Bohemian Mix? Young Digerati? Do you fit in with your candidate's base?

[prolesunited]

Ran across this interesting Washington Post article outlining which candidate's appeal to which marketing segments. Here's the analysis of by a demographics research firm:

How Donations Depict Donors

They are young. They propel urban gentrification. They shop at Banana Republic, read Vanity Fair, like Audi A4s and watch reruns of "Friends." The $54,117 median family income of these well-educated, Internet-savvy professionals is relatively low in part because so many are single and live alone. The people who meet these criteria tend to live in Zip codes that Claritas Inc., the demographics research firm, has classified as the nation's "Bohemian Mix.
<snip>

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has, in turn, successfully mined two other similar constituencies: what Claritas has called "Young Digerati" -- listen to National Public Radio, drive Saabs, live in condos on the edge of cities -- and "Money and Brains" -- support arts charities, shop at Nordstrom, married with few if any children, many with postgraduate degrees.

For Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party, these donors have become increasingly important, as business groups have shifted toward the GOP and the parties are now prohibited from collecting large contributions of unregulated "soft money."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23634-2004Jan16?language=printer


I'm curious as to whether DUers think these descriptions are accurate. So, what I'm asking is that you read the article, find the candidate you support or are leaning toward and let me know if you fit the profile. Do you know other supporters of a particular candidate? Do they fit the profile?

I'm sorry to say that they did not include all of the candidates. I would have been interested in their market demographics as well.

[Hoosier Democrat]

1. Interesting Article

As a Dean supporter, I was surprised to find a lot of my habits listed in "Bohemian Mix". Never thought of myself as "Bohemian"

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. Bohemian Bourgeois?

Bobos in Paradise.

[prolesunited]

3. Do you have anything

substantiative to add?

Who is your candidate? Do you fit the classification of other supporters?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. have you ever read the book Bobos in Paradise?

It's a quite interesting cultural study, and probably fits Dean supporters - or most Dem candidates supporters in general - to a "t".

I'm sorry if my post wasn't as substantial as you were expecting. So, do you have anything "substantiative" to add?

[pmbryant]

5. A lot of overlap between Dean, Kerry, Edwards donors

In fact, I'm not sure there is any substantive difference. Based on the descriptions in the article, they are each made up primarily of upper middle class, urban professionals. The cute names they assign each group don't really appear to have much real meaning. (At least it is hard for me to discern any from reading this.)

:shrug:

One interesting thing was how Gephardt's donors differed substantially from the other Dems studied (older and more working class). But his inability to tap into the extra funds available in the upper middle class urban Dem donors probably helps to explain why he is now out of the race.

Clark wasn't studied, but somehow I suspect that a large part of his donor base, like that of Dean, Kerry, and Edwards, is upper middle class urban professionals.

And Bush donors are rich, corporate types! That's the real shocker here. :wow: :-)

Peter

[prolesunited]

6. I agree that there are many similarities

but one would have to keep in mind that these are donors, not just supporters. If you're struggling to keep a roof over your head and feed your family, it would be unlikely that you would donate to a political campaign.

It will be interesting to see who captures Gephardt's donors because, as you pointed out, they were least like the others.

I think it would have been even more interesting if they had included profiles for Sharpton and Kucinich donors.

[pmbryant]

8. Oh I definitely realize that. :-)

Certainly the only people likely to donate much to campaigns are upper middle class and wealthier people, with plenty of discretionary income. (Hence why people with no or few children show up in the descriptions frequently as well.) That's why I'm not at all surprised at the broad similarities between the Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and likely Clark donor bases. That's just not that diverse a group of people, especially once you weed the Bush-supporting, rich, corporate types out.

:-)

About Gephardt's donor base: I wonder if his demographics were different not because he had a stronger appeal to working-class and older Dems, but because he lacked appeal to the urban, upper middle class Dems. I suspect his donor base was not large at all, or he would not have had to drop out so quickly.

But unfortunately they don't give us that kind of information in that article.

--Peter

[Frederic Bastiat]

7. I'm a Clark supporter and I have no sense of style too

;)