In reading through all the analyses of the midterm election it’s clear that Republicans made gains in most demographics. They either boosted their own numbers, or they took advantage of unfavorable demographics simply staying home. Nothing helped them more, however, than an increase in the most Republican demographic of all: old, white men.

The data are quite clear. 23% of the electorate was aged 65 and up, while only 11% were aged 18-29. For comparison’s sake, in the 2006 election those over 65 comprised 19% of the vote. Younger voters were still only 12%.

So there were more older voters this time than in 2006. And, of course, there were a LOT more older voters this time than in the Presidential election of 2008, when there were actually MORE 18-29s than senior citizens.

But it isn’t just that this election witnessed more older, whiter voters than the Democratic 2006 midterm. It’s also that the jump from the Dems to the GOP among the elderly was much higher than the jump among other age cohorts.

In 2006, 65s and up actually split their votes 49-49 between Democrats and Republicans. In 2010, the elderly voted 59-38 for the GOP – a massive change of 21 points. For non-seniors, the 2006 election broke down 54-44 for the Dems, and in 2010 went 52-48 for the GOP – a shift of 14 points.

So, not only were there more senior citizens voting this time than in 2006, but they were disproportionately more Republican this time than last time.

The difference is probably enough to explain why the Dems lost roughly 62 seats and not the more structurally expected 45 seats. Midterm elections always skew older. But are older voters usually THIS much more Republican than the rest of the electorate?

Out of all the components of the election, the age issue strikes me as most interesting. Any analysis of the Tea Party movement, or quick perusal of the anti-health care reform demonstrations last year, show a predominantly gray-haired cohort. Older voters were least enthusiastic about Obama in 2008, and are even less enthusiastic now. With young people staying home in 2010 – for a variety of reasons – the elderly vote stands out with even more clarity.

So, why is America’s elderly so conservative and Republican? It wasn’t too long ago that senior citizens were a key component in the Democratic base. As recently as 2000 senior citizens helped give Al Gore a surprisingly strong showing in Florida. Seniors looked to the Democrats to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Major cuts to Medicare Advantage obviously account for a lot of the anger at Democrats this time. Most of these seniors protested against Obamacare not because they thought it was socialized medicine, but because they thought it threatened their OWN socialized medicine. The GOP did a fine job of playing up the assault on Medicare – something that will make their own spending reduction plans even more impossible. Do Republicans actually think that senior citizens will suddenly reward them for dramatically changing Social Security? Part of the 2006 election result was a repudiation of the GOP’s partial privatization plan.

The message: Don’t mess with old people’s benefits!

But the message is deeper, I think, than a strategic alliance between elderly voters worried about cuts to Medicare and conservative Republicans – who have long hated Medicare – opposed to the ACA.

Quite simply, these are not the same old old people who showed up in 2000. These are not members of the Greatest Generation who revered FDR and the New Deal. Those folks have mostly passed on by now. Nor are these the Boomers, although the oldest WWII-era babies are hitting retirement.

It’s the so-called “Silent Generation” that came of political age in the 1950s that now comprises the elderly vote. And these Silenters have ALWAYS been very conservative, skewing toward authoritarianism, traditionalism, and a self-loathing reliance on New Deal liberalism. Unlike their forebears who viewed the New Deal as a historically necessary and bold readjustment of the social contract between the people and the Federal government, the Silenters were more influenced by early Cold War hatred of all things reeking of “socialism.” Of course, they came of age during an unusually prosperous era where corporate job stability made reliance on the Federal welfare state less necessary. Alas, they grudgingly accept Social Security and Medicare, but they see nothing ideologically satisfying about it. That’s why they have no problem linking up with Tea Partiers opposed to the welfare state all the while insisting that THEY continue to get their share. For all the talk of the self-righteousness of the Boomers, the Silenters might be even more entitled.

Add to this the deeply conservative cultural portrait of this pre-Civil Rights generation that detested the hippies of the 1960s, backed Nixon to the hilt, and cheered Reagan’s 1950s-style nostalgia during the 1980s. They are the most opposed to gay marriage, most opposed to legalization of marijuana, most uncomfortable with racial diversity, and, with the exception of Reagan babies (late Boomer/early GenXers), most opposed to the welfare state. In other words, they aren’t just stodgy old fogies who can’t accept social change. They’ve ALWAYS opposed social change or anything else that seems to threaten traditional cultural values.

Obviously, there are major exceptions to this generational analysis. But it’s quite striking just how different the politics of older voters now is compared to just ten years ago, when the Greatest Generation was still alive and kicking.

Political scientists have demonstrated time and again that you don’t get more conservative as you get older. Rather, you tend to stick to the political philosophy that you embraced in your 20s. There hasn’t been a conservative younger generation since the early-to-mid 1980s. That’s why the future is so bleak for the GOP. But it’s also why, in this midterm election, an unusually large block of older, conservative voters were able to turn a cyclical partisan correction into a rout.