http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/013000.php Yes, it IS weird. Notice from the chart in the post that Obama won 18-24s by 7 points, lost 25-29s by 14 points, and the won 30-39s by 4 points. I agree with Drum that it has something to do with the specific timing of events in the Clinton presidency, but what exactly, I don't know and don't really have a good guess. I'm not a fan of his explanation. Maybe it's just the fact that in Clinton's second term, the economy was stronger and the deficit turned into a surplus. But those are pretty prosaic concerns for college kids, which the 25-29s were at the time. Thoughts, anyone, especially people in the relevant age groups?
I'm just a bit out of that age group (31), so take this as you will: The late '90s was really the advent of the 24 hour internet news cycle, and the stars of that cycle were Bill and Hill. Meanwhile 14-20 year old kids were avid consumers of that cycle - unlike the early 90s genesis of the 24 hour cable news cycle, which was geared towards the 30+ crowd. So you have a whole swathe of people who came of age while internet tabloidism (did I just make up a word?) was coming of age, and lots of folks are bound to remember that 1) Clinton's second term kicked ass in foreign, domestic and economic policy, and 2) say what you want about Hillary, but she conducted herself with toughness, class and grace during the Lewinsky bullshit. A third factor is that these are folks just young enough to have missed out on the riches of the dot-com boom, and are hoping that old Clinton magic can still make rain for them - as it did for their older brothers and sisters, or cousins, or whatever. That's my best guess, anyway.
It seems strange, but there is a simple explanation. From 1979-1983, OBGYNs universally relied upon a drug called methostupidfyckingvoteforslimeinoxidyl to relieve nausea during labor and childbirth.
So, I'm in that age group. I think Matrim's assessment isn't too far off. We're in that age group where most of us became politically aware during Bill's presidency, so we sort of started out with the prosperity associated with his two terms. In addition, we were young enough that we didn't get all sanctimonious about Bill getting head in the Oval Office, but still have a soft spot for the way Hillary dealt with the whole episode.
I'm convinced this is either: 1) a polling fluke we're reading too much into (I lean to this) 2) indicative of people who were politically aware at the bitter end of the Clinton presidency and during his impeachment, but not at the very hopeful beginning of his presidency.
What happened with that age group in the other states? If there was a swing towards Hillary in the other states too, I'd say it has something to do with when those folks "came of age". However, if it's a statistical oddity that only occurred in NH and FL, then it's just a polling quirk.
I'm 26 and I honestly have no idea. I'll be voting in my first primary on the 9th and Obama has my vote.
I believe it did only occur in those places. Keep in mind that you're seeing a very small sample size once you disaggregate the data. So that means the margin of error is going to be huge -- making it all the more likely that it's just a fluke.
Exactly. 25-29 year olds likely have the lowest percentage voting of any age group. The college-age kids take this stuff very seriously, and the 30+ groups are just looking for a way to get out of the house for an hour.
It may just be me, but I thought Ben was a good advocate for Gephart while he was still a viable candidate. But, whatever.
25 year old who is voting for Obama. I'm not certain why Hillary would hold the lead in this demographic either.
The polls are really effed up these days. I wouldn't take much stock in this. The problem becomes sample size, and here you're slicing the dem electorate into a small population group that voted for Hillary. The size of this cell would be something like 25 people in a sample of 1,000.
That's true, but the difference is so large and it happened twice. It is certainly at least at the "bears further watching" category. I personally think that that is the age group among whom the idea that oral sex isn't really sex seemed a brilliant and meaningful revelation. Those older kept the morality they had before, and those younger share the opinion but don't remember who first made it public.
I'm out of that age group a bit, too, but in addition to Matrim55's comments, I would add the effect of Chelsea (they all grew up together), and the backlash against Newt and his Contract with America (an effect of the 24hr internt news cycle). But, I do think this is a statistical abnormality.
Okay fair enough. Hopefully, we will get to see more polls of this demographic to find out if this is real or an outlier.