[Charles Henrickson]

I was talking about boomers as compared to anyone younger, among all those who voted in 2008.

Besides, taking a mere 16 years (1965-80) as a defineable "generation" is pretty silly anyway. I would think a person born in 1963 ("Boomer") would have more in common with someone born in 1967 ("Xer") than with someone born in 1948 ("Boomer"), who in turn would have more in common with someone born in 1943 (pre-boomer).

The whole notion of these artificially demarcated, brief "generations," that they each have their own distinctive, monolithic values, shared by all in that age cohort and different from those before or those after--I find the notion silly.

[BenKenobi]

Agreed. A better way would do it demographically which would look at where the ‘boom’ and the birthrate dropped.

[nopardons]

I mostly agree with you; however, someone born in 1943 has less in common with someone born in 1948 than the commonality between someone born in '63 and '67.

The person born in 1943 actually had far more in common ( especially back in the '60s-'70s ) with those born in the 1930s, than with those born in 1948,'49, '50.

It is usually accepted that a generation spams 25 years; though the "WAR BABIES" ( 1942-'45 ) are an exception and should probably be classified as a substrata of the previous generation.