Why Are Older Voters Afraid Of Change?

I can't speak for anyone over the age of 30, since I'm not. I'm 29.

But I can't imagine being, say, 60 years old, having lived through ever election since JFK's, and not wanting to support a candidate who offers such a fresh new voice to our party.

I mean, I'm only 29 and I feel like if Obama doesn't get the nomination, that I won't be able to vote for anyone like him for another 30 years or so. He's so radically different in the way he sounds and the way he approaches politics that I can't remember watching anyone like him since I became interested in politics 15 years ago.

How can someone be 50+ and want the same thing they've always gotten?

No knock on Hillary on any single issue she supports, or her quality to be president, but she does represent the same old Democratic establishment.

Why is that attractive to older people?

What's wrong with something new?

but that's besides the point and not an answer to the question I asked.

that would answer the question, if the question was 'why do establishment democrats like older voters' - but not as to why older voters like establishment democrats.

and i'm voting for kucinich in the primary and whatever democrat gets the nod in the general election.

O appears to many that I hang with as the least left of the Obama/Hillary/Edwards group - and God bless DK.

But I do like the meme "old folks that are leftest Democrats don't want changed"

I didn't mean any broad brushing, I'm just pointing to the statistical data from the first three states that show voters over 45 going overwhelmingly for Clinton.

between myself and Hillary Clinton as possible. So thanks for the compliment.

Hillary Clinton refuses to take any options off the table when it comes to Social Security reform. Why seniors do not listen to her when she speaks is a mystery to me. She often mentions negotiating with the Republicans and refers to the compromise to save Social Security that was reached in 1980s. That compromise raised the retirement age and cut benefits. Many babyboomers still working today would have retired at 55 had the Dems not compromised and insisted that the Social Security surplus be kept out of the general ledger. Dems cannot stake a position and fight the Republicans over the integrity of it, and we have many conservative Dems in this party.

And looking at the present day, the DLC is winning this election.

he doesn't give a shit about 'baby boomers'. Do some research.

Voting for her would be like voting for a republican and not a light one at that.

It's probably not a good idea to be condescending. Why use the word "afraid"?

Whatever adjective fits best. Aversion, hesitence, ect.

for 40-some years (all my adult life). All we're getting is more of the same, and Barack is no different.

Sometimes it takes young people a long time to realize that

You couldn't have found a more idealistic person in this country than me 40 years ago. We know how that worked out.

:thumbsup:

and in each Democrat presidential election until Clinton.

Clinton gave us the most change! For the worst!

I sure as hell won't be voting for another Clinton.

I like Edwards first, then Obama, maybe.

I'm 52 and for Dennis Kucinich.

it shows older voters (45+) going to Clinton and those under going to Obama.

sorry. they never mention those two.

If it's only based on stats for Clinton and Obama. And btw, just because Obama has made "Change" his campaign mantra doesn't mean he'll do anything differently as president than Clinton would.

but regardless of whether their line-by-line policies would be different, Obama as president would be a completely different page in America than if Clinton were president.

I take that back. Clinton would be a different page. Obama would be a completely different book.

and be effective in dealing with Congress to get anything done. LBJ was effective with Congress because he'd been a major player there for many years. I don't know if we'd have gotten the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, Medicare, and Head Start enacted into law if it had been another person. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter, who ran as an outsider, had a terrible time with Congress--and that was when we had a majority in both houses.

Get off my lawn.

:thows toilet paper and runs away:

Great response! :spray:

this is not the time to be playing games and taking chances with the CONS,we need someone who knows how to fight these bastards, or that is the way I see it,.

And you're old enough to have seen that by now.

When you've seen enough fads come and go you learn that things are seldom "different this time" and that things that capture the public imagination often end badly. The culture throws up heroes then slams them down, cyclically. We love novelty, but novelty isn't novel after a few months, and we then blame it for the fact we're bored with it.

If the election was next week I'd support Obama.

