VOTING BEHAVIOR: EDUCATION AND AGE
Do education, and age affect voting patterns? More importantly, do they affect post-modern, American political thought? When I examined the most recent (2008 presidential) election statistics, I stumbled upon an interesting story. In today’s society, these (occupation, education, and age) sociological factors present a formidable challenge to future politicians. Ohio, historically speaking, is a conservative state. However, considering the current economic crisis, it has swung widely to the left side of the political spectrum. In this past election, Democratic candidate Barack Obama won by a narrow margin, 5%, as compared to Bush’s 2% victory over John Kerry in 2004 http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/ and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/state/#val=OH. In addition, 61% of voters 18-29 years of age voted for President Barack Obama, 51% of voters ages 30-44 voted for him, 53% of voters for age 45-64, and 44% of voters for ages at or above 65 . Do these statistics paint the real picture, or could this economy have more to do with these statistics? Could people with less education, in lower paying jobs, at the same or different age be responsible for this 3% jump in the opposite direction? Could those with more education, and higher paying jobs, no matter what age group, have changed their minds, reassessed the past, or even been hit enough by the recession to swing their vote in the opposite direction?
In 2004, only 42% of voters aged 18-29 voted for President George Bush. He won in every other age category http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#OHP00p1. However, President Bush lost the "youth vote" by only 7% in 2004; in 2008, President Barack Obama won the same category by 39%. Is this change systematically related to the economy and shifting American opinion? Strikingly, in both polls I see the same general similarities. Both Republican candidates lost the "youth vote" and won, rather substantially, the greater than 65 vote. Both margins, relatively speaking, were narrow. In my study, I will examine the true significance of these changes. One demographic cannot tell the story. Therefore, I will also consider occupation, age, and "hot" issues, such as border security and the global War on Terrorism.
In 2004, Senator John Kerry won a majority of the votes for those earning from below $15,000 to $50,000 per year. 71% of people making at or below $15000 per year voted for Senator John Kerry, while nearly 60% of those that voted for him also had not finished high school http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html. In 2008, Senator John McCain received 25% (close to President Bush’s percentage, 29, in 2004) of the "at or below $15000" vote, while 35% of those that voted for him did not finish high school
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html. Simple arithmetic reveals that 41% of the 71% "at or below $15000" did not finish high school and voted for Senator John Kerry, and that 8.75% of the 25% "at or below $15000" did not finish high school, and voted for Senator John McCain. How can this percentage (8.5%) be so low when it is higher in 2004
(41%), and these people had the same level of education? This is why I will use joint results to make my analysis. What I cannot understand with income statistics may be explained by age gaps, demographic changes, and other issues, like The War on Terror.
In 2004, 90% of those that voted terrorism as their most important issue also voted for President Bush. Oddly enough, only 17% of all Americans said that terrorism was their most important issue http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html. 58% of all Americans said that they trust Bush to handle terrorism, of which 81% voted for President Bush.
Again, simple arithmetic reveals that of all Americans that said terrorism was their most important issue, only 10% (roughly) trusted President Bush with the War on Terror. The exit polls that CNN.com provided for 2004 were much more extensive than those of 2008 were. Therefore, I looked elsewhere. This Gallup poll (found through Roper Center: Public Opinion Archives) was taken one week before the election. Four years later, 49% of Americans said that they trusted Senator John McCain more to handle terrorism. He won this poll by only 2% http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ ! In 2008, even less Americans (11%) say that terrorism is their most important issue.
How can a fewer percentage of people say that terrorism is their most important issue, while almost a majority say they trust Senator John McCain (same party of the man that only 10% of people trusted with the war) better than President Barack Obama? Could it just be that President Obama is less experienced than Senator John Kerry is? I have another idea: what if the percentage (those that say terrorism is most important) is lower for 2008 because the economy wasn’t collapsed in 2004. Maybe there are more young voters registered today than there were in 2008. 21% of Americans were between the ages of 18 and 29 in 2004, while in 2008, 69% of Americans said that this was their first time voting (refer to links above).
My inquiries, like those of historians, unfortunately, will never be completely satisfied. I can look at thousands of polls for months, even years, as some have done, and would only see more deeply and unexplainably connected numbers. Barack Obama won the election, and sadly, this is one of the few concrete facts that will ever be known. As I watch television, reporters refer to general and specific statistics. However, seldom can they accurately explain them. In my study, I will investigate this issue further, and attempt to get a better picture of what really happened this past November. I, like many highly opinionated reporters, desire nothing more, and will do nothing more, than report the most accurate data I can obtain.