which is benefiting from the current young generation turning sharply against the Republican Party (remarkably so) to nominate a presidential nominee they at best are indifferent to, and in many cases don't like? These people will be voting for decades, and they already turned out at a record pace in 2004. Is it in the best interests of the party to reject their candidate when they are (or could be) the future of the party? I'm not saying the party absolutely must go with their preference. But I think it's a point worth raising in the discussion.
Posted by armand at January 11, 2008 07:24 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics