The prevailing theory amongst political pundits is that the boomer population is too big and diverse for them to say anything definitive about for whom boomers will vote. Which in my humble opinion, is why so few saw Hillary’s win in New Hampshire coming. (Haven’t women traditionally complained about becoming invisible once they’ve turned 40—the exact demographic that gave Hillary her victory.)

As I wrote earlier, the marketer in me has observed this generation for multiple decades, swaying culture one way or another. I concluded that boomers could readily be galvanized around an issue about which they care, such as Medicare and Social Security. I then asked: 1. whether the boomer vote will be sufficient to offset those of the younger generations who have different priorities and concerns; and at the same time, 2. whether a candidate can win without boomers on board? And the ultimate question: 3. is there a candidate gutsy enough to take this on and find out?

We’ve got the answer. But I stand corrected in part. It wasn’t issues alone that galvanized the 40+ woman vote for Hillary. It was Hillary’s ability to reach out through her tears and establish a relationship with the boomer heart. Call it her McDonald’s moment.

The emotional connection did not stand alone, however. A statement issued by AARP’s Mark Kitchens notes that Senator Clinton “worked to talk to our members, attending AARP events and talking about the issues that are on their minds.” He points out further that Senator McCain, who began reaching out to AARP members in New Hampshire over a year ago, also galvanized the boomer vote.

“Nearly half of all voters in today’s primaries in New Hampshire were 50-plus and the issues important to this age group continue to be important to us,” he comments.

So the answers to the questions I posed in Part One, definitively this time:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes. Two of them.

Carol Orsborn