But it isn't, and I have seen how the media and people turn on anything fresh and new when they've had their fun.

But they will vote for change in a candidate they are most familar with, the candidate whose husband was two-termer who presided over some of the greatest prosperity America has seen in the last 25 years.

they all wanna keep Bush in the White House.

From a policy perspective, he's almost identical to Clinton. He's also a corporatist, go along to get along type. His most prominent supporter is the milquetoast Oprah. There is nothing substantially radical about him or his candidacy.

What this country does NOT need is another "corporatist" president, and I don't care who they are.

The idea that Obama is going to "change" things sounds great, but I still have not seen and substance to that claim. Obama is not the canidate of change, no matter what he says. The Rezo thing is going to come back and bite him in the butt big time.

is that he will be getting advice from his admin, which is the same as it is now....no change at all.

I want change so bad I can taste it.

We are just not interested in electing a fake Democrat - someone who is homophobic, promotes a generational war and insults the early and pre boomers, elongates a race debate for the short-sighted and cynical purpose of winning one southern state at the possible expense of the Dem party, and then puts his National Co-Chairman out to make vile sexist remarks.

You say that Hillary is the same old Democratic establishment - I say that Obama is the same old Republican hate mongering jerk.

Is that the change that you want? He is a simple cynic wearing the mask of hope.

My concerns are WHO can make it happen. I happen to think Edwards would do the best, but apparently lots of other Dems don't agree with me. I'm SCARED TO DEATH that Obama simply doesn't have the experience to fight off the RW attacks! Please note that I DIDN'T say he doesn't have the exp. to be Prez!!!! I think he's be a GREAT President! But he has to get elected first!

We've all seen the first few attacks against him already. He's a Muslim. He attended a madrassa. His middle name is Hussein. Sure he's denied all that, but it hasn't seemsed to work so far. Those are just the beginning of the attacks, and because I don't have the devious mind of a Karl Rove, I have no idea what they'll be, but we all know they'll be hot, heavy, and vicious! I don't think he's taken the badgering and beatings to be able to take the hits and survive.

I'm going to be 57 in a couple of weeks, and I want change--radical change. Always have, ever since I marched in '69 and was able to cast my first vote for McCarthy in the Democratic primary in '72. I don't think age is always a factor in whether or not you want radical change--it is more about your mindset. If you live your life based on fear, then the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Problem is, you're always expecting devils and not angels, darkness and not enlightenment. Maybe that's why we wound up with Nixon, with Reagan, with Bush. I do think that electing Carter and Bill Clinton showed the electorate was ready for some change. Trouble with me is that the change that they offer is never progressive enough, left enough, for me. I've wanted socialized medicine in this country ever since 1966, when I found out about Canada's system. I've wanted legalization of marijuana ever since I was assigned to debate about it in high school in 1967 (and I've never smoked or eaten it). I've wanted corporations out of the lobbying business ever since I read "Who Rules America?" in 1968 (things haven't changed much; insurance and drug companies still own Congress). I've believed in world government and green living just about as long. Will any of these things happen in my lifetime? I don't know, but I'll still fight for these ideals.

I'm glad you've found a person and a cause that works for you. My candidate is Dennis Kucinch, and will continue to be, even if I have to write him in on the ballot on Feb. 5th.

it's natural for most to resistant change, and older people are even more resistant to change. just the way it is.

how old are you?

I've found I'm better equipped for change now that I'm in my late 50s than when I was in my early 30s.

i'm 35. and i am very change resistant. :D. but what you're saying makes sense.

No joking, it really pissed her off.

She felt like she was a throw away to him. Just giving an honest answer.

I will be 50 in a couple of months. I was already pretty much decided on Clinton but I do admit that his comments about us old boomers didn't exactly want to make me sit up and listen to what he had to say. The majority of people who vote are over the age of 45. So comments like that are not very smart.

I'm a pretty 'cool' 50 yr old and have never been thought of as someone who needs to be put out to pasture, but this Obama stance really pisses me off. Pander to the young...they will lead you to victory....fuck that. I'm going to make sure all of my 'old' friends come out to vote.

Bush has turned the world upside down. Things have to be changed.

Give us some details, then compare and contrast what the other candidates are offering. Obama does not win the "change" argument, other than saying the word three times in every sentence.

happen to our democracy. We have lost civil liberties. We are in a mess in Iraq. We have neglected solving global warming (we could have had Al Gore as president for the last seven years!).

To navigate through the mess we are in takes experience.

You're going out to buy a car. They both cost the same. One is a 1995 Honda Accord with 200,000 miles on it, the other is a 2008 Toyota Prius with 50 miles on it.

Why not get the new one? They'll both be reliable. But the newer one gets better gas mileage and ushers in a new era of radically different automobiles.

He hasn't made any statements that justify the Prius designation.

i checked out a prius (i'll be in the market for a car this year). over $20,000 - do they come much much cheaper than that?

if you want the base version, you can get it for around 18,000 some places.

my little cottage and not buy a shiny new Mc Mansion. I call that smart. Why do young people always have to have change?

for a candidate that gives them a sense of security. One that respects them and their service to this great country. Who says someone older and wiser cannot change the course of this country. Once HRC is in the white house and 60 years old we all will see one hell of a change this country will under go and it will be of great benefit to us all.....

things in general are good and just. I don't think they think about how big a role CHANCE plays. The system that gave them what they have come to think of as "Good" lives must be good, therefore it must not change.

They also assume that their definition of the "Good" life is universal and that it applies to all future generations. The Good Life is what future generations should have, not the life that they, future generations, want, but the one that their predecessors have identified as "Good".

Have you ever been to Europe? Visiting there for a few weeks will give you some perspective on what Americans call the Good Life.

And Obama's my choice.

I know several other people who have hit the half century mark who also support him.
Fairly equally balanced male/female.

I have my doubts about the polls which say women are not strong Obama supporters- when does a poll become self fulfilling prophecy in the end?


The media needs to back the hell off.

peace~

& don't think how this will affect people who have their life's savings in 401k funds.

This may be the biggest issue - economic stability as they approach retirement/are retired.

I don't hear anything new in Obama's economic message, and I don't expect to hear anything new from his economic adviser, Gene Sperling. Sperling hasn't figured out that "free trade" and globalism haven't worked out as advertised. He seems to be empirically challenged.

The corporations are going to look really bad, and the populist trend in congressional election may hit a peak in 2010.

Will Obama be able to effect real change economically?

I have serious doubts.

and hillary reflects the past.

Trading on MLK's legacy, praising Reagan, promising to be a uniter and work with Republicans, reaching out to the DLC. There is simply nothing radical about him or his agenda.

Clinton and Obama are virtually indistinguishable on the issues, so for many the choice then becomes who they think is most capable of quickly enacting the changes they both propose. Clinton will likely win with voters on that point.

Magic Rat wrote: "I can't speak for anyone over the age of 30, since I'm not. I'm 29."
========================
Then don't. Not every 29-year old thinks/votes/acts the same nor do 60-year olds. You might take into account that, believe it or not, long experience actually DOES have an effect for some people when you've seen cyclical patterns repeating themselves and harbingers of "change" over and over for 4 or 5 decades.

but the entrance and exit polls in all three states are pointing to a pattern. A clear and obvious pattern of an age gap going on.

And it's not a 55%-45% tiny gap. It's like a 70%-30% age gap, or close to it.

(btw, where were all the college kids in NH?) :shrug: They were a 'no show'!



http://www.pickyourpresident.org/

RESULTS ALL STATES

1. Sen. Barack Obama 54.61%

-------

CA - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 37.53% (WON)

CO - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 47.74% (WON)

MI - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 55.47% (WON)

NM - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 46.64% (WON)

OH - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 48.12% (WON)

WA - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 46.45% (WON)

WI - 1. Sen. Barack Obama 51.17% (WON)



http://pickyourpresident.org/?Latest_Results

Poll was taken at Eons the place to be for people 50+.

