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.)
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Generation Jones? Well, I was born in 1964, but I've always identified with Generation X. What's in a name?
Fascinating. It's obvious from people I know that not all Boomers are Boomers. I'm sure a lot of Freepers belong to the Boomer generation but don't identify with Woodstock. I'd be interested to see further analysis of this thesis.
Interesting. Usually 1946 to 1964 are all lumped together. This seems to make more sense, to the extent we're going to examine by age.
One thing the GOP needs to keep in mind: these voters are not neccesarily "cultural conservatives". 1980s popular culture was anything but. Indeed, one of the secrets to Reagan's success with young voters is the fact that he basically left the culture alone.
-Eric
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.
I am less divisive BECAUSE I remember the Vietnam era, and all those stupid hippy freaks...
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.
Sorry but they are boomers. We (Gen-Reagan) are the Baby Bust generation (lower birth numbers).
Associate with whoever y'all wish and distance yourself from some of the "baby boom" but it is all a part of the same block that forever changed society's mores and social institutions.
A generation is typically ~20-25 years so 1946-1964 IS a generation. Deal with it.
Well wudda ya know! I'm not a late boomer after all. I'm a Joneser!!
Never heard that term before, but I get the sense of it. I was born in late 53, and was really on the trailing edge of the boomers. (I was only 13 in the 67 "Summer of Love") My perspective of my so-called "generation" was not typical of most boomers. I was too young to join the Grateful Dead, but ended up too old for the Dead Kenedy's.
Very interesting article. My wife and I are both Bush voters and what the authors call, "Jonesers."
Mistakenly, they were originally lumped in with boomers for one reason only: their parents and boomers' parents happened to have a lot of kids.
While that may be true, I have to admit I'm somewhat more of a boomer than is my wife, for the simple reason that both of my parents grew up during the Great Depression and turned 20 near the end of WWII. Obviously, those two periods shaped not only the people who lived through them, but also their children (e.g. me). My wife's parents being 14 years younger than mine, they have no recollection of the Depression and were too young to 'appreciate' WWII.
At any rate, the authors might be onto something with this "jonesin" thing.
Finally! My friends and I have known for YEARS that we are not Boomers. We have different music, movies, new events and values.
We are more traditional, less gullible (in terms of talking heads and "experts"), more stable, less trendy, more optimistic, less fearful and we're a lot more okay being outside the crowd.
We could have a better name, though.
bumping for later. I guess I'm one of these people, but hubby's still a boomer.
I always had my doubts about being a true boomer, primarily because I don't remember "howdy doody"!
I was born in 65 and never felt any affinity to the boomers, whom I basically got lumped in with by the MSM.
My growing up years was watching Vietnam, Scooby-Doo, All in the Family, the Brady Bunch, Walter Cronkite, and the Partridge Family(etc.etc).
The first political campaign I remember is Nixon trouncing McGovern, and then came Watergate, and then Carter barely winning over Ford, and then the awful Carter years(bad economy and impotent America).
Then in 80, Reagan appeared on the scene. Optimism personified, and I was hoping he would win(although the media was pushing Ed Clarke, Libertarian, as a conservative alternative(wedge), and actually supported Clarke and in a high school debate, debated for his candidacy, and it is also interesting that 1980 has been the highest vote total for the Libertarian party, but we all grow up, and I did so after that debate)
After that debate I threw my support to Reagan, due to his can do and eternal optimism, and I was actually scared that Reagan would not win, given the MSM coverage of the time.
Well the rest is history, the race was called at 8:15 EST, and Carter rode off to a bitter sunset(as acknowledged by Carter's lukewarm and tardy praise on hearing of President Reagan's death).
After Reagan's ascendency to the Presidency in 80, the press became even more partisan and in the most recent election, I've never seen them more partisan for their side, the democrats. I think it is becoming apparent to many non-political people that the MSM is nothing more than an organ for the democrats and the new political debate is on the internet and FR was a pioneer in the MSM's decline.
Sorry about the long tome going down memory lane, but it was refreshing to see an article that didn't lump me with the self-absorbed boomers.
Its pretty hard for most of them to accept this...seeing as they don't understand accepting responsibility, common sense, and consequences to their actions. They gave us victimhood, political correctness, "if it feels good...do it!", latch key kids, the feminist movement, a bloated national deficit to fund their entitlements, birth control/abortion, and gross degredation to the nations morality and innocence of our youth. Not suprising though...what would you expect out of a group of people who are flaming, "Me, Me, Me" anti-God, anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-truth and anti-American socialists.
Good post! I share a lot of your memories. I was actually a Democrat for a long time (it's almost genetic in my family), but that's a long time ago. I'm a "Zell Miller" democrat (i.e., a Republican) now. :)
bump for later
Props to Generation Jones BUMP!
bump
A little harsh don't ya think? (Obviously not a Joneser)
Jonesers are the kids of the Korean War vets. There is a whole
different dynamic. I can tell you, as little kids, we all laughed at the whole
hippy peace and love crowd. FYI, most advertising and marketing firms
truncate generations at 10 years.
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.