Posted on 12/09/2004 10:13:49 AM PST by qam1
During the 2004 presidential campaign, extensive media coverage was focused on all the usual suspects, like women, minority voters and evangelical Christians. But in their typical emphasis of demographic variables like gender, geography, socio-economics and race, the media largely ignored, again, the key issue of age in the electorate.
In doing so, they missed out on a major story: history will show that one generation of voters - Generation Jones - provided the decisive vote that re-elected George W. Bush on Nov. 2, 2004.
Not that age is ignored completely in politics; every election cycle sees coverage of the well-known fact that the youngest voters vote least, the oldest most, accompanied by the inevitable speculation about whether this will finally be the year when young voters turn out. But what about the big mass of the electorate in between these age extremes? To treat this big chunk of voters as if it is a monolith is to miss an important part of the political equation.
Political operatives and pundits would be wise to take a cue here from the advertising community, where age is the dominant demographic variable. Moreover, the advertising industry has seen, in the last couple of years, a surge of interest in generational variables that go beyond the fixed static-age categories. These traditional categories only tell us the similarities between, for example, twenty-somethings, but do not address the ongoing generational personalities that stay with people, regardless of their age.
It's odd that politics, with its huge reliance on advertising, has been so slow in learning this lesson, as the generational attitudes that so influence consumer behavior likewise influence voting behavior. Maybe the 2004 election will be the one that finally teaches us this lesson.
For the uninitiated, Generation Jones is the large, heretofore lost, generation between the baby boomers and Generation X. Born in the years 1954 to 1965, Jonesers are not a small cusp generation that slipped through the cracks but rather the largest generation in American history, constituting 26 percent of all U.S. adults today. Mistakenly, they were originally lumped in with boomers for one reason only: their parents and boomers' parents happened to have a lot of kids.
But generational personalities come from shared formative experiences, not head counts. This original flawed definition of the baby-boom generation has become widely discredited among experts, which is partly what's given rise to the emergence of Generation Jones, a cohort with significantly different attitudes and values than those held by its surrounding generations.
Why the name Generation Jones? Among its many connotations is that of a large anonymous generation, like a Generation Smith or Doe. But the connotation that's perhaps most relevant for politics arises from the slang term "jones'": a craving for someone or something. As children in the 1960s, Jonesers were given huge expectations, during, arguably, the peak of post-World War II American confidence and affluence, and then confronted, as they came of age during the mid-to-late 1970s and early 1980s with a very different reality, leaving them with a certain pending, unrequited, "jonesin"' quality.
Those huge expectations left unfulfilled are now strongly affecting this generation as it enters middle age, a life-cycle period when all generations feel that "now or never" feeling rumbling in the pit of the stomach - that realization that if you don't pursue your dreams quickly, you probably never will.
But for this unfulfilled generation, which is still jonesin' for the original big dreams they'd expected, that now-or-never feeling is more a growling hunger than a distant rumble in the stomach. So Jonesers are stepping back from their lives, taking stock, reassessing and experimenting. There is a mountain of statistical evidence showing that Jonesers are, right now, extremely open to trying new brands, products and services; that they are, to an unprecedented degree, switching careers, moving and changing lifestyles. In short, Jonesers are in play; they are persuadable.
This persuadability has become now well-documented in the business world, which explains a significant part of the recent buzz in those circles: many of the top global ad agencies have rushed to incorporate Jonesers into their strategic planning, numerous major ad conferences have recently included keynote speeches about Generation Jones, business trades talk up success stories about Jones-targeted ad campaigns. They're becoming the "swing voters" of the marketplace, but not yet recognized as such in politics.
Had the politicos been paying attention to this phenomenon, they would have seen how this generation's persuadability translated into volatility among Jonesers, particularly women, in 2004.
From the late spring through October, Joneser women were the only generation of women showing vacillation between Kerry and Bush, with the other generations of women staying relatively stable in support of Kerry. On Election Day, Joneser women swung to Bush, while all other generations of women voted for Kerry. Their strong support of Bush points to an even bigger story - the overall massive support of all Jonesers (men and women) for Bush on Election Day.
