2000 was interesting, there was virtually no age gap anywhere. 18-29 only went Dem by a couple of points, 60+ by four points, the rest went Republican by a point. I wonder why? (Nader probably exaggerated it a little).
As I pointed out here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=188900.msg4086941#msg4086941In 1988, E.J. Dionne wrote in the New York Times that the Democrats faced a demographic crisis because the youth vote was getting increasingly Republican.
The huge age gap that we saw in 2008 and 2012 (and to a lesser extent 2004) is relatively new. And actually, the early 2016 polling suggests that with Hillary Clinton as the 2016 nominee, it might regress a bit towards the 2004 age gap. I think the main thing is that Obama's support in particular skews especially young, and so some of the trends we saw with Obama might backslide somewhat when he's not on the ticket.