I have a son your age.

I'm not "afraid" of change. I voted for change in '04, and will do so again in '08.

Obama is not the change I wish to see. To be frank, I don't see him offering the significant positive change that can earn my respect, my support, and my vote.


I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich, who stands for the kind of change I wish to see during my lifetime.

And I'm 72 years old. Bring it on! But Obama isn't the change I'm looking for.

by the Flavor of the Week candidate, and prefer the one with substance?

maybe?

has been the least, um, bullshitty?

Howard Dean and John Edwards had more bullshit than John Kerry?

Bill Bradley had more bullshit than Al Gore?

Paul Tsongas and others had more bullshit than Bill Clinton?

Ted Kennedy had more than Jimmy Carter?

Her gender is the ONLY bit of change she represents for the party. Everything else is establishment.

anti-establishment.

Clinton's old guard? Kerry's old guard? The DLC's old guard? Chicago's old guard? The old Union guard? One out of five ain't bad, I guess.

The reason Obama can't win on the argument of change is because ideologically he is hand-in-hand with Clinton. People who want "change" will look at them both and decide Hillary can be more effective at bringing about change because of her experience. I think that's why Obama has lost some momentum.

On personality, he can win over new people, but an exciting personality is nothing radical or new. Playing up a racial divide by sending his wife out to play dirty politics by pushing the "fairy tale" meme and further divide people is not radical or new.

I think us "old" people want change more than the younger ones, but we know a con job when we see one. Neither Obama nor Clinton are the candidates of "change". They both get their money from the same coporations that run this country now, and will still be running it if either of them get elected! Change is not just a "word" that can be used to con people into supporting you, it's real, and only one candidate is offering that kind of "real" change, and his name is Edwards!

but why are the older voters supporting her more than Edwards?

Many people think by electing her they will return to the "good" times of the Bill Clinton era. It ain't so, but she throws that into her speaches every chance she gets, and there are many who really are hurting, who think by electing her things will go back to the way they were. Sad, but true.

:eyes:

So innovative.

Besides, some of us ancient artifacts rememeber real change--the changes and the differences made by Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Cesar Chavez,the feminist movement, the Stonewallers.

What's a corporatist yuppie lawyer got to offer in comparison with them?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe if more young voters showed up to vote the past 2 GE's we wouldn't have been stuck with * for 8 years.
Not pointing the finger at the OP, but I remember Ashton Kutcher and other 'young voters' campaigning for Kerry and then not bothering to vote on election day.

Maybe some of us see Hillary as 'something new.' If you ask me a female and AA candidates are both hopefully a sign of things to come. I believe HRC and BO are the 2 best qualified candidates...the Dems are lucky to have both of them. I'm supporting Hil in the primary but will support either one in the GE. Let's just be happy we don't have to support the losers in that Republican field.

Edit: didn't mean to leave out Edwards. He's a deserving candidate, too.

has absolutely nothing to do with why THOSE WHO DO come out to vote in these primaries and supporting someone in degrees as large as their parents and grandparents are in supporting Hillary.

Having a Democratic woman president would be change. That's the first thing to come to mind.

Obama doesn't seem that new to me; I suppose that comes with seeing so many campaigns. He definitely has an appealing style, and he reminds me of JFK. But, there, you go---he reminds me of someone in the past. He doesn't seem all that new to me, except that he is an African-American, the first viable one that has ever run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now, Kucinich---HE'S a truly radically different candidate. Unfortunately, too new and different for many.

as a 50 yr old. I find this offensive. Your suggestion that we don't want change is ludicrious. We just don't think jumping off the edge of the world is necessary.

Why don't you ask Obama about his change for the baby boomers. Oh, that's right, he has NONE. He panders to young kids, because they're the only ones buying his shit.