Of the 15 "battleground states" polled by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. in the week before the general election, Bush carried a majority of the Generation Jones vote in all 15 - from 51 percent in Michigan to 59 percent in Ohio. Bush consistently ran five to 10 percentage points better among Jonesers than he did statewide in every battleground state.
In fact, if not for his significant margins among Generation Jones voters, Bush would not have been re-elected. Bush's margins among Jones voters were responsible for his wins in five key states that provided him with his Electoral College majority - Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. In these five states, the majority of voters in all of the other age groups combined favored Democrat John Kerry.
In Florida, senior, baby-boomer and younger voters combined supported Kerry 50 percent to 49 percent, but Bush's 56-43 margin with Jonesers provided his five-point victory statewide.
In Ohio, senior, baby-boomer and younger voters combined supported Kerry 51-48 but Bush carried the state with his 59-40 advantage among Jones voters.
In Iowa, senior, baby-boomer and younger voters combined supported Kerry 51-48, but Jonesers went 56-43 for Bush.
In Nevada, senior, baby-boomer and younger voters combined supported Kerry 50-49, but the Jones vote went 56-43 for Bush.
Finally, in New Mexico, senior, baby-boomer and younger voters combined went for Kerry 51-48, but Jonesers backed Bush 54-45.
In total, these five states accounted for 64 electoral votes. Had they gone for Kerry, he would have won the presidency with 316 electoral votes to Bush's 222.
(The Jones vote for Bush was also heavy in Colorado, with 57 percent for Bush compared to 42 percent for Kerry. But it was not technically decisive, because the combined vote of other age groups was 50-49 in favor of Bush.)
Despite the decisive role it played in the 2004 presidential election, the full political impact of Generation Jones is yet to be felt, studied or understood. While the current baby-boomer political leadership generation is beginning to ebb, the Jonesers are increasingly assuming positions of power in government, business and the media. They will vote in even larger numbers, likely increasing their share of the national vote above its current 28 percent to 31 percent.
Having reached adulthood primarily during the Reagan era, Jonesers appear to offer a more conservative and less secular approach to politics than their older brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins. They also may be less divisive and less harsh in their rhetoric, having not had to deal with the major conflicts of the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras.
Their strong support for George W. Bush may indicate a continued increase in Republicans power. As Jonesers have increased as a percentage of the vote over the past 10 years, the GOP has taken control of both houses of Congress and captured more governorships and state legislatures nationwide.
Media talking heads and campaign strategists continue to focus their post-election analysis on younger voters, evangelical Christians, minority voters, senior citizens and women. While Jonesers make up slices of those blocs, little emphasis seems to be placed on the age of the voters in these key groups. In fact, it is the female bloc of Jones voters that is largely identified as "security moms." They are also a major part of the "evangelical vote," and Jones voters are a significant percentage of the "cross-over" ethnic voters that supported Bush.
Whether future political coverage and analysis increasingly focuses on Generation Jones remains an open question, but 2004 has already proved its standing as an important, if not the most important, voting group in the nation.
Jonathan Pontell is a Los Angeles-based social analyst who identified and named Generation Jones. J. Brad Coker is managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. and works out of Jacksonville, Fla. (The Denver Post used Mason-Dixon for polling during the 2004 campaigns.)
DONE
Later
LOL. Back atcha. FR Gen Xers are no more twits than FR boomers are, and with some exceptions, the Gen Xers are less likely to support government programs.
It's the Gen Xers and boomers that AREN'T on FR that are the primary problem we both have.
Nite CG.....check the shed.
LOL. I'm almost ready to say too bad, cause it was getting damn entertaining for both of us. Guy next door came by cause he heard me laughing at our insults flying back and forth. You give as good as you get, old timer. :)
And I am no RAT. Might be a little more oddball in my conservatism, maybe more radically so than most on FR, but I'm no fan of judicial expansionism or federal overreaching. Don't worry--much as we might bitch about having to carry the taxes the left stuck you and me with, most of the FR kids are all right.
"the Gen Xers are less likely to support government programs."
If you read my post #216, it will show you how the average FReeper boomer feels about gov't programs.
68s were a little bigger than I like, even though I generally like a bigger car as I'm 6'5". I prefer just to move the rails back in a `65--and up to 65 you can modify emissions any way you want in any state in the Union, too!
