Of course. I never said that we played a small role. Rather, what I have been asserting is that we played one of the smaller roles. The number of people who voted for Obama in the 45-64 age group (23 million) was almost the total number of people 18-29 who voted for either candidate (24 million total voters 18-29). The 30-44 age group had 3 million more votes than the 18-29 age group, as we already discussed.
My point was not to suggest that our age group had no role, nor was it to suggest that the majority of our age group did not support Obama. Rather, my point was to show that we did not have as large of an impact on the election as the older age groups who are complaining that the younguns ruined the country by electing Obama. Of the four age groups, the youngest actually supplied the third largest number of votes. Of the four age groups, two of the older ones have more voters and would be able to outvote us if we were single handedly ruining the country with our votes. Yet, those two generations supplied more votes to Obama than the younger generation. That was my only point.
I think you and Tarheel are both right in your assessments, it's just a matter of what is being focused on.
I'll make an analogy to a basketball game.
Let's say, in a fictional world, Auburn beats Kentucky 92 to 87. After the game, someone asks Lebo how they pulled it off. He says "well, the difference in the game was our free throws. We got to the line 28 times and made 23 of them. That's pretty damn good and was what put us over the edge in this game. Without getting to the line, and without shooting 82%, we wouldn't have won that game".
This concept and assessment by Lebo would make total sense to the reporters and anyone listening or anyone that watched the game, and anyone that had followed the two teams. No one, not a single person anywhere, would try to correct Lebo and say "yeah, but coach, the free throws played a role, but didn't you score more points from regular two point and three point baskets? I mean, didn't those points actually contribute more to the win than the free throws? They were only 23 of your total 92 points. Your two point baskets accounted for 42 of your 92 points. And your 9 three pointers accounted for 27 of your points".
Of course, the guy from the Birmingham News would be right, Auburn did get more points from the other two places. But Lebo, and Kentucky, knows that the difference....what was unique, or what had an unusual impact on the game...were the free throws. Both how many were taken and how many were made. That would be what stands out.
So while you are correct, the 18-29 year olds didn't comprise the largest number of voters, just like reporter was right about the 2 and 3 points baskets....but it was, in a lot of ways, like the free throws. The 68% of that group, which was an unusually large group in 2008, could easily be considered the "difference maker" in the election/game.
Anyway, there is no arguing with the numbers posted. The 18-29 year olds were not the largest group of voters to vote for Obama. Tarheel isn't arguing that they were. But it seems that you could also bend a little and see the other perspective that their impact on the election was larger than their numbers would indicate. Their votes were the "23 of 28 from the line" that helped them win.
209 Replies
35868 Views