And, while you're at it, find some God damn respect for the OLF FUCKERS who built this God Damn country. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

CHANGE ISN'T ALWAYS GOOD. AND WHEN YOU'RE MY AGE, MAYBE YOU'LL HAVE SENSE TO KNOW THAT.

:evilgrin:

I'm kidding, kidding.

:)

I didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm just trying to find out why there's an age discrepency between the candidates and see if people can offer theories.

When I was young, if I'd read something like this, it would really turn me off. "What an old grump," I would have thought.

On the positive side, I've changed a lot in my understanding of politics as I've aged. I understand where some are coming from on this board, but I acknowledge it comes from inexperience and excessive purity. I'm a more mature voter now (and I don't support Obama).

:applause: :applause: :applause:

you sound way too bitter and angry to be so young. Why should anyone respect you, when you show so little respect for anyone else? Whichever part of this God Damn Country you built, I hope I never see it.

:rofl:

I'm younger than you are, and I think Hillary represents significant change from what we have now. One doesn't have to be a "fresh, new voice" to achieve change. Change is about changing the way things are done, not just bringing in new people.

the majority of people under 45 are supporting Obama.

I would look more at where a person lives than the age. I am 51, wanted Gore to run, don't like Hillary, might vote for Obama.

I love Elizabeth Edwards but never felt the same about her husband, something about him I don't trust. Can't put my finger on it.

I will say one thing for the first time Obama has my daughter in her mid 20's actually talking politics to me for the first time even starting the coversation. And that is remarkable!

Last election she didn't want anything to do with it. So for that alone I hand Obama kudos.

I will admit though my vote for Obama would be more against Hillary than for Obama. He is nice but not who I really want.

By my thought is I have always lived in the west coast..makes me more progressive dem I think..

I'm 52, and I'm very ready for change (and no, that doesn't mean I like or dislike any of the candidates). After 7 years of Bush, GOD I am ready for a change!

As to the younger voters, I am very very glad that so many are turning out to vote! I have a 28 year old daughter, and I started talking to her about the importance of voting when she was 14 or 15.

Please don't go doing this ageist division thing. It's ugly, and it's unnecessary.

perhaps they are smart enough to see through Obama and see that he does not represent change.

around the block a few times. I don't care to be called a coward by a young shit head like you. I have seen my share of change; the world is not a static place.

I can deal with change just fine, but arrogant snotty young Obama supporters who feel superior to those of us with a lot of life experience are offensive and don't do their candidate any good.

it's because we believe in the substance of Obama's message. It gives us real hope for ending racial divisions
in our country in our time. Now the polls show him as the most likely winner against most republican candidates.
Unlike Hillary, he doesn't accept lobbyists money, and both Obama's supporters and Edwards supporters believe that's a
vital issue. For us, lobbying money=corruption in D.C., which is what we don't want any more of. Also, he's
a dynamic speaker and--unlike some of us--he's neither arrogant or snotty. He gives us someone to look up to.

If you won't consider him as your candidate, then please at least consider accepting this apology for one of his
supporters.

AND, Obama DOES accept money from lobbyist;

However small, don't try to suggest he doesn't take it, because he does.

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

<snip>
"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/?page=2



According to Open Secrets, this is lobbyist money he has filed as of Oct. 29th. The article above was written on Aug. 9th. So someone's lying....

Lobbyists

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859

Edwards is the guy to change things for real. At age 66 I have seen enough crap to know that. Hope that helps.

who says change isn't good!...

What specifically is so new about him?

I don't think you'll get a reply, but good luck.

I can only guess that some young people believe that talking up Reagan's legacy, getting endorsements from establishment insiders, and promising to compromise with Republicans and corporations constitutes some kind of radical change for our party and country. Strange.

The substance of his message is that you are the change. He believes that small town teachers know how to teach to their
communities, and that the federal government should empower them to do their job... for instance. His stance on the war
is not unique, but he is the only candidate with enough sense to commit to that idea first. Also, his methods of raising
money are grassroots oriented, instead of being lobbyist oriented. While that's not new--Edwards has the same idea--it is necessary to assure an absence of corruption in government.

Moreover, he's a magnificent and charismatic figure, which is exactly what our multi-ethnic cities (half the population of America) needs to feel that they have a full stake in the government. Those are the same people we need to motivate in America the most.

him, himself and what he represents.

Maybe I'd agree with you. His platitudes of "change" and "hope" combined with a lackluster platform with zero new or original ideas don't pass muster. He is charismatic and intelligent, but that's not particularly new either. He doesn't represent a new base of support, as he is chasing after the middle in the same ways all candidates do--keep your rhetoric and stances vague enough so the maximum number of people believe you represent them. How is any of this new?

What are those Independents, cross-over Republicans and young people flocking to him for, then?

As evidenced by their rapidly shifting support for several candidates over each primary state. They are in turmoil--they don't have a solitary figure to represent their party as they usually would by this point, they have several competing visions that are attacking each other. Ron Paul's continued existence and funding is great evidence of that. Obama does have wide appeal, but that doesn't have to do with any new approach so much as a vast drop in GOP solidarity. And -that- is certainly new. Does Obama deserve some credit for attracting them? Sure, but in 2000 for example he wouldn't have as much traction due to the GOP being tightly united behind a single candidate at the time.

Obama's charisma and intelligence has probably helped him there, and the media like the guy, so I won't deny he has an advantage there. But to pretend he alone caused these voters to lean Democratic is a little bit simplistic, in my mind.

and the young people didn't even bother to show up.

Don't you think you're overstating his charisma, appeal and platform? You ask why old people are afraid of change, yet your evidence that Obama represents real change is that he draws more young, independent voters. A specious, circular argument. On almost every issue, he's status quo with the Democratic establishment. There's little to no evidence that he'll be able to enact the few changes he has outlined. Inspirational he may be, but so far not inspirational enough to consistently win in the primaries and he's had a critically underwhelming presence in the debates.

I support him over Clinton, but I think the case you are trying to make here is very weak.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to have basically the same platform, which is pretty status quo.

... I support Obama mostly because he represents a break from the past and carries none of the Clinton baggage, giving him a better shot at beating the Republicans. That said, I'm not convinced he's to the left of Hillary and I think he talks a lot of hot air (beautiful hot air, but hot air nonetheless). It's easy to see why people would rather support Hillary. She comes across as more complex and sophisticated like older people generally are. That said, Obama keeps things nice and simple like Reagan need, and nice an idealistic like JFK. And that's important to the key voting block: the people who have little interest in politics, but still vote.

Your rank generalization is only possible amongst the youthful.

I've been fighting the establishment politically since the 60's.

It boils down to this for me:

HILLARY=ESTABLISHMENT AKA same old shit.


Barack = HOPE & Change.


JUST.THAT.SIMPLE.

and if I offended anyone with it, I apologize.

It's "unknown change" that worries many people. Hell, everyone wants a change from Bushco and his crime family.
edit-typo

I still haven't decided on a candidate, but ANY of the fine Democrats running represent Change in one way or another. Who is to decide that because 45+ voters (and I don't necessarily agree with the stat) support Clinton more than Obama, that means they are afraid of change? That's your spin on it; I don't credit your premise.

Obama doesn't own "change"; Edwards doesn't own "change"; Hillary and "change" are not Mutually exclusive.

but I was talking about change more in line with change within the Democratic party.

despite the rhetoric. Gender and race of course set them off from the usual, but not their politics IMO.

in whether they'll be soon deleted from the "phone book" and that "change" is not necessarily a welocme one?

Gore and Kerry won young voters. Not sure about Gore, but I think the only age group Kerry won were younger voters. A lot of older people just become status quo oriented in their choices. For some reason they do that, even if some are actually pretty liberal, they often still vote for the establishment. Not totally sure why.