Don't worry. I don't reflexively judge people on their birthdate. But on threads like this, the lines get drawn pretty quickly by people trading blame. I suppose the only method of stopping that problem is to accept that we all will be part of the solution, and figure out a fair way to apportion the inevitable hit. Of course, that might take us back to the same can of worms. :)
I prefer to have friends who can be fierce adversaries in an argument and then not walk away angry. Guess that's why I disliked law school. Too many liberal pouters screaming about how I couldn't argue for such and such, because it was morally wrong to be on that side. Obviously, whether it's morally wrong in someone's view doesn't mean there's nobody who can argue that position, but they and many folks here think that simply ARGUING a position makes you morally evil for opposing them.
And I am planning. Part of the reason I exiled myself from Florida is taxes. When I come back to Florida, it will be with my retirement funds set. Not until.
It was this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1260568/posts
Bush was up by 8 in the 30-39 group, This was the Rasmussen poll
Here is what he has on his site
Generation Y (18-24 yr.olds): Kerry 59% Bush 40%
Generation X (25-39 yr olds): Kerry 50% Bush 48%
Generation Jones (40-49 yr.olds): Kerry 48% Bush 51%
Baby Boomers (50-59 yr. olds): Kerry 52% Bush 47%
Mature Generation (60 and older): Kerry 51% Bush 49%
I think he is fudging the numbers, He is using a poll from the NEP which didn't use those age brackets
Quote "These special age cross-tabulations of the NEP Polling highlight the importance of looking separately at actual generations of voters. The standard NEP Polling Report uses the arbitrary age categories of 18-29, 30-44, 45-59, and 60+, splitting Generation Jones in half. By lumping half of these conservative Jonesers in with the liberal Xers, and the other half with the also liberal Boomers, an important story of the 2004 election was hidden.
Cross-tabulations of polling from Rasmussen, Gallup, Zogby, Pew, ICR, and AP-IPSOS, released two weeks before the election, showed that Generation Jones women were the only generation of women who had consistently vacillated between Bush and Kerry in the six months before the election".
So basically picking and choosing polls BEFORE the election and pushing more liberals into Gen-X & the "True" Baby Boomers to get a result that Gen Jones matters most. (It must of pained him because reading his site he seems to lean liberal)
I particularly dislike being told we as a nation owe someone tax money. I paid taxes, too, but I don't claim to deserve the right to loot the general fund when I retire. I do deserve to keep the money I earned in the first place, and that is what my kids deserve, and they will not be subject to the crushing tax burden most people take for granted if I can do anything about it.
I dislike this Gen Jones stuff because I like Strauss and Howe's delineation and their explanation of how generations usually work. They went with twenty year cohorts that had shared experiences AND arrived at the ability to have kids at the same time, going back to the first generation here! Certainly there are people born on the cusp, and people who do not follow their generational stereotype. But the Gen Jones idea is just another way to attempt to invalidate the generational stereotype by breaking it down more. And in this case, it's a way for a liberal to say "WASN'T GEN X and WASN'T BOOMERS who voted Bush--it was THESE weirdos!"
In reality, it was ANOTHER particular group that voted for Bush: Americans who love their country.
"In reality, it was ANOTHER particular group that voted for Bush: Americans who love their country."
Thank you.
So we both agree, I take it, that first impressions aren't always accurate. :)
Anyway, it's nice to have some posts on this thread, given the number removed by the mods. LOL.
I am impressed with ourselves. We did it single-handed. The new greatest generation.
Dang. I missed a mega-flame war :-)
But I agree this Generation Jones thing is silly, Because by his account the Baby Boomers are 8 years, Gen Jones 10 and Gen-X 16 years long which makes no sense. I prefer the parental definition (Post #90) because the majority parents shape the majority of kids in any given year, But there is never going to be a perfect system for IDing Generations because the people at the end of one generation and the beginning of another are always going to be more similar to each other then the ones at the other end of their own generation.
OH and BTW, Since you are relatively new to the ping list you probably missed this one way back, Never call a Baby Boomer Gramps
Later Brother!
Get in line. Only a united voice works.
Jump in! I am logging out to chill a while